that while he is "traveling the nation to every ethnic neighborhood" to talk about food stamps that there are more Whites on food stamps than blacks, Hispanics, or any other group.
Someone is going to have to explain to me why he is focusing this food stamp talking point on black people. I can't help but to think he's a raging racist but I'm open to different viewpoints.
This morning on the CBS Early Show, Gingrich offered a defense, of sorts: Asked why he said African Americans are satisfied with food stamps, Gingrich retorted, "I said they shouldn't be … I didn't say they were satisfied. … I'm saying we should reach out to every American ... what I said was that every American ... every American of every background should have an opportunity to get a job, not depend on food stamps ... I'm actually for conservatives going into every ethnic neighborhood" to help people find more economic opportunities.”
Ok, it took some googling, but I think I found what you're getting all hysterical about. From MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10004332-2012-gingrich-goes-on-the-attack):QuoteThis morning on the CBS Early Show, Gingrich offered a defense, of sorts: Asked why he said African Americans are satisfied with food stamps, Gingrich retorted, "I said they shouldn't be … I didn't say they were satisfied. … I'm saying we should reach out to every American ... what I said was that every American ... every American of every background should have an opportunity to get a job, not depend on food stamps ... I'm actually for conservatives going into every ethnic neighborhood" to help people find more economic opportunities.”
So, his comment appears to be in response to a question specifically directed at the black community.
Also, another interesting tidbit from the article: apparently blacks (that's for you, OKCat) make up 28% of food stamp recipients, but they're only 12.6% of the population. That's impressive! Whites make up 60% of food stamp recipients, and make up 63.7% of the population. Numbers are fun.
Ok, it took some googling, but I think I found what you're getting all hysterical about. From MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10004332-2012-gingrich-goes-on-the-attack):QuoteThis morning on the CBS Early Show, Gingrich offered a defense, of sorts: Asked why he said African Americans are satisfied with food stamps, Gingrich retorted, "I said they shouldn't be … I didn't say they were satisfied. … I'm saying we should reach out to every American ... what I said was that every American ... every American of every background should have an opportunity to get a job, not depend on food stamps ... I'm actually for conservatives going into every ethnic neighborhood" to help people find more economic opportunities.”
So, his comment appears to be in response to a question specifically directed at the black community.
Also, another interesting tidbit from the article: apparently blacks (that's for you, OKCat) make up 28% of food stamp recipients, but they're only 12.6% of the population. That's impressive! Whites make up 60% of food stamp recipients, and make up 63.7% of the population. Numbers are fun.
The quote in my post wasn't referring to any question it was from his victory speech tonight. Also your quote confirmed what I said "there are more whites on food stamps than blacks.". So now that we've clarified really basic points for you, I'll ask again, differently. If 60% of people on food stamps are white why is Newt focused on the 28% that are black? It seems as if he wants to reform welfare he should focus on the 60% instead of the 28%. It doesn't bother me at all that he's racist. He's dragging out the primary season and if by chance the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party gives him the nomination all of his kooky crap will get him destroyed in a general. He is an utter nightmare for moderate Republicans.
You can have a full time job and still require food stamps. I wonder what percentage of people on food stamps work full time?
Ok, it took some googling, but I think I found what you're getting all hysterical about. From MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10004332-2012-gingrich-goes-on-the-attack):QuoteThis morning on the CBS Early Show, Gingrich offered a defense, of sorts: Asked why he said African Americans are satisfied with food stamps, Gingrich retorted, "I said they shouldn't be … I didn't say they were satisfied. … I'm saying we should reach out to every American ... what I said was that every American ... every American of every background should have an opportunity to get a job, not depend on food stamps ... I'm actually for conservatives going into every ethnic neighborhood" to help people find more economic opportunities.”
So, his comment appears to be in response to a question specifically directed at the black community.
Also, another interesting tidbit from the article: apparently blacks (that's for you, OKCat) make up 28% of food stamp recipients, but they're only 12.6% of the population. That's impressive! Whites make up 60% of food stamp recipients, and make up 63.7% of the population. Numbers are fun.
The quote in my post wasn't referring to any question it was from his victory speech tonight. Also your quote confirmed what I said "there are more whites on food stamps than blacks.". So now that we've clarified really basic points for you, I'll ask again, differently. If 60% of people on food stamps are white why is Newt focused on the 28% that are black? It seems as if he wants to reform welfare he should focus on the 60% instead of the 28%. It doesn't bother me at all that he's racist. He's dragging out the primary season and if by chance the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party gives him the nomination all of his kooky crap will get him destroyed in a general. He is an utter nightmare for moderate Republicans.
Didn't watch. Can you link me to the video or transcript? I always like to review context before rendering judgment, as the quote above from MSNBC demonstrates. I don't support Gingrich, by the way, but I'm always skeptical when a lib starts hyperventilating over a comment by a Republican.
And regarding the 60% number, that doesn't tell the whole story, as I've already pointed out. Whites claim food stamps almost perfectly commensurate with their share of the overall population, a bit less actually. The percentage of blacks on food stamps more than doubles their share of the population. This is not exactly surprising, of course, since blacks suffer a much higher poverty rate than whites. I'm not interested in engaging in a debate over poverty or race - I'm simply tying to tell you that libs pointing to the fact that whites use food stamps in almost perfect alignment with their share of the population is idiotic.
Ok, it took some googling, but I think I found what you're getting all hysterical about. From MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10004332-2012-gingrich-goes-on-the-attack):QuoteThis morning on the CBS Early Show, Gingrich offered a defense, of sorts: Asked why he said African Americans are satisfied with food stamps, Gingrich retorted, "I said they shouldn't be … I didn't say they were satisfied. … I'm saying we should reach out to every American ... what I said was that every American ... every American of every background should have an opportunity to get a job, not depend on food stamps ... I'm actually for conservatives going into every ethnic neighborhood" to help people find more economic opportunities.”
So, his comment appears to be in response to a question specifically directed at the black community.
Also, another interesting tidbit from the article: apparently blacks (that's for you, OKCat) make up 28% of food stamp recipients, but they're only 12.6% of the population. That's impressive! Whites make up 60% of food stamp recipients, and make up 63.7% of the population. Numbers are fun.
The quote in my post wasn't referring to any question it was from his victory speech tonight. Also your quote confirmed what I said "there are more whites on food stamps than blacks.". So now that we've clarified really basic points for you, I'll ask again, differently. If 60% of people on food stamps are white why is Newt focused on the 28% that are black? It seems as if he wants to reform welfare he should focus on the 60% instead of the 28%. It doesn't bother me at all that he's racist. He's dragging out the primary season and if by chance the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party gives him the nomination all of his kooky crap will get him destroyed in a general. He is an utter nightmare for moderate Republicans.
Didn't watch. Can you link me to the video or transcript? I always like to review context before rendering judgment, as the quote above from MSNBC demonstrates. I don't support Gingrich, by the way, but I'm always skeptical when a lib starts hyperventilating over a comment by a Republican.
And regarding the 60% number, that doesn't tell the whole story, as I've already pointed out. Whites claim food stamps almost perfectly commensurate with their share of the overall population, a bit less actually. The percentage of blacks on food stamps more than doubles their share of the population. This is not exactly surprising, of course, since blacks suffer a much higher poverty rate than whites. I'm not interested in engaging in a debate over poverty or race - I'm simply tying to tell you that libs pointing to the fact that whites use food stamps in almost perfect alignment with their share of the population is idiotic.
Still waiting for that link. To add some more to the numbers I listed above, 31% of all blacks are on food stamps, or about 1 in 3. 14% of all whites (non-hispanic) are on food stamps, or 1 in 7. These are apples to apples numbers. The sheer number of a certain demographic on food stamps, without controlling for the size of the demographic, is meaningless.
Ok, it took some googling, but I think I found what you're getting all hysterical about. From MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10004332-2012-gingrich-goes-on-the-attack):QuoteThis morning on the CBS Early Show, Gingrich offered a defense, of sorts: Asked why he said African Americans are satisfied with food stamps, Gingrich retorted, "I said they shouldn't be … I didn't say they were satisfied. … I'm saying we should reach out to every American ... what I said was that every American ... every American of every background should have an opportunity to get a job, not depend on food stamps ... I'm actually for conservatives going into every ethnic neighborhood" to help people find more economic opportunities.”
So, his comment appears to be in response to a question specifically directed at the black community.
Also, another interesting tidbit from the article: apparently blacks (that's for you, OKCat) make up 28% of food stamp recipients, but they're only 12.6% of the population. That's impressive! Whites make up 60% of food stamp recipients, and make up 63.7% of the population. Numbers are fun.
The quote in my post wasn't referring to any question it was from his victory speech tonight. Also your quote confirmed what I said "there are more whites on food stamps than blacks.". So now that we've clarified really basic points for you, I'll ask again, differently. If 60% of people on food stamps are white why is Newt focused on the 28% that are black? It seems as if he wants to reform welfare he should focus on the 60% instead of the 28%. It doesn't bother me at all that he's racist. He's dragging out the primary season and if by chance the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party gives him the nomination all of his kooky crap will get him destroyed in a general. He is an utter nightmare for moderate Republicans.
Didn't watch. Can you link me to the video or transcript? I always like to review context before rendering judgment, as the quote above from MSNBC demonstrates. I don't support Gingrich, by the way, but I'm always skeptical when a lib starts hyperventilating over a comment by a Republican.
And regarding the 60% number, that doesn't tell the whole story, as I've already pointed out. Whites claim food stamps almost perfectly commensurate with their share of the overall population, a bit less actually. The percentage of blacks on food stamps more than doubles their share of the population. This is not exactly surprising, of course, since blacks suffer a much higher poverty rate than whites. I'm not interested in engaging in a debate over poverty or race - I'm simply tying to tell you that libs pointing to the fact that whites use food stamps in almost perfect alignment with their share of the population is idiotic.
Still waiting for that link. To add some more to the numbers I listed above, 31% of all blacks are on food stamps, or about 1 in 3. 14% of all whites (non-hispanic) are on food stamps, or 1 in 7. These are apples to apples numbers. The sheer number of a certain demographic on food stamps, without controlling for the size of the demographic, is meaningless.
You are seriously the stupidest bad person on this board and that says a lot. I told you the exact quote and told you that it was from his South Carolina Primary victory speech, if you're too stupid to use Google to find the speech I'm not going to help you.
Also knock it off with the percentage bullshit, it isn't ground breaking. I simply stated that there are more whites on food stamps than blacks. That's a fact like the earth is a planet and water is wet, stop trying to argue an absolute fact.
:facepalm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH0dZh0mpqM&feature=related
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/newt-gingrich-paychecks-food-stamps_n_1188193.html
There.
Gingrich told a town hall meeting at a senior center in Plymouth, N.H., that if the NAACP invites him to its annual convention this year, he'd go there and talk about "why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." (1 in 3 blacks is on food stamps.)
He also said he'd pitch a new Social Security program aimed at helping young people, particularly African-American males, who he said get the smallest return on Social Security. (True.)
I gave you the quote, the context, and when it was said. You questioned my contextual use, you can type six words into any search engine to find what you're looking for, I'm not doing for you.
I also told you in the very first post why I'm pointing out that there are more whites on food stamps than blacks, not going to do that again either. My point is correct I was really just wondering what mindless robotic Fox bot would try to refute what I was pointing out. Grats you win, I was hoping to catch more of you, I got one, meh.
talked with a pilot the other day. he explained the plight of young pilots who must fly cargo and pick up any extra commercial flights.
these early jobs apparenty pay very little (23-29k annually) and pilots must take gov assisstance to make it.
also said that he was discouraged from wearing his uniform when going to the welfare office as it generally pissed off the workers
talked with a pilot the other day. he explained the plight of young pilots who must fly cargo and pick up any extra commercial flights.
these early jobs apparenty pay very little (23-29k annually) and pilots must take gov assisstance to make it.
also said that he was discouraged from wearing his uniform when going to the welfare office as it generally pissed off the workers
talked with a pilot the other day. he explained the plight of young pilots who must fly cargo and pick up any extra commercial flights.
these early jobs apparenty pay very little (23-29k annually) and pilots must take gov assisstance to make it.
also said that he was discouraged from wearing his uniform when going to the welfare office as it generally pissed off the workers
Yeah, I've heard it sucks to be a pilot now, especially a young one. You can make that much driving a bus. Sounds like it would have been a pretty awesome job a few decades ago, though.
Story about foodstamps;
My sis-in-law has been on food stamps for like 3 years. She isn't poor though, she works part-time and goes to nursing school. Her husband is in the military and with the great benefits they get they make pretty good money. Thing is she lies and says that they are seperated just not divorced and that she is raising the kids on her own. I don't know how she gets away with it. I guess it is because he has been deployed for 2 of the last three years and stayed on base for 6 months when he was stateside. Anyway, chick gets like $450/ month on a vision card. She buys so much food that when she gets home from the store she usually has to throw crap out just to make room for the new crap. BTW, mostly all of it is processed, premade crap and snacks. She's white.
I gave you the quote, the context, and when it was said. You questioned my contextual use, you can type six words into any search engine to find what you're looking for, I'm not doing for you.
I also told you in the very first post why I'm pointing out that there are more whites on food stamps than blacks, not going to do that again either. My point is correct I was really just wondering what mindless robotic Fox bot would try to refute what I was pointing out. Grats you win, I was hoping to catch more of you, I got one, meh.
And there's the tap out. Let's try this one more time: As I said above, I tried to Google your six words since you would not provide a link, and the best I could find was the MSNBC article posted above. The quote in that article was completely innocuous, and I found no link to a SC victory speech as you claim. Until you prove otherwise, you are completely full of sh*t.
Second, I don't think you understand the word context. According to Websters, it is "something liberals have no regard for when quoting conservatives." You provided none, let alone a full quote.
