1. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "I’ve said this a thousand times, if you don’t speak good grammar – English with good grammar – you’re not going to get the kinds of jobs that you want.... If there’s a lot of jargon, double negatives, and things like that, they hurt your career prospects... People think its cute to jive, and it may be for entertainment, but ya just still have to have great command of the english language."
2. U.S. President Barack Obama: "This bill would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are already in this country illegally--a pathway that includes passing a background check, learning English, paying taxes and a penalty, and then going to the back of the line behind everyone who's playing by the rules and trying to come here legally."
3. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich: "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... Second … we should establish that citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English."
4. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney: "And Reagan would have never offended Hispanics as Gingrich did when he said Spanish is the language of the ghetto."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
130 comments:
Romney is right, of course.
A Democrat can say things, true or not, a Republican cannot, true or not.
It's just the way it is.
Democrats know this, and exploit it.
Republicans forget this, until they say something that provokes faux political outrage, and then complain about the double-standards, making themselves look even worse.
The media, of course, is completely on board with the play, and do not even need to be goaded to blow the whistle.
I've been giving some thought, lately, to teaching myself Spanish.
I could go to the Dunkin' Donuts with a pickup truck and hire my own landscapers.
Cut out the middleman.
Bilingual education - How else are we gonna keep our lawns mowed & our hotel beds made.
If immigrants learn English & participate in the American dream, whatever will we do for cheap labor.
Double standards? Who'd have thunk it?
I set out to learn Spanish a number of years ago. I never became fluent but I could get the gist of the conversation. What I learned is that Spanish speakers aren't saying anything more interesting than English speakers are.
I watched South American and Hmong (to name just two) people come to this country, and within 10 years, speak better English than a lot of blacks from the hood.
If you know Latin, espanol is easy. I
It's interesting how the people who get all huffy about these things are always the country club white guys first (like half of Choom), and then their puppets in the appropriate ethnic (or sexual) front.
I'm not sure whether Romney sincerely misunderstood Newt or was underlining the point that Newt's comments could be easily misunderstood.
At any rate, English ought to be the language of the United States. Immigrants ought to learn it, although I admit that I obviously had an easier time clearing that bar having migrated from elsewhere in the anglosphere than would someone who migrated from the hispanosphere. By the same token, however, American education ought to do a better job of teaching English—I hear and see college graduates whose command of their own language is not just bad, but, frankly, inadequate. And American education ought to do a better job of ensuring that all high school graduates are at least proficient in a foreign language. It doesn't matter what language, because the primary benefit is not so much what they learn about that language but what they will learn about their own: It teaches them to think about language and syntax. Spanish is a logical target language today; in a decade, Chinese may be.
And, I might add, American education ought to ensure that no one leaves high school without at least a basic understanding of latin grammar and a rudimentary vocabulary. Baby steps.
"...if you don't speak good grammar..."
Obviously Bloomberg is no grammarian. The proper use of the term should be: "...If you don't use good grammar..." One speaks English; one uses and/or employs grammar.
No one calls out a Republican faster than another Republican. No wonder they can't win.
"Racist" is the weapon democrats use against non-racists. To shut them up.
Martin Bashir and the cast at MSDNC understand this best.
It's rather disgusting, pathetic, tired and gross.
Thanks for the reminder that during the primary season Romney's first choice of targets to attack was fellow Republicans. And then after trashing them, he expected their supporters to come over and vote for him.
You reap what you sow.
I used to really like you, AprilApple, but if you keep insisting on mentioning the name of that odious weasel Bashir I'm going to have to leave you off my Christmas Card list..
And the next headline "Rabid Anti-Semite criticises Mayor Bloomberg for mispeaking". So there.
wyo sis said...
No one calls out a Republican faster than another Republican. No wonder they can't win.
This was the primaries, dear.
Remember how Hillary! used the 3 AM phone call?
Bender said...
Thanks for the reminder that during the primary season Romney's first choice of targets to attack was fellow Republicans. And then after trashing them, he expected their supporters to come over and vote for him.
You reap what you sow.
Oh, Christ, what utter nonsense.
The whiners bitch when Romney is "too tough" and they bitch when he isn't "tough enough".
Anything to justify the whining and the phony "Toldja so".
the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto
I think Romney is right, Reagan never would have said that. Even if you excuse any possible racism or elitism, it's still a harsh and negative way to frame it.
I do believe all immigrants to the USA should learn English. But you can say that in any number of ways. And Reagan would have found a nicer way to put it.
Thanks for the reminder that during the primary season Romney's first choice of targets to attack was fellow Republicans.
Yes, it's ironic to invoke Reagan while attacking Republicans
What's wrong with immersion? When I first went to school I didn't speak English. My teacher called me que pasa. Three years later I was winning spelling bees. It never occurred to us not to learn English.
There's certainly a double standard but I don't think this is a good example of it. Gingrich's statement was a lot more inflammatory because of the use of the word "ghetto."
Romney tough??
Again, the only time he ever got "tough" was to trash his own. Even now the Republican apparatchiks want to destroy fellow Republicans (conservatives) more than really stop or undo anything Obama has done.
Romney was never, would never have been, and never will be the solution. He and his lackeys are the problem.
If you know Latin, espanol is easy.
That explains why so many Latin Americans speak Spanish.
Meanwhile, who the hell is that white guy of privilege Romney to speak for Hispanics? And who the hell is he to treat them all the same?
The various people who make up Latino community can speak for themselves. They don't need Romney to come and treat them like children by saying what they think or believe -- many of whom agree that immersion and learning the common language is necessary to succeed.
"I'm not sure whether Romney sincerely misunderstood Newt or was underlining the point that Newt's comments could be easily misunderstood."
I think he was making the same point I made (sarcastically) in the post title. A Republican is going to get slammed talking like that. Newt's old quotes are going to be used against him, so I need to show you that before you accept him as the candidate.
So we were to pick Mitt, because he's more circumspect in his speech.
It was all a matter of deciding how Republicans want to lose. With some nasty fighting, or some gracious submission.
And while we are at it, who the hell is Romney to claim to speak for Reagan?
Back in the 80s and 90s, Romney OPPOSED Reagan. “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Bender said...
Romney tough??
Again, the only time he ever got "tough" was to trash his own.
That's what you do in a primary.
Even now the Republican apparatchiks want to destroy fellow Republicans (conservatives) more than really stop or undo anything Obama has done.
But that's not him.
Far as I know the only person he's criticized lately is old Choomie.
Romney was never, would never have been, and never will be the solution. He and his lackeys are the problem.
Lackeys???
Romney was, and is, a good man. He ran a good enough race that the Choom Gang had to crank up the vote fraud machine to win.
And, if he had won (which I think, in fact, he did), Bender would be whining about that.
Here is a funny video of Newt apologizing in Spanish.
Lol. You're so dumb. Haha. That's because the Democrats' statements aren't accompanied by hostile sentiments advocating the much worse fate of deportation. That kind of greater ill-will (or goodwill in their case) offsets whatever you want to say about language acquisition (or refinement, more properly. Advocating good grammar is hardly a way to encourage antipathy based on origin, you silly narcissus plant). Democrats are encouraging legal integration and citizenship, and the log in your eye is too damn big to realize that Republicans, in all their vainglorious rallying cries to border walls and deportation, aren't. Or if they are, they are overshadowed by those overtly hostile fixations.
So stupid.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Lol. You're so dumb. Haha. That's because the Democrats' statements aren't accompanied by hostile sentiments advocating the much worse fate of deportation. That kind of greater ill-will (or goodwill in their case) offsets whatever you want to say about language acquisition (or refinement, more properly.
Anybody who can say things like Ritmo says has the corner on dumb.
On recent episode of the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" Yolanda Foster who is an immigrant from Holland told some Mexican workers who were doing some repairs in her home that they should learn English if they want to get anywhere in this country.
A firestorm of criticism ensued.
Back in the day you were considered a tin horn or a cooch if you didn't speak English without an accent. Now it is a hate crime if you demand that the people you are dealing with speak English.
Democrats are encouraging legal integration and citizenship
I'll just assume you meant "immigration" and continue.
The assertion that amnesty for people who entered the US illegally somehow encourages legal immigration is the sort of absurdist humor that you do better than any other lib here.
It would be wise to note that the Hispanic community is not monolithic.
There are many fissures between different groups because of their nation of origin.
We will be hearing a lot about that when Marco Rubio runs because the mainstream media will tell us that Cubans are not "real" Hispanics.
So the issue of immigration will be split every which way and be a tar baby for any one who touches it.
"And Reagan would have never offended Hispanics as Gingrich did when he said Spanish is the language of the ghetto."
Yeah. Reagan, a Californian, would have known Spanish is the language of the barrio.
If Uncle Remus were awake he would say that is racist.
Everyone who's anyone knows that Spanish is the language of the barrio, not the ghetto. Outside of that, go away, Mitt, you had your shot.
Ed, call me dumb all you want to, dumbo.
And then address my argument directly. Which Democrat has made it a point to emphasize (or even mention, really) deportation or border security as a more important consideration than what to do with Mexican immigrants already in the country?
Cause I can point to a whole slew of Republicans who have.
The constituency in question has a way of perceiving this as hostile.
And that's the problem with Republicans. They whine and complain and can't even understand why the hostile things they say and advocate come across as hostile.
It's funny, in a way. They should make a caricature of a viking who sits down on a rocky crag, and laments about how poor his image has been made to look by everybody. Because, underneath all the raping and pillaging, he really isn't such a bad guy.
You just got to get to know him, is all. When he's not raping and pillaging. It's really your fault for refusing to see that good side of him.
Republicans. Ha.
Romney needs to take advantage of an honorable retirement and go off and marry some more sister wives or something.
He is just a loser and should realize that and leave the stage to new aspirants.
I mean that would be like some team like say the Red Sox hiring a loser manager like....I don't know ...Bobby Valentine... and expecting that he could turn things around.
That never works.
Adios Mitt. Vaya con Dios.
I'll just assume you meant "immigration" and continue.
Nope. I don't care.
Let your side fixate on that part of the equation, and reap the political benefits and downfall of the attendant hostility it telegraphs.
It's not Hispanics you're appealing to with the immigration fixation. It's the xenophobes. Come on already, just accept that fact.
There are people with phobias that you appeal to, knowingly or not (maybe it's become reflexive after all these years), but the larger and more important constituency picks up on it.
Of course, blaming it on some Democratic plot makes things easier to digest, so you have that.
Let Chris Christie talk up the horn of Rhino in this weeks episode of Daktari.
A pretty vague Democratic plot, I should say.
And that's the problem with Republicans. They whine and complain and can't even understand why the hostile things they say and advocate come across as hostile.
Yes. They're a bunch of whiny bitches who keep howling about "enforcing the law".
Fuckin' racist goobers.
Ritmo, your compulsion to score cheap shots at Repubs drives you to say incredibly stupid things.
Please explain what you think is the effect of mass immigration of low-skilled workers on the earnings of low-skilled US citizens.
If you don't care about that, then your position makes perfect sense. But then pls STFU about growing inequality in the US.
And in fairness to Newt he was using ghetto in it's classical sense. In Europe a ghetto was a place where a minority (usually Jews) lived. The did this for self protection because the gentiles would draw straws to see who did the looting and killing this week
Yes. They're a bunch of whiny bitches who keep howling about "enforcing the law".
As every lawyer knows, enforcement is always a matter of selective priorities. Republicans say there are too many laws. Lawyers know that good enforcement and good government dictate that you allocate the best resources you have toward enforcing the laws that matter the most. It's an economic thing that Republicans seem to go apeshit goofy over when it comes to the fact that governments, too, need to determine priorities and allocate resources accordingly.
Fuckin' racist goobers.
I know. Lee Atwater was just so subtle and sophisticated in his politicking. We should appreciate that.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Ed, call me dumb all you want to, dumbo.
And then address my argument directly. Which Democrat has made it a point to emphasize (or even mention, really) deportation or border security as a more important consideration than what to do with Mexican immigrants already in the country?
No, the issue is the language used by Bloomie and Choomie.
Choomie spent most of his first term deporting (not talking about it, doing it) illegals and getting a lot of flak from the Hispanics.
Deeds, not words.
Lee Atwater?
What did you drink for b'fast?
Poor Ritmo can't seem to figure out that writing things like "Democrats' statements aren't accompanied by hostile sentiments" and "[Republicans] can't even understand why the hostile things they say and advocate come across as hostile" don't really work when your own comments are soaked with hostile sentiments and vicious insults. If you're going to recommend politeness, you might want to show some yourself. Or is it somