[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
That said, his ideas are definately worth a look. [/QUOTE]
Until you see his discussion about "Patriotic Education."
http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2647
"The traditional notion of our country as a union of one people, American peoples, has been assaulted with multicultural, situation ethics, and values neutral model where Western values and American civilization are ignored, minimized or ridiculed."
Apparently, being multi-cultural is a bad thing according to Newt.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
That is not at all what he is saying....
It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces.
Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone.
It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces.
Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone.
You are playing Goebbels again...poorly
The guy is not on about illegal immigrants. The guy is having a go at everything that is not WASP. And not in a subtle way either.
The guy is not on about illegal immigrants. The guy is having a go at everything that is not WASP. And not in a subtle way either.
Right now it looks like the democrats who will run are Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
I wouldn't mind having anyone of them as president.
I'm just happy that Bush will finally be out of office.
I wouldn't mind having anyone of them as president.
I'm just happy that Bush will finally be out of office.
Thank God Newt is not a Democrat
Otherwise we'd have a long post about what an awful human being Newt Ginrich is.
Otherwise we'd have a long post about what an awful human being Newt Ginrich is.
I said, quite clearly, that SOME of his ideas are great. Some, not so much.
So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical.
I do, though, agree with the premise of the entire little article that whats his chuck posted.
Take what you want from it, depending on your personal beliefs.
He seems to spell his thoughts out quite clearly in the first three paragraphs.
"We should not worry about people who want to come to the United States to work hard, pay taxes, obey the law, and become Americans. In fact, we should be delighted to have new Americans join our country because historically they have been the source of enormous talent, energy, and courage. From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew Carnegie to Albert Einstein to Henry Kissinger to Arnold Schwarzenegger, people who wanted to improve their lives, and in the process improve the country, have enriched America.
Nor should we be concerned that a substantial number of new Americans are Hispanic. America has a long history of absorbing and blending people of many languages and backgrounds. There have always been non-English newspapers in America and now we have non-English radio and television. I am also not worried that some immigrants come here only to earn money and then go home (Italian immigrants, in particular, did that in the past).
What should worry us is the breakdown of will on the part of America to control the borders and to ensure that new immigrants learn to be American. What should worry us is a breakdown of will to protect America’s unique civilization."
If Newt was a Democrat, and his ideas were the same, I'd agree just as much......
So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical.
I do, though, agree with the premise of the entire little article that whats his chuck posted.
Take what you want from it, depending on your personal beliefs.
He seems to spell his thoughts out quite clearly in the first three paragraphs.
"We should not worry about people who want to come to the United States to work hard, pay taxes, obey the law, and become Americans. In fact, we should be delighted to have new Americans join our country because historically they have been the source of enormous talent, energy, and courage. From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew Carnegie to Albert Einstein to Henry Kissinger to Arnold Schwarzenegger, people who wanted to improve their lives, and in the process improve the country, have enriched America.
Nor should we be concerned that a substantial number of new Americans are Hispanic. America has a long history of absorbing and blending people of many languages and backgrounds. There have always been non-English newspapers in America and now we have non-English radio and television. I am also not worried that some immigrants come here only to earn money and then go home (Italian immigrants, in particular, did that in the past).
What should worry us is the breakdown of will on the part of America to control the borders and to ensure that new immigrants learn to be American. What should worry us is a breakdown of will to protect America’s unique civilization."
If Newt was a Democrat, and his ideas were the same, I'd agree just as much......
But, leave it to old numb-nuts to turn a civilized discussion into calling someone a Nazi propaganda minister, for simply posting a fella's ideas, and asking for opinions on it.
We would expect nothing less, now would we?
We would expect nothing less, now would we?
As I said before, the party has already started between Obama and Clinton...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/289f5b7e-aa45-11db-83b0-0000779e2340.html
This will be fun to watch!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/289f5b7e-aa45-11db-83b0-0000779e2340.html
This will be fun to watch!
sasha your a joke if your serious
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I do, though, agree with the premise of the entire little article that whats his chuck posted.
[/QUOTE]
I am going to assume you were not referring to me, Haystacks, as "whats his chuck." I did not attack you at all, much less with any Nazi remark, so please don't lump me in with TQ. Don't blame me for lowering the debate and being "typical, typical, typical," especially when I did not throw the opening salvo.
As for my comment, it was directed at Newt's discussion on education, not illegal immigration which you mention.
"Unless we act to change things, our next generation will grow up with no understanding of core American values. This will destroy America, as we know it, as surely as if a foreign conqueror had overwhelmed us."
This has little to do with illegal immigration, and everything to do with those educators who do not white-wash American history. According to Newt, too many educators teach "some radical reinterpretation or bias that distorts America and defames our society."
