Say Anything Blog

Newt is ignorant about both the history and current state of this country.  Spanish *is* a language of the USA, as much as English is.  When the Anglo settlers and soldiers invaded what’s now the belt of states from California to Texas-- having done that in Tallahassee and south of the Panhandle earlier-- in the Mexican War, there was extreme bitterness and a danger of a long, grinding insurgency there.  To keep that at bay, the Anglos did the sensible thing in the treaties and statutes that followed: Since Spanish was the original language of the SW states, and had antedated English by centuries there, Spanish would get the same high status as English for use in public forums, and in schools and government.

Fools like Newt conveniently try to forget that fact, but a fact it remains-- Spanish isn’t just an outside or immigrant language to the US, it’s the original language of a vast and very populous swath of the nation.  And it has to be respected at a level equal to English there, as it also is in e.g. Puerto Rico.

What is he trying to say? That Chinatown in New York is a ghetto?

Maybe before you try to figure out what he’s trying to say, maybe you should concentrate on what he actually said!

ghetto: Origin: 1605–15; < It, orig. the name of an island near Venice where Jews were forced to reside in the 16th century

Historically, a ghetto is a place where people are forced to live against their will.
Not being conversant in English, severely limits an individual’s economic opportunity in the US.
Figuratively keeping them in a lower economic strata...kind of like...a ghetto!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

The truth is that so-called “bilingual education” is a miserable failure, especially for the children who have been disadvantaged by it.  There was never any science behind it; it was always purely political, and to me, it is extremely cynical to use young children for political purposes.  Shame on them!  Newt is right.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Foxworth,
You’re the fool!
Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House of Representatives and a former professor of history at West Georgia College.

Take your sorry Mecha ass back to Mexico and leave Aztlán to us.

All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. —Aristotle ...

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

The dateline on the AP story is:

Updated: 4:40 p.m. ET March 31, 2007

However, on March 9, 2007, Gingrich discussed them in a very public way.
What part of refused doesn’t apply here? Doesn’t AP read the papers? The Net?

CNN.com

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Almost every nation has a national language.  Ours is Americanized English.  Anybody can be multi-lingual if they choose.  One should have to be fluent in English before they are permitted to be citizens.  Anything else is pure b.s.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Proof: I notice some attempts to demonize Newt for “doing the same thing” as Clinton.  In fact, Newt’s marital indiscretions took place in private, and were not done while he was employed in doiing the peoples’ work, unlike Clinton.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

In fact, Newt’s marital indiscretions took place in private, and were not done while he was employed in doiing the peoples’ work, unlike Clinton.

So does that mean when he admitted to having an affair while he and the Republican congress were impeaching Clinton that he wasn’t doing the people’s work?

Unlike Clinton, who did his dirty business in the Oval Office during his working hours, Newt’s took place in private during off-hours.  But then, you already knew that, and were just being snarky.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Hm… seems to me the real problem for Clinton was witness tampering, perjury and obstruction of justice.

The other part was just a perk.

Bak72, what’s the point of descending into irrelevancy here?  Even Gingritch called for the House writ of impeachment to not include Clinton’s personal foibles, and later criticized it when it did.

Not that I’m going to carry Newt’s water here, I don’t care for him that much myself.  But let’s keep this real.

The point here is that Newt is being demonized for doing less than Clinton did.  When Clinton did it, we were told: “Everybody does it.” Now, with Newt, it’s “serious baggage”.  Why the double standard?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Why the double standard?  That’s pretty obvious.

Newt is commonly blamed for “bringing Clinton down,” and because of the emphasis on ethics issues in the writ of impeachment, Newt’s role has been conflated with that of a grand inquisitor who was going after Clinton because of his ethical impurity.

Once it was proven that Newt is ethnically impure himself, then the media descended on him with rampant delight.  And they’ll never give that one a rest, either.  Revenge for besmirching their ole buddy Clinton.

The emphasis on the ethical issues was a huge miscalculation on the part of the Republicans, since it allowed old slick Willy to not only avoid indictment on perjury charges, but to simultaneously destroy the career of one of his greatest opponents.

The emphasis on the ethical issues was a huge miscalculation on the part of the Republicans, since it allowed old slick Willy to not only avoid indictment on perjury charges, but to simultaneously destroy the career of one of his greatest opponents.

Damn those ethical Republicans!  Actually, I blame them for not bringing forward the real crimes of Clinton: taking campaign money from foreign sources, leaking missile secrets to the Chinese, payoffs…
They just shouldn’t have stopped at the ethics stuff.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

After thinking it over a bit, I have to admit that you are right, Carrick.  After all, when Clinton was unethical, well, heck, he was just doing what everyone else does!  No need to hold the President of the United States to a higher standard than the average citizen, after all.
Now when the Republicans pointed out the ethical errors, they were just being annoying tattletales, and should rightly be criticized for doing so.  And, if it turns out that, even though they were right about Clinton, they weren’t perfectly ethical themselves, well then, go after them mercilessly.  It’s only right!  Of course its a double standard; one standard for those who own the MSM, and another one for those who don’t.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Docdave writes:

One should have to be fluent in English before they are permitted to be citizens.