If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   In last night's Republican debate in South Carolina, on Martin Luther King's birthday, Newt Gingrich mocks Juan Williams for being black and having a Spanish first name. *sigh*   (salon.com) divider line 335
    More: Sad, Republican debates, South Carolina, Martin Luther King, Vivian Schiller, Spanish, Fox Business, Alex Pareene  
•       •       •

5020 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jan 2012 at 11:17 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-17 03:48:17 PM

sprawl15: apoptotic: colon_pow: skullkrusher: colon_pow: 1. Turn the $132 billion spent on unemployment compensation last year into a human capital development fund by requiring every person who can't find a job to take a training program in return for their compensation. Paying people to do nothing for 99 weeks is as wrong in unemployment compensation as it was in welfare. This is an opportunity to dramatically enhance the working skills of the American people at no new cost.

how do you turn that $132B into a human capital development fund which pays for job training while also paying out benefits in return for this job training and do all this "at no new cost". Explain?

allow the states to figure it out...



And, frankly, the easiest thing for Congress to do, if the president sends up a proposed extension, is to allow all 50 states to experiment at the state level with developing a mandatory training component of unemployment compensation, so you'd have 50 parallel experiments, and not pretend that Washington knows best or that Washington can solve the problem by itself. But I believe deeply, people should not get money for doing nothing.

And where do the states get the money to implement this?

An unemployment tax.


Perhaps we should start taxing all foreigners living abroad
 
2012-01-17 04:12:52 PM
KiltedBastich


karnal: KiltedBastich


My, what a ringing chorus of "Fark you, I got mine" we've got going in this thread from the Republican shills. It's simultaneously predictable, pathetic and amusing.


We must be reading two different threads.....I am not seeing it. Would you like to point out enough for me that would make it a "ringing chorus"?

Sorry, I have no particular interest at this time in attempting to teach the willfully blind to see. I'd rather spend my time more productively, like in trying to turn back the tide or attempting to prevent the changing of the seasons.



maybe take a little of that precious time of yours to brush the sand out of your vagina?
 
2012-01-17 04:16:53 PM

MugzyBrown: A 15 year old black girl getting pregnant and dropping out of school is due to racism?


wait, her first teen pregnancy or the second?

/sad to say it, but even a douche like santorum must be acknowledged----he is absolutely right regarding poverty.....
 
2012-01-17 04:23:31 PM

karnal: maybe take a little of that precious time of yours to brush the sand out of your vagina?


Aww, did I ruffle your feathers? Ask me how much I give a shiat about the opinion of a right-wing yes-man like yourself. Go ahead, I dare ya.
 
2012-01-17 04:36:47 PM

apoptotic: colon_pow: skullkrusher: colon_pow: 1. Turn the $132 billion spent on unemployment compensation last year into a human capital development fund by requiring every person who can't find a job to take a training program in return for their compensation. Paying people to do nothing for 99 weeks is as wrong in unemployment compensation as it was in welfare. This is an opportunity to dramatically enhance the working skills of the American people at no new cost.

how do you turn that $132B into a human capital development fund which pays for job training while also paying out benefits in return for this job training and do all this "at no new cost". Explain?

allow the states to figure it out...



And, frankly, the easiest thing for Congress to do, if the president sends up a proposed extension, is to allow all 50 states to experiment at the state level with developing a mandatory training component of unemployment compensation, so you'd have 50 parallel experiments, and not pretend that Washington knows best or that Washington can solve the problem by itself. But I believe deeply, people should not get money for doing nothing.

And where do the states get the money to implement this?


Block grants.

/Remember Republicans, if you just move the money around for awhile, you eventually get to call it cheaper.
 
2012-01-17 04:38:12 PM

proteus_b: MugzyBrown: A 15 year old black girl getting pregnant and dropping out of school is due to racism?

wait, her first teen pregnancy or the second?

/sad to say it, but even a douche like santorum must be acknowledged----he is absolutely right regarding poverty.....


He's shallow and ill-informed regarding poverty, and appears to make some blatantly racist assumptions.
 
2012-01-17 05:22:09 PM

DarnoKonrad: . . . . when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old GOP spiritual, "Fark you I got mine! Fark you I got mine! Thank God Almighty, Fark you I got mine!"


LOL! I'm late to the party but damn that was funny. Gonna have to copy and pasta that!
 
2012-01-17 05:22:15 PM

forgotmydamnusername: He's shallow and ill-informed regarding poverty, and appears to make some blatantly racist assumptions.


well, considering the high correlation between poverty and broken families---and the high correlation between blacks and broken families----he just might have a point there. i dare you to teach a few years in a city high school, charter or public, and to come back and blame white people for their ills...
 
2012-01-17 05:27:21 PM

Frank N Stein: That's when this article went full retard.


Idiot or troll?
 
2012-01-17 05:35:26 PM

atomic-age: Wait.

Someone who voluntarily is called "Newt" and has the last name of Gingrich feels somebody else should be ridiculed because of his name?

[www.rankopedia.com image 300x300]


That's what I don't get. Why is it remotely funny or notable that his name is Juan?
 
2012-01-17 05:43:23 PM

Dee Snarl: atomic-age: Wait.

Someone who voluntarily is called "Newt" and has the last name of Gingrich feels somebody else should be ridiculed because of his name?

[www.rankopedia.com image 300x300]

That's what I don't get. Why is it remotely funny or notable that his name is Juan?


because newt called him "juan". and that's racist, or something. you'll have to ask the author of tfa.
 
2012-01-17 05:45:41 PM

proteus_b: forgotmydamnusername: He's shallow and ill-informed regarding poverty, and appears to make some blatantly racist assumptions.

well, considering the high correlation between poverty and broken families---and the high correlation between blacks and broken families----he just might have a point there. i dare you to teach a few years in a city high school, charter or public, and to come back and blame white people for their ills...


I think it's certainly fair to blame white people for setting up the initial conditions that created a culture of poverty and allowed it to persist. Once that culture is established, it creates a range of attitudes and behaviors which, while perhaps somewhat adaptive and beneficial in an environment of poverty, do not help people escape it. "Why get married if the prospective husband is chronically unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable? That guy is just another mouth to feed. Drop out of high school at 15? Why not? Then you won't have to buy school supplies. Nobody's likely to give you a job. You don't look right, you don't act right, you don't talk right. Shiat, they may not even let you on the bus to get to work if you got the job. Save? Why? People need to eat today, and it'll only get stolen from you anyway." Do you see how that works?
 
2012-01-17 06:09:36 PM

forgotmydamnusername:
I think it's certainly fair to blame white people for setting up the initial conditions that created a culture of poverty and allowed it to persist. Once that culture is established, it creates a range of attitudes and behaviors which, while perhaps somewhat adaptive and beneficial in an environment of poverty, do not help people escape it. "Why get married if the prospective husband is chronically unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable? That guy is just another mouth to feed. Drop out of high school at 15? Why not? Then you won't have to buy school supplies. Nobody's likely to give you a job. You don't look right, you don't act right, you don't talk right. Shiat, they may not even let you on the bus to get to work if you got the job. Save? Why? People need to eat today, and it'll only get stolen from you anyway." Do you see how that works?


Except blacks were better off in most objective measures in the 1950's and early 60's - higher literacy, lower levels of criminal involvement, fewer broken homes, etc. Yet this was allegedly the most racist time in America since slavery. Blacks should have been the WORST off during this time.

What happened since then? Bad forces took over genuine black culture - making anything "white" associated seem bad. You know what's white (apparently)? Reading, math, sitting still and paying attention in school, etc. Not that all whites are good at those things - but they were ascribed to the "evil" white culture. Basically blacks started applying peer pressure on each other not to excel. Asian families did the opposite - they pushed their kids even harder than the white families to excel. And look where they are now - colleges have anti-Asian quotas and blacks have set-asides and affirmative action.
 
2012-01-17 06:22:20 PM

bidness: forgotmydamnusername:
I think it's certainly fair to blame white people for setting up the initial conditions that created a culture of poverty and allowed it to persist. Once that culture is established, it creates a range of attitudes and behaviors which, while perhaps somewhat adaptive and beneficial in an environment of poverty, do not help people escape it. "Why get married if the prospective husband is chronically unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable? That guy is just another mouth to feed. Drop out of high school at 15? Why not? Then you won't have to buy school supplies. Nobody's likely to give you a job. You don't look right, you don't act right, you don't talk right. Shiat, they may not even let you on the bus to get to work if you got the job. Save? Why? People need to eat today, and it'll only get stolen from you anyway." Do you see how that works?

Except blacks were better off in most objective measures in the 1950's and early 60's - higher literacy, lower levels of criminal involvement, fewer broken homes, etc. Yet this was allegedly the most racist time in America since slavery. Blacks should have been the WORST off during this time.

What happened since then? Bad forces took over genuine black culture - making anything "white" associated seem bad. You know what's white (apparently)? Reading, math, sitting still and paying attention in school, etc. Not that all whites are good at those things - but they were ascribed to the "evil" white culture. Basically blacks started applying peer pressure on each other not to excel. Asian families did the opposite - they pushed their kids even harder than the white families to excel. And look where they are now - colleges have anti-Asian quotas and blacks have set-asides and affirmative action.


Yeah, lynching black people SEEMED like a bad idea, but in hindsight it was really just tough love style motivation.
 
2012-01-17 06:25:37 PM

bidness: forgotmydamnusername:
I think it's certainly fair to blame white people for setting up the initial conditions that created a culture of poverty and allowed it to persist. Once that culture is established, it creates a range of attitudes and behaviors which, while perhaps somewhat adaptive and beneficial in an environment of poverty, do not help people escape it. "Why get married if the prospective husband is chronically unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable? That guy is just another mouth to feed. Drop out of high school at 15? Why not? Then you won't have to buy school supplies. Nobody's likely to give you a job. You don't look right, you don't act right, you don't talk right. Shiat, they may not even let you on the bus to get to work if you got the job. Save? Why? People need to eat today, and it'll only get stolen from you anyway." Do you see how that works?

Except blacks were better off in most objective measures in the 1950's and early 60's - higher literacy, lower levels of criminal involvement, fewer broken homes, etc. Yet this was allegedly the most racist time in America since slavery. Blacks should have been the WORST off during this time.

What happened since then? Bad forces took over genuine black culture - making anything "white" associated seem bad. You know what's white (apparently)? Reading, math, sitting still and paying attention in school, etc. Not that all whites are good at those things - but they were ascribed to the "evil" white culture. Basically blacks started applying peer pressure on each other not to excel. Asian families did the opposite - they pushed their kids even harder than the white families to excel. And look where they are now - colleges have anti-Asian quotas and blacks have set-asides and affirmative action.


Does your definition of "better off" include being unable to vote, unable to use public accommodations, separate and unequal education, and campaigns of violence against anyone who challenged those conditions?

Would you like to be "better off" like that?
 
2012-01-17 06:35:35 PM

bidness: forgotmydamnusername:
I think it's certainly fair to blame white people for setting up the initial conditions that created a culture of poverty and allowed it to persist. Once that culture is established, it creates a range of attitudes and behaviors which, while perhaps somewhat adaptive and beneficial in an environment of poverty, do not help people escape it. "Why get married if the prospective husband is chronically unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable? That guy is just another mouth to feed. Drop out of high school at 15? Why not? Then you won't have to buy school supplies. Nobody's likely to give you a job. You don't look right, you don't act right, you don't talk right. Shiat, they may not even let you on the bus to get to work if you got the job. Save? Why? People need to eat today, and it'll only get stolen from you anyway." Do you see how that works?

Except blacks were better off in most objective measures in the 1950's and early 60's - higher literacy, lower levels of criminal involvement, fewer broken homes, etc. Yet this was allegedly the most racist time in America since slavery. Blacks should have been the WORST off during this time.

What happened since then? Bad forces took over genuine black culture - making anything "white" associated seem bad. You know what's white (apparently)? Reading, math, sitting still and paying attention in school, etc. Not that all whites are good at those things - but they were ascribed to the "evil" white culture. Basically blacks started applying peer pressure on each other not to excel. Asian families did the opposite - they pushed their kids even harder than the white families to excel. And look where they are now - colleges have anti-Asian quotas and blacks have set-asides and affirmative action.


The 50s were hardly the most racist time in America since slavery. They integrated the military and the schools during this time. Lynchings had virtually ceased, and the KKK's membership had steadily fallen since the '20s. One thing that's missing from this analysis is deindustrialization. A lot of blacks in the 50s and 60s managed to find factory jobs. We've exported these jobs to Third Worldland or automated them out of existence. Those jobs sucked, but they paid better than McDonalds, and could make husbands look useful and maybe even necessary. A guy with that factory job has something to do besides scrounge up a little cash and kick it on the corner swilling malt liquor until he gets taken to jail. This stuff happens in blue-collar white communities, too. Ever been to Lynn, Massachusetts?
 
2012-01-17 06:39:59 PM

forgotmydamnusername: The 50s were hardly the most racist time in America since slavery.


Except for that whole "getting arrested for sitting on the wrong part of the bus or in Woolworth's" thing, sure.
 
2012-01-17 06:47:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: forgotmydamnusername: The 50s were hardly the most racist time in America since slavery.

Except for that whole "getting arrested for sitting on the wrong part of the bus or in Woolworth's" thing, sure.


Ah, an ill-informed left winger to go the right winger. If you'd failed to get to the back of the bus in 1915, in much of the country, you might have been killed, not arrested. They had Jim Crow in NYC into the '30s. The musicians and dancers performing in the Cotton Club couldn't drink at the bar.
 
2012-01-17 06:53:58 PM

forgotmydamnusername: cameroncrazy1984: forgotmydamnusername: The 50s were hardly the most racist time in America since slavery.

Except for that whole "getting arrested for sitting on the wrong part of the bus or in Woolworth's" thing, sure.

Ah, an ill-informed left winger to go with the right winger. If you'd failed to get to the back of the bus in 1915, in much of the country, you might have been killed, not arrested. They had Jim Crow in NYC into the '30s. The musicians and dancers performing in the Cotton Club couldn't drink at the bar.


Doh! FTFM
 
2012-01-17 07:07:43 PM

forgotmydamnusername: cameroncrazy1984: forgotmydamnusername: The 50s were hardly the most racist time in America since slavery.

Except for that whole "getting arrested for sitting on the wrong part of the bus or in Woolworth's" thing, sure.

Ah, an ill-informed left winger to go the right winger. If you'd failed to get to the back of the bus in 1915, in much of the country, you might have been killed, not arrested. They had Jim Crow in NYC into the '30s. The musicians and dancers performing in the Cotton Club couldn't drink at the bar.


Many people did get killed in the 50s for fighting against racism as well.

Who did you learn American history from, Newt Gingrich?
 
2012-01-17 07:15:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: forgotmydamnusername: cameroncrazy1984: forgotmydamnusername: The 50s were hardly the most racist time in America since slavery.

Except for that whole "getting arrested for sitting on the wrong part of the bus or in Woolworth's" thing, sure.

Ah, an ill-informed left winger to go the right winger. If you'd failed to get to the back of the bus in 1915, in much of the country, you might have been killed, not arrested. They had Jim Crow in NYC into the '30s. The musicians and dancers performing in the Cotton Club couldn't drink at the bar.

Many people did get killed in the 50s for fighting against racism as well.

Who did you learn American history from, Newt Gingrich?


That violence was a reaction to racism being actively resisted in a way that hadn't previously even been possible. It was dwarfed by the levels of violence experienced in the late 19th century, and following the upsurge created by D.W. Griffith's 1915? Southern white supremacist propaganda flick, "Birth of a Nation". You got more of your history from Newtie than I did, I'm afraid.
 
2012-01-17 07:22:01 PM

forgotmydamnusername: That violence was a reaction to racism being actively resisted in a way that hadn't previously even been possible. It was dwarfed by the levels of violence experienced in the late 19th century, and following the upsurge created by D.W. Griffith's 1915? Southern white supremacist propaganda flick, "Birth of a Nation". You got more of your history from Newtie than I did, I'm afraid.


So you're saying that because black people were even able to fight racism, they were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?

Wow. That is an interesting assertion.

Wrong, but interesting.
 
2012-01-17 07:41:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: forgotmydamnusername: That violence was a reaction to racism being actively resisted in a way that hadn't previously even been possible. It was dwarfed by the levels of violence experienced in the late 19th century, and following the upsurge created by D.W. Griffith's 1915? Southern white supremacist propaganda flick, "Birth of a Nation". You got more of your history from Newtie than I did, I'm afraid.

So you're saying that because black people were even able to fight racism, they were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?

Wow. That is an interesting assertion.

Wrong, but interesting.


Slavery ended officially in 1865. That left a whole 35 years of the 19th century to fark over the "nigrahs" as bad as they could without actually enslaving them, so as to preserve as much of the pre-existing economic and political relationship as possible. Materially, because of the wartime economic expansion of the '40s, and loosening repression outside the South, black people were better off than they had been, on the whole. Admittedly, if you were in rural Mississippi, nothing had very obviously changed, and in some places it arguably still hasn't. The social pathologies the right wingers like to point to have always existed in such places, and that hasn't changed much, either. There are more rich black people today than in the '50s, but the same concentration of wealth with increasing numbers getting left behind looks to be occurring in the black community as is happening everywhere else.
 
2012-01-17 08:18:52 PM
Fuggin Bizzy:
bittermang: He didn't say anything about there not being anymore assholes.

He did promise an end to ice giants, though.


I just thought I'd let you know someone appreciated your comment. I actually LOL'd.
 
2012-01-17 08:32:00 PM

colon_pow: Dee Snarl: atomic-age: Wait.

Someone who voluntarily is called "Newt" and has the last name of Gingrich feels somebody else should be ridiculed because of his name?

[www.rankopedia.com image 300x300]

That's what I don't get. Why is it remotely funny or notable that his name is Juan?

because newt called him "juan". and that's racist, or something. you'll have to ask the author of tfa.


OK, I watched the clip, and people did laugh when Newt said "Juan." I have no idea why. I'm gonna assume it's cuz they're morans....
 
2012-01-17 08:51:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: So you're saying that because black people were even able to fight racism, they were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?

Wow. That is an interesting assertion.

Wrong, but interesting.


did you just say that it is wrong to assert that black people were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?
 
2012-01-17 08:57:38 PM

Dangl1ng: A little part of me dies every time I see Fox trot Juan out to beat on him. Juan WAS "Talk of the Nation" on NPR. I used to sit in my car during lunch and listen. It was that good. And now Juan is just a punching bag. I guess NPR didn't pay him enough.

It has to be the money.


Williams got screwed by liberal political correctness. Sad but true. He was brave enough to go on record as admitting he was nervous at sitting near Muslims when he traveled by airplane. His honesty got him lambasted by NPR listeners, because it's apparently wrong to admit that you're nervous about racial stereotypes if you're on a liberal radio station even if it's true. NPR stuck by their star reporter and fired his ass immediately.

I can only guess he went with Fox because he assumed that nobody would hire a disgraced ex-liberal who had the temerity to be honest about his irrational fears. Or for the lulz.
 
2012-01-17 09:01:34 PM

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: So you're saying that because black people were even able to fight racism, they were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?

Wow. That is an interesting assertion.

Wrong, but interesting.

did you just say that it is wrong to assert that black people were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?


No, since. And I will submit that they were not.
 
2012-01-17 09:30:18 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: So you're saying that because black people were even able to fight racism, they were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?

Wow. That is an interesting assertion.

Wrong, but interesting.

did you just say that it is wrong to assert that black people were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?

No, since. And I will submit that they were not.


huh?
 
2012-01-18 12:51:00 AM
Newt wants to be a social engineer. He's also a disgusting lardbucket.
 
2012-01-18 12:53:57 AM

Chindit: did not. He refused to be called a racist for suggesting maybe people would like jobs.


by taking jobs away from adults and giving them to kids who should be studying rather than mopping floors?
 
2012-01-18 12:55:23 AM

StopLurkListen: Did Perry really call Turkey's President Prime Minister Erdogan a terrorist?


Yes. Perry is a farking retard.
 
2012-01-18 01:04:56 AM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: So you're saying that because black people were even able to fight racism, they were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?

Wow. That is an interesting assertion.

Wrong, but interesting.

did you just say that it is wrong to assert that black people were better off in the 50s than at any time during slavery?

No, since. And I will submit that they were not.


Wait. Blacks WERE NOT better off in the 1950s than they were under slavery? They had it BETTER when they were property? Or that blacks have it better now than in the 1950's?

What ARE you trying to say here?
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 08:03:32 AM
"First of all, Juan" - and there was a slight cheer when the former speaker called the Pulitzer Prize winner "Juan" - "the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. I know among the politically correct you're not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.

"Second, you're the one who earlier raised a key point," he continued. "The area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No - they haven't built the road, they haven't helped the people, they haven't done anything. I'm going to continue to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and someday learn how to own the job." The crowd jumped to its feet screaming "Newt! Newt! Newt!" Fox cut to a commercial.

Where to start? Of course Obama hasn't "put" anyone on food stamps. The Bush economy nearly doubled the poverty rate, the GOP wouldn't stand for a stimulus as large as needed, and unemployment and underemployment remain scandalously high"
 
2012-01-20 06:40:42 AM

stpauler: I just enjoyed the fact that here were 5 GOP candidates debating gun laws on MLK Day. The guy who was killed by a gun-toting assassin.

/Wish I could be assassinated instead of killed.


-Dems had a debate on MLK Day 2008.
-Refer to 2nd Amendment.
 
Displayed 35 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report