I do, though, agree with the premise of the entire little article that whats his chuck posted.
[/QUOTE]
I am going to assume you were not referring to me, Haystacks, as "whats his chuck." I did not attack you at all, much less with any Nazi remark, so please don't lump me in with TQ. Don't blame me for lowering the debate and being "typical, typical, typical," especially when I did not throw the opening salvo.
As for my comment, it was directed at Newt's discussion on education, not illegal immigration which you mention.
"Unless we act to change things, our next generation will grow up with no understanding of core American values. This will destroy America, as we know it, as surely as if a foreign conqueror had overwhelmed us."
This has little to do with illegal immigration, and everything to do with those educators who do not white-wash American history. According to Newt, too many educators teach "some radical reinterpretation or bias that distorts America and defames our society."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>?Sasha wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. [/QUOTE]
American women aren't.
; )[/QUOTE]
I wish I could agree with you Sasha.
I'm afraid too many American women still feel a woman's place is in the home... so they won't vote for her. Too many others say a woman with the balls to run for President of the US should have had the balls to kick her husband to the curb when he cheated on her... so they won't vote for her. Then there are those who can't think for themselves. They won't do anything until they gauge what others are doing, so who knows whether they'll vote for her. And finally, there's the minority - about whom you're speaking - who has already donated to Ms. Clinton's campaign.
Considering Bush was elected not once but twice, and that 30-odd percent of the population still gives him the thumbs-up, I'd say it's impossible to guess who - or what - we'll have as our next president. Let's just hope it's someone who can undo at least some damage this administration has caused.
R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. [/QUOTE]
American women aren't.
; )[/QUOTE]
I wish I could agree with you Sasha.
I'm afraid too many American women still feel a woman's place is in the home... so they won't vote for her. Too many others say a woman with the balls to run for President of the US should have had the balls to kick her husband to the curb when he cheated on her... so they won't vote for her. Then there are those who can't think for themselves. They won't do anything until they gauge what others are doing, so who knows whether they'll vote for her. And finally, there's the minority - about whom you're speaking - who has already donated to Ms. Clinton's campaign.
Considering Bush was elected not once but twice, and that 30-odd percent of the population still gives him the thumbs-up, I'd say it's impossible to guess who - or what - we'll have as our next president. Let's just hope it's someone who can undo at least some damage this administration has caused.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sherwood Forest wrote: [/QUOTENAME]sasha your a joke if your serious[/QUOTE]
That would be...Sasha, you're a joke if you're serious.
Please elaborate.
That would be...Sasha, you're a joke if you're serious.
Please elaborate.
About Hillary, I don't think she'd be the ideal choice for office because I feel that a President should have prior military experience since they are the Commander in Chief of one of the largest, and most powerful armies in the world. Just throwing that out there.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: [/QUOTENAME]About Hillary, I don't think she'd be the ideal choice for office because I feel that a President should have prior military experience since they are the Commander in Chief of one of the largest, and most powerful armies in the world. [/QUOTE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_U.S._Presidents#Presidents_by_average_scholar_rank
Of that average ranking of the top 10 presidents in various scholarly assements of presidential rankings:
-3 were military generals
-3 were members of the military for a very short period of time (Lincoln, for instance, was only in a militia for a couple months and saw no combat)
-4 had no military experience at all until they became President and Commander in Chief
It should also be noted that Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the two presidents during the First and Second World Wars and members of the top 10, were never in the military.
Thus, I would argue that military experience is not a necessity to becoming a great president, much less an average president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_U.S._Presidents#Presidents_by_average_scholar_rank
Of that average ranking of the top 10 presidents in various scholarly assements of presidential rankings:
-3 were military generals
-3 were members of the military for a very short period of time (Lincoln, for instance, was only in a militia for a couple months and saw no combat)
-4 had no military experience at all until they became President and Commander in Chief
It should also be noted that Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the two presidents during the First and Second World Wars and members of the top 10, were never in the military.
Thus, I would argue that military experience is not a necessity to becoming a great president, much less an average president.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote:[/QUOTENAME] That is not at all what he is saying....
It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces.
Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I said, quite clearly, that SOME of his ideas are great. Some, not so much.
So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical. [/QUOTE]
So basically, you are first defending him, then, when you see that you have lost that, you accuse us of attacking you over something you *haven't said*, because you only agree with *some of his ideas* as being good? Now that's the lowest of all low tricks in the book, switching positions mid-argument.
It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces.
Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I said, quite clearly, that SOME of his ideas are great. Some, not so much.
So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical. [/QUOTE]
So basically, you are first defending him, then, when you see that you have lost that, you accuse us of attacking you over something you *haven't said*, because you only agree with *some of his ideas* as being good? Now that's the lowest of all low tricks in the book, switching positions mid-argument.