Third, your "point," such as it is, is asinine, as I've demonstrated in several posts above, because it is not an apples-to-apples comparison. 1 in 3 blacks on food stamps, versus 1 in 7 whites. If you want to argue that there is a legitimate reason for the depressingly high level of black poverty in this county, that's a different issue. Just don't try to justify black food stamp usage by pointing to whites, who use far less as a percentage of population. That is just stupid. You are embarrassing yourself.
I gave you the quote, the context, and when it was said. You questioned my contextual use, you can type six words into any search engine to find what you're looking for, I'm not doing for you.
I also told you in the very first post why I'm pointing out that there are more whites on food stamps than blacks, not going to do that again either. My point is correct I was really just wondering what mindless robotic Fox bot would try to refute what I was pointing out. Grats you win, I was hoping to catch more of you, I got one, meh.
And there's the tap out. Let's try this one more time: As I said above, I tried to Google your six words since you would not provide a link, and the best I could find was the MSNBC article posted above. The quote in that article was completely innocuous, and I found no link to a SC victory speech as you claim. Until you prove otherwise, you are completely full of sh*t.
Second, I don't think you understand the word context. According to Websters, it is "something liberals have no regard for when quoting conservatives." You provided none, let alone a full quote.
Third, your "point," such as it is, is asinine, as I've demonstrated in several posts above, because it is not an apples-to-apples comparison. 1 in 3 blacks on food stamps, versus 1 in 7 whites. If you want to argue that there is a legitimate reason for the depressingly high level of black poverty in this county, that's a different issue. Just don't try to justify black food stamp usage by pointing to whites, who use far less as a percentage of population. That is just stupid. You are embarrassing yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nYoqe-VjvQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nYoqe-VjvQ)
Christ man, you can't be that helpless can you? Also why do you keep insisting that I took Newt out of context when you have no clue what the actual context is? You shouldn't even waste your time watching the video for the sake of continuing this conversation, I'm making a very basic irrefutable point that you clearly aren't getting. It isn't about voodoo math or stat tricks. You aren't getting this through your titanium skull, what I can't figure out is if your act is intentional or not?
Have you thought about why none of your like minded peers have yet to post on this topic? You're drowning sometimes its okay to quit.
"White is an ethnic background, dumbshit"
With that I think we're done here. This is so maddingly stupid, there is literally nothing I can add to this thread.
There is nothing racist or discriminatory about that quote.
There is nothing racist or discriminatory about that quote.
give me a rough ridin' break. you're not a respect (at least not this Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)), you know perfectly well why a political candidate, campaigning in south carolina, wants to go around mentioning "ethnic backgrounds" and food stamps in the same sentence.
it's a fine line in 2012, being racist enough to get racists to vote for you, but not so overtly racist that people that would prefer not to think of themselves as racist are slapped in the face with it.
There is nothing racist or discriminatory about that quote.
give me a rough ridin' break. you're not a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (at least not this Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)), you know perfectly well why a political candidate, campaigning in south carolina, wants to go around mentioning "ethnic backgrounds" and food stamps in the same sentence.
it's a fine line in 2012, being racist enough to get racists to vote for you, but not so overtly racist that people that would prefer not to think of themselves as racist are slapped in the face with it.
There is nothing racist or discriminatory about that quote.
give me a rough ridin' break. you're not a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (at least not this Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)), you know perfectly well why a political candidate, campaigning in south carolina, wants to go around mentioning "ethnic backgrounds" and food stamps in the same sentence.
it's a fine line in 2012, being racist enough to get racists to vote for you, but not so overtly racist that people that would prefer not to think of themselves as racist are slapped in the face with it.
The ability to walk this line so delicately is what I admire most about newt.
Also, Newt is smart, and not a dumbass. He is a piece of crap though and knowingly said that stuff to earn the favor of IMO a pretty racist crowd, and state of voters. These were the same people who had earlier booed the golden rule. They call themselves evangelicals.
Also, Newt is smart, and not a dumbass. He is a piece of crap though and knowingly said that stuff to earn the favor of IMO a pretty racist crowd, and state of voters. These were the same people who had earlier booed the golden rule. They call themselves evangelicals.You would think people would be more outraged about multi million dollar companies who legally don't have to pay taxes.
"..and I want to go into every neighborhood, of every ethnic background, in every part of the country, and say to people very simply, if you want to have your children live a life of dependency and food stamps, you have a candidate that's Barrack Obama. If you want your children to have a life of in-dependency and paychecks, you have a candidate that's Newt Gingrich..."
IMO, this is a case of liberal "mis-spoke" or "poor choice of words", or "if he had it to do over again". It seems obvious that with his choice of words, he was actually trying to be inclusive of everyone by saying "of every ethnic background", but today's definition of "ethnic" seems to encompass everyone except white. It really doesn't matter though, because Romney will be the nominee, but I'm sure at some point he will say something unintentionally racist as well. :frown:
Also, Newt is smart, and not a dumbass. He is a piece of crap though and knowingly said that stuff to earn the favor of IMO a pretty racist crowd, and state of voters. These were the same people who had earlier booed the golden rule. They call themselves evangelicals.You would think people would be more outraged about multi million dollar companies who legally don't have to pay taxes.
I saw a bunch of angry white people outraged about this in dc. And most of them could have benefited from some soap stamps.
Also, Newt is smart, and not a dumbass. He is a piece of crap though and knowingly said that stuff to earn the favor of IMO a pretty racist crowd, and state of voters. These were the same people who had earlier booed the golden rule. They call themselves evangelicals.You would think people would be more outraged about multi million dollar companies who legally don't have to pay taxes.
I saw a bunch of angry white people outraged about this in dc. And most of them could have benefited from some soap stamps.
lol
Seems to me like he intentionally said "every ethnic background" so as not to be accused of racism. Just can't win with the liberal grievance mongers.
Seems to me like he intentionally said "every ethnic background" so as not to be accused of racism. Just can't win with the liberal grievance mongers.
i stand corrected, i see now it's not such a fine line.
"..and I want to go into every neighborhood, of every ethnic background, in every part of the country, and say to people very simply, if you want to have your children live a life of dependency and food stamps, you have a candidate that's Barrack Obama. If you want your children to have a life of in-dependency and paychecks, you have a candidate that's Newt Gingrich..."
IMO, this is a case of liberal "mis-spoke" or "poor choice of words", or "if he had it to do over again". It seems obvious that with his choice of words, he was actually trying to be inclusive of everyone by saying "of every ethnic background", but today's definition of "ethnic" seems to encompass everyone except white. It really doesn't matter though, because Romney will be the nominee, but I'm sure at some point he will say something unintentionally racist as well. :frown:
Ethnic has always been used to describe a minority group. Before blacks and hispanics were thoughts of as equals, ethnic referred to Italians and the Irish who were the win-class before civil rights laws. The 60's did for Italians and Irish what immigration reform did for blacks and 9/11 did for Mexicans.
Romney won't say anything that will be construed as racist, nor did McCain. Your comment is quite ironic considering the last Presidential election it was wacko republicans calling the democrat nominee a racist, not vice versa.
Ok, it took some googling, but I think I found what you're getting all hysterical about. From MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10004332-2012-gingrich-goes-on-the-attack):QuoteThis morning on the CBS Early Show, Gingrich offered a defense, of sorts: Asked why he said African Americans are satisfied with food stamps, Gingrich retorted, "I said they shouldn't be … I didn't say they were satisfied. … I'm saying we should reach out to every American ... what I said was that every American ... every American of every background should have an opportunity to get a job, not depend on food stamps ... I'm actually for conservatives going into every ethnic neighborhood" to help people find more economic opportunities.”
So, his comment appears to be in response to a question specifically directed at the black community.
Also, another interesting tidbit from the article: apparently blacks (that's for you, OKCat) make up 28% of food stamp recipients, but they're only 12.6% of the population. That's impressive! Whites make up 60% of food stamp recipients, and make up 63.7% of the population. Numbers are fun.
The quote in my post wasn't referring to any question it was from his victory speech tonight. Also your quote confirmed what I said "there are more whites on food stamps than blacks.". So now that we've clarified really basic points for you, I'll ask again, differently. If 60% of people on food stamps are white why is Newt focused on the 28% that are black? It seems as if he wants to reform welfare he should focus on the 60% instead of the 28%. It doesn't bother me at all that he's racist. He's dragging out the primary season and if by chance the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party gives him the nomination all of his kooky crap will get him destroyed in a general. He is an utter nightmare for moderate Republicans.
Didn't watch. Can you link me to the video or transcript? I always like to review context before rendering judgment, as the quote above from MSNBC demonstrates. I don't support Gingrich, by the way, but I'm always skeptical when a lib starts hyperventilating over a comment by a Republican.
And regarding the 60% number, that doesn't tell the whole story, as I've already pointed out. Whites claim food stamps almost perfectly commensurate with their share of the overall population, a bit less actually. The percentage of blacks on food stamps more than doubles their share of the population. This is not exactly surprising, of course, since blacks suffer a much higher poverty rate than whites. I'm not interested in engaging in a debate over poverty or race - I'm simply tying to tell you that libs pointing to the fact that whites use food stamps in almost perfect alignment with their share of the population is idiotic.
Still waiting for that link. To add some more to the numbers I listed above, 31% of all blacks are on food stamps, or about 1 in 3. 14% of all whites (non-hispanic) are on food stamps, or 1 in 7. These are apples to apples numbers. The sheer number of a certain demographic on food stamps, without controlling for the size of the demographic, is meaningless.
You are seriously the stupidest bad person on this board and that says a lot. I told you the exact quote and told you that it was from his South Carolina Primary victory speech, if you're too stupid to use Google to find the speech I'm not going to help you.
Also knock it off with the percentage bullshit, it isn't ground breaking. I simply stated that there are more whites on food stamps than blacks. That's a fact like the earth is a planet and water is wet, stop trying to argue an absolute fact.
Also, Newt is smart, and not a dumbass. He is a piece of crap though and knowingly said that stuff to earn the favor of IMO a pretty racist crowd, and state of voters. These were the same people who had earlier booed the golden rule. They call themselves evangelicals.
Jesus rough ridin' Christ Nic, how can you say I'm dumb one post and completely agree with me the next? I don't know what "blacks vs. whites food stamps things" is but I wasn't pitting race against race or even debating the merits of who should or shouldn't have food stamps. I simply pointed out that Newt's quote in his speech took an everyone issue and quite clearly made it a black issue. Quite simply put "going to every ethnic neighborhood" to talk about the issue of food stamps is disingenuous at best, because he knows there are more white people on food stamps than any and every ethnic group.
It's a lot easier to energize these stupid, mayo loving, evangelical crackers on the concept of welfare being a black issue than an everybody issue. He knows this and like I said disingenuous at best racist at worst and likely a combination of the two.
Frankly I've never understood why anyone cares who is on welfare or not. I have money but wouldn't be considered rich, but Barack Obama being the food stamp president hasn't stopped me from owning houses, cars, taking vacations, having season tickets, etc. You would think people would be more outraged about multi million dollar companies who legally don't have to pay taxes.
Also, "delicately" was the wrong word. I think I was going for "brazenly".
And yeah. Huge lol at Gingrich winning a general election. He's totally rough ridin' over the republican party at this point. Deep down, he probably knows that but just doesn't give a crap. Which I also admire.
Also, Newt is smart, and not a dumbass. He is a piece of crap though and knowingly said that stuff to earn the favor of IMO a pretty racist crowd, and state of voters. These were the same people who had earlier booed the golden rule. They call themselves evangelicals.
Jesus rough ridin' Christ Nic, how can you say I'm dumb one post and completely agree with me the next? I don't know what "blacks vs. whites food stamps things" is but I wasn't pitting race against race or even debating the merits of who should or shouldn't have food stamps. I simply pointed out that Newt's quote in his speech took an everyone issue and quite clearly made it a black issue. Quite simply put "going to every ethnic neighborhood" to talk about the issue of food stamps is disingenuous at best, because he knows there are more white people on food stamps than any and every ethnic group.
It's a lot easier to energize these stupid, mayo loving, evangelical crackers on the concept of welfare being a black issue than an everybody issue. He knows this and like I said disingenuous at best racist at worst and likely a combination of the two.
Frankly I've never understood why anyone cares who is on welfare or not. I have money but wouldn't be considered rich, but Barack Obama being the food stamp president hasn't stopped me from owning houses, cars, taking vacations, having season tickets, etc. You would think people would be more outraged about multi million dollar companies who legally don't have to pay taxes.
Because, while i agree with you on Newt's motives I think it was dumb of you to point out that more whites are on foodstamps than blacks. Just pointing out the racial undertones of what he said gets the point across well enough. Using those numbers actually detracts from the argument because they are flawed. If a higher percentage of whites were on foodstamps than minorities then I would have no problem with you using them to prove your point. Actually, had that been the case it would have driven it home right now.
Also, "delicately" was the wrong word. I think I was going for "brazenly".
And yeah. Huge lol at Gingrich winning a general election. He's totally rough ridin' over the republican party at this point. Deep down, he probably knows that but just doesn't give a crap. Which I also admire.
He's such an incredibly horrible person, yet so smart. He's like a diabolical political genius from some low rent action comedy.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fpolls%2F002413273%2F4849531360_Gingrich_Laughing_350x233_xlarge.jpeg&hash=2f5694a5076dd609f086226f94dba844e2e7f962)
Also, Newt is smart, and not a dumbass. He is a piece of crap though and knowingly said that stuff to earn the favor of IMO a pretty racist crowd, and state of voters. These were the same people who had earlier booed the golden rule. They call themselves evangelicals.
Jesus rough ridin' Christ Nic, how can you say I'm dumb one post and completely agree with me the next? I don't know what "blacks vs. whites food stamps things" is but I wasn't pitting race against race or even debating the merits of who should or shouldn't have food stamps. I simply pointed out that Newt's quote in his speech took an everyone issue and quite clearly made it a black issue. Quite simply put "going to every ethnic neighborhood" to talk about the issue of food stamps is disingenuous at best, because he knows there are more white people on food stamps than any and every ethnic group.
It's a lot easier to energize these stupid, mayo loving, evangelical crackers on the concept of welfare being a black issue than an everybody issue. He knows this and like I said disingenuous at best racist at worst and likely a combination of the two.
Frankly I've never understood why anyone cares who is on welfare or not. I have money but wouldn't be considered rich, but Barack Obama being the food stamp president hasn't stopped me from owning houses, cars, taking vacations, having season tickets, etc. You would think people would be more outraged about multi million dollar companies who legally don't have to pay taxes.
Because, while i agree with you on Newt's motives I think it was dumb of you to point out that more whites are on foodstamps than blacks. Just pointing out the racial undertones of what he said gets the point across well enough. Using those numbers actually detracts from the argument because they are flawed. If a higher percentage of whites were on foodstamps than minorities then I would have no problem with you using them to prove your point. Actually, had that been the case it would have driven it home right now.
Nic! It is quite clear that you aren't getting the point. Again I fully understand that there are a disproportionate amount of blacks on welfare, that isn't breaking news. eff man I'm black, I'm perfectly aware with the social ills facing blacks. What next, are you going to try to convince me that there are a lot of blacks in jail? Do black males have short life expectancy? Help me out.
I'm going to try this one more time for you and that moron the KHAN. The reason why it is relevant that there are more whites on welfare is that in the context of Gingrich's comments he was discussing the financial impact of this country of people receiving welfare. If you are concerned about the fiscal aspect of welfare and insist on focusing on groups of people and not all people I would think your focus should be the majority group. If he was talking about the social impact of welfare then yes, the group with the larger percentage of recipients within that group should be the focus of the talking point.
I'll put this another way to help KHAN:
Assuming 62% of welfare recipients are white and 38% of recipients are everyone else and you want to minimize the impact of welfare on the American economy do you focus on the 62 or the 38? The answer should be pretty simple. I'd rather focus on the 100% but it is Newt who insists on separating groups, not me.
Now let's assume that 27% of all whites are receiving welfare and 56% of all blacks receive welfare. If Newt's focus was on the social ills of welfare then it would be more appropriate to focus on the group of the larger percentage of its people on welfare. Again even using the social ills argument I wouldn't put people into ethnic/racial groups because its 2012 blacks don't just live with blacks anymore, if welfare is a black problem because it leads to crime and blight its everyone's problem.
So Nic and KHAN; I, me, MIR has focused on the perceived fiscal impact on welfare because Newt has. I have not yet once focused on the social impact of welfare so how many blacks on welfare isn't very relevant to this conversation. I intentionally didn't discuss the social aspect of this because people would go full Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). So stop lashing out at me because you guys didn't see the speech and aren't understanding the topic at hand.
Also, "delicately" was the wrong word. I think I was going for "brazenly".
And yeah. Huge lol at Gingrich winning a general election. He's totally rough ridin' over the republican party at this point. Deep down, he probably knows that but just doesn't give a crap. Which I also admire.
He's such an incredibly horrible person, yet so smart. He's like a diabolical political genius from some low rent action comedy.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fpolls%2F002413273%2F4849531360_Gingrich_Laughing_350x233_xlarge.jpeg&hash=2f5694a5076dd609f086226f94dba844e2e7f962)
Yes. He is a caricature and it's almost like he's daring the country to elect him in order to prove a point about the country.
Woah, Newt got freaking destroyed in tonight's debate. I can't recall a front runner getting his ass handed to him so badly.
Nic! It is quite clear that you aren't getting the point. Again I fully understand that there are a disproportionate amount of blacks on welfare, that isn't breaking news. eff man I'm black, I'm perfectly aware with the social ills facing blacks. What next, are you going to try to convince me that there are a lot of blacks in jail? Do black males have short life expectancy? Help me out.
I'm going to try this one more time for you and that moron the KHAN. The reason why it is relevant that there are more whites on welfare is that in the context of Gingrich's comments he was discussing the financial impact of this country of people receiving welfare. If you are concerned about the fiscal aspect of welfare and insist on focusing on groups of people and not all people I would think your focus should be the majority group. If he was talking about the social impact of welfare then yes, the group with the larger percentage of recipients within that group should be the focus of the talking point.
I'll put this another way to help KHAN:
Assuming 62% of welfare recipients are white and 38% of recipients are everyone else and you want to minimize the impact of welfare on the American economy do you focus on the 62 or the 38? The answer should be pretty simple. I'd rather focus on the 100% but it is Newt who insists on separating groups, not me.
Now let's assume that 27% of all whites are receiving welfare and 56% of all blacks receive welfare. If Newt's focus was on the social ills of welfare then it would be more appropriate to focus on the group of the larger percentage of its people on welfare. Again even using the social ills argument I wouldn't put people into ethnic/racial groups because its 2012 blacks don't just live with blacks anymore, if welfare is a black problem because it leads to crime and blight its everyone's problem.
So Nic and KHAN; I, me, MIR has focused on the perceived fiscal impact on welfare because Newt has. I have not yet once focused on the social impact of welfare so how many blacks on welfare isn't very relevant to this conversation. I intentionally didn't discuss the social aspect of this because people would go full Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). So stop lashing out at me because you guys didn't see the speech and aren't understanding the topic at hand.
Very timely, and in FSD true fashion you fanned on the point. Also there is a Mitt Romney Spanish language ad in Florida accusing Newt of being a racist. Not a super PAC ad either, a Romney ad.
So about that debate tonight. Don't think Newt will be giving any victory speeches next Tuesday where he will say anything that could be construed as dog whistle racism by me or Mitt Romney.
Very timely, and in FSD true fashion you fanned on the point. Also there is a Mitt Romney Spanish language ad in Florida accusing Newt of being a racist. Not a super PAC ad either, a Romney ad.
We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto
Let's play a game, its called who said it.QuoteWe should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto
Any guesses?
Don't know who said it, but it could be true for any immigrant in any country in which they can't effectively communicate. If I were to move to Russia and not learn the language, I would be stuck doing manual labor living in a ghetto.
Seems like learning the only national language of the country you have relocated to would be beneficial. :dunno:
MiR gets really but hurt about this crap.
Don't know who said it, but it could be true for any immigrant in any country in which they can't effectively communicate. If I were to move to Russia and not learn the language, I would be stuck doing manual labor living in a ghetto.
romney's great grandfather moved to mexico, didn't learn spanish and his great grandchild is a multimillionaire.
And they all moved back to the US when his father was 5.
Just sayin that, if I moved to a non-English speaking country, I would either learn the langage beforehand or ASAP after arriving. You can't honestly think that it is easier to force a country to learn your language than learn theirs, right?
And they all moved back to the US when his father was 5.
yeah, his grandfather grew up there and lived there most of his adult life. never learned spanish.
4) if someone is capable of making a living without learning english then why should they.
why would you have to know english to receive an education?
why would they have to know english to be conservative?
:opcat: :nono: :opcat: :nono: :opcat:
Let's play a game, its called who said it.QuoteWe should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto
Any guesses?
Don't know who said it, but it could be true for any immigrant in any country in which they can't effectively communicate. If I were to move to Russia and not learn the language, I would be stuck doing manual labor living in a ghetto.
Anyway, I m going to guess, since they said English, Cesar Chavez.
4) if someone is capable of making a living without learning english then why should they.
Translation: If we keep them uneducated and supplied with food stamps and other subsidies, we can keep them voting Democrat. If they learn the language and are able to educate themselves, they may become conservative.
4) if someone is capable of making a living without learning english then why should they.
Translation: If we keep them uneducated and supplied with food stamps and other subsidies, we can keep them voting Democrat. If they learn the language and are able to educate themselves, they may become conservative.
It's not like providing a translator for the children of immigrants at a school is going to keep them from learning English. It will keep them from falling behind on their coursework by 1-2 years while they learn the language, though.
4) if someone is capable of making a living without learning english then why should they.
Translation: If we keep them uneducated and supplied with food stamps and other subsidies, we can keep them voting Democrat. If they learn the language and are able to educate themselves, they may become conservative.
It's not like providing a translator for the children of immigrants at a school is going to keep them from learning English. It will keep them from falling behind on their coursework by 1-2 years while they learn the language, though.
Translators? WTF.?
Wonder how many countries have bilingual courses in public schools. Not like "learn your native language and another" but like "learn your native language and the language of the country you are currently living in." I imagine it probably happens everywhere. I mean, no way the US is actually bending over backwards to accomodate immigrants, right? No way that's happening, cause MIR says we're all a bunch of racists who don't care about anyone except white people. Right?
4) if someone is capable of making a living without learning english then why should they.
Translation: If we keep them uneducated and supplied with food stamps and other subsidies, we can keep them voting Democrat. If they learn the language and are able to educate themselves, they may become conservative.
It's not like providing a translator for the children of immigrants at a school is going to keep them from learning English. It will keep them from falling behind on their coursework by 1-2 years while they learn the language, though.
Translators? WTF.?
Oh yes, Soon every kid will be assigned a para. The cost of public education is skyrocketing and we have the same number of students as we did 10 years ago. Every little crap who can't sit still is assigned a para, which the taxpayer subsidizes to the detriment of the rest. It's idiotic, but it's also "fair".
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/01/30/414199/gingrich-refused-work-student/?mobile=nc
:driving: