"Republican Candidate" beats Obama by 8%

[genpop]

Boy am I glad you're engaging in a race debate. I've been waiting for such a moment so I could finish my questions from before.

Since we previously determined that you hate republicans and that you freely generalize them as a group, can you please explain to me why it is ok for you to hate and generalize one group of people based on their party affiliation but not ok for hatred of people and generalization of people based on race?

Now, before you say, "because people can't choose their race" be warned that such an answer implies that hatred of religion is acceptable.

The problem with your question is that word "hate", it really muddies the water. I don't hate any group of people. I do have a disdain for people who get all goo goo over the rich. The rich can easily take care of themselves, they don't need any knights in shining armor. To answer your question though, it is much more acceptable to generalize people based on party because parties are all about people uniting under a general belief. Of course, not everyone in the party is going to agree on every single thing such as as your blue dog democrats may be more fiscally conservative than your liberal democrats. However, the connection that the two have is that an emphasis will be placed on the working man and not necessarily the business sector. That's a safe generalization to make. It's also a safe generalization to say that the Tea party has a racist element to it. It is not totally racist but there is certainly a racist foundation there. Why else would such a party spring up out of no where when the first African-American president is elected? Why else would a debt ceiling vote be such a cause for concern now but not the previous 7 times under the previous presidents? Why else would the people that make up the tea party be vastly majority white? Why else would the constituents be baby boomers (people probably fought tooth and nail against racial equality)? Why else would the tea party strongest foothold be located in the south, the very root of defiance towards racial equality. Hey man if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, IT IS A DUCK! That duck may be swimming in a pond of swans there for another reason but it it can not be swan because it's characteristics will sorely stick out. Now as far as skin color, it is not safe to generalize on skin color because skin color has no affect on behavior or intelligence. It is much easier to generalize about a group of people who elected to be something than people who were born into a situation (sorry I know you didn't want that answer but its true). When you elect to be something you are far more accountable for the actions of that group because you chose it. On the other hand, you didn't choose your race and if people hate you for that, they're not hating a cause or belief but just a color which reveals little about person. Party affiliation reveals much more.

[JuBru]

The problem with your question is that word "hate", it really muddies the water. I don't hate any group of people. I do have a disdain for people who get all goo goo over the rich. The rich can easily take care of themselves, they don't need any knights in shining armor. To answer your question though, it is much more acceptable to generalize people based on party because parties are all about people uniting under a general belief. Of course, not everyone in the party is going to agree on every single thing such as as your blue dog democrats may be more fiscally conservative than your liberal democrats. However, the connection that the two have is that an emphasis will be placed on the working man and not necessarily the business sector. That's a safe generalization to make. It's also a safe generalization to say that the Tea party has a racist element to it. It is not totally racist but there is certainly a racist foundation there. Why else would such a party spring up out of no where when the first African-American president is elected? Why else would a debt ceiling vote be such a cause for concern now but not the previous 7 times under the previous presidents? Why else would the people that make up the tea party be vastly majority white? Why else would the constituents be baby boomers (people probably fought tooth and nail against racial equality)? Why else would the tea party strongest foothold be located in the south, the very root of defiance towards racial equality. Hey man if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, IT IS A DUCK! That duck may be swimming in a pond of swans there for another reason but it it can not be swan because it's characteristics will sorely stick out. Now as far as skin color, it is not safe to generalize on skin color because skin color has no affect on behavior or intelligence. It is much easier to generalize about a group of people who elected to be something than people who were born into a situation (sorry I know you didn't want that answer but its true). When you elect to be something you are far more accountable for the actions of that group because you chose it. On the other hand, you didn't choose your race and if people hate you for that, they're not hating a cause or belief but just a color which reveals little about person. Party affiliation reveals much more.

There is no way possible you are part of the human species. I bee has more intelligence than you.

[T_Won]

The problem with your question is that word "hate", it really muddies the water. I don't hate any group of people. I do have a disdain for people who get all goo goo over the rich. The rich can easily take care of themselves, they don't need any knights in shining armor.

It's not a matter of "goo gooing over the rich." The government has spent trillions of dollars more than they generate in tax revenue. They have a spending problem. It is not fair to change the laws to take more money from a group of people because the government can't balance their books... they don't even try actually... I don't think they even have a budget this year. If the government can first prove that they are responsible with tax income, then we can talke about increasing it. The economy is in shambles and this is no time to punish the job creators in the country.

[Abominable Gorilla]

To answer your question though, it is much more acceptable to generalize people based on party because parties are all about people uniting under a general belief.

Hate is the perfect word for your behavior. Consider the vast amount of time you spend speaking out against the party. Consider the generalizations you make (which you agree that you do). Consider the way you take a negative by any one member of the party and link it to the entire party (republicans have lost their friggin minds). Consider the way you make up information (85% are ridiculous radicals) without any facts.

Use your same example about walking like a duck and apply it to your behavior. Or better yet, replace every use of the word republican with african-american and tell me that doesn't sound like hate. Your behavior, while in a different direction, is no different than a racist. All of the exact same elements are there.

So in other words, you have no problem with Tyler's "Religion of Peace" thread, which links the behaviors of a few muslims to all muslims then, right? What's the difference between what he does with the muslims and what you do with the republicans? Both are people uniting under a belief.

By the way, it helps my point when you skew the actual belief of the Republican Party. Stuff like that just shows how deep your hatred goes.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Hate is the perfect word for your behavior. Consider the vast amount of time you spend speaking out against the party. Consider the generalizations you make (which you agree that you do). Consider the way you take a negative by any one member of the party and link it to the entire party (republicans have lost their friggin minds). Consider the way you make up information (85% are ridiculous radicals) without any facts.

Use your same example about walking like a duck and apply it to your behavior. Or better yet, replace every use of the word republican with african-american and tell me that doesn't sound like hate. Your behavior, while in a different direction, is no different than a racist. All of the exact same elements are there.

So in other words, you have no problem with Tyler's "Religion of Peace" thread, which links the behaviors of a few muslims to all muslims then, right? What's the difference between what he does with the muslims and what you do with the republicans? Both are people uniting under a belief.

By the way, it helps my point when you skew the actual belief of the Republican Party. Stuff like that just shows how deep your hatred goes.

I agree AG! I also would challenge you to read the Koran. There is the link that is their belief system and that is it. Nobody critics the Muslims that don't act out on what evils that book demands of them. The only critic against the more peaceful ones is that they will not condemn their Muslim brothers for mass murder and torture of men women and children. And why? Scared yes. But also because they would be condemning them for doing exactly what the Koran commands. Like I said, I challenge you to read the Koran and tell me or anyone different.

[T_Won]

Democrat billionaire calls Obama a socialist.

"The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs."

http://www.conservativerefocus.com/b...oted-for-obama

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Straight off Drudge

link
DEM POLL: OBAMA WOULD LOSE TODAY



A Democratic polling firm said President Obama's already weak job-approval numbers are "worse than they appear" and he likely would lose the election if it were held today.
For the first time in a year, Mr. Obama does not lead former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in Public Policy Polling's monthly national poll on the 2012 presidential race. They are tied at 45 percent, and Mr. Obama is losing among independent voters by a margin of 49 percent to 44 percent.
Worse for Mr. Obama, PPP said, the "vast majority" of undecideds disapprove of the president's performance. The survey of registered voters was conducted July 15-17.
"There's a very good chance Barack Obama would lose if he had to stand for re-election today," said Dean Debnam, president of PPP. "This is his worst poll standing in a long time, and he really needs the economy to start turning around."
In an interview this week with a Kansas City, Mo., TV station, Mr. Obama said the election will be more about his record than the platform of the eventual Republican nominee.
"Americans understand that we didn't get into this problem overnight," Mr. Obama told KMBC-TV, one of three interviews he gave to regional TV outlets at the White House on Wednesday. "If next November they feel like I've ... been working as hard as I can and have been getting some things done to move us in the right direction, then I'll win. If they don't, then I'll lose."

[ddgravy]

Trouble in the Rockies!http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_18519114

[hoppinmad]

Trouble in the Rockies!http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_18519114

...and to make matters worse, obammer's most loyal supporters are doing, have done or will do time. :bigcry:

[TYLERTECHSAS]

America is finally coming out of the democrap/liberal induced socialism pushed fog!

July 14, 2011

"Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%

Margin marks first statistically significant lead among registered voters

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama's re-election prospects.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Re...ead-Obama.aspx

WOW!!! Even the looney Ron Paul nearly beats Hussein in the latest polls.

link
RASMUSSEN SHOCK POLL: Barack Obama 41% Ron Paul 37%... developing...