Can someone please tell Newt...

[the KHAN!]

Ok, it took some googling, but I think I found what you're getting all hysterical about. From MSNBC:

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.”

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.

Make It Rain, you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Statistics have meaning, whether you like it or not. The fact the percentage of blacks when compared to those who use foodstamps is double the percentage of blacks in America should tell you that there's a social problem.

Just shut the eff up and take a social science class then we can talk.

[nicname]

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.

[nicname]

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. 

[MakeItRain]

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.

[felix rex]

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. 

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.

[nicname]

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.

That makes sense when you put it that way.  Now I feel like a jerk.

[MakeItRain]

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. 

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.

I bet that every single political pundit conservative or liberal are hoping like hell he gets the nomination because it would be amazing for business.  Mitt is insanely boring.  If you haven't watched the speech I linked earlier in the thread I'd recommend doing it.  The speech was great, I thought the best part is when he was talking about Obama, debates, and teleprompters.

[MakeItRain]

Woah, Newt got freaking destroyed in tonight's debate.  I can't recall a front runner getting his ass handed to him so badly.

[felix rex]

Woah, Newt got freaking destroyed in tonight's debate.  I can't recall a front runner getting his ass handed to him so badly.

Well. Stick a fork in him. The voters have been looking for even just one single reason not to vote for him.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

Spending your entire life trying to find racism in every comment is an enormous waste of time.  It's desperate, pathetic and, in your case, self deprecating.  Stop dragging yourself down to "their" level, rise above it.

[MakeItRain]

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.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

Well if Mitt agrees, I guess you're vindicated.  Good luck in you next witch hunt Sen. MirCarthey.

[sys]

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.

i've been to that town where romney´s father is from.  weird place, but cool (colonia juarez, nuevo casas grandes is normal).

[MakeItRain]

Let's play a game, its called who said it.

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

Any guesses?

[hemmy]

MiR gets really but hurt about this crap.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Let's play a game, its called who said it.

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

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.

[jtksu]

Seems like learning the only national language of the country you have relocated to would be beneficial.

[sys]

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.

[MakeItRain]

Seems like learning the only national language of the country you have relocated to would be beneficial.

1. If you're referring to the United States, "the only national language" is so far beyond accurate its laughable.  The federal government has put out official documents is several languages for decades.

2. The point of the guess who said it game wasn't for this to devolve into a "national language" debate.  It's all about who said Spanish is a language of the ghetto and English isn't.  But I'm sure you knew that.

[jtksu]

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?

[MakeItRain]

MiR gets really but hurt about this crap.

You misspelled butt, but not crap.  I wish I could say I was shocked, but this is easily explained by 5 letters, hemmy.

Honest question, how many times were you held back in school?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

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.

[sys]

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.

[MakeItRain]

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?

Okay?  Completely irrelevant to this particular conversation, but if you insist on having it, fine.  I'm not sure what you mean by forcing a country to learn your language. The Newt quote refers to English immersion as opposed bilingual education for Spanish speakers.  Not sure where forcing language comes into play.  Also there are immigrants in this country who are perfectly happy speaking their native tongue, it is nosy assholes who insist they speak English although Mexicans speaking Spanish, Chinese speaking Mandarin, or Mennonites speaking German have no affect on anyone else's life.  Mind your own damn business.

Also the Mennonite thing really bothers me.  There are is a substantial number of Mennonites in Kansas who don't speak English, why aren't they being harassed like Mexicans who share the same communities with these Mennonites?  

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

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.

Maybe he wasn't particularly bright?    His son and grandson did pretty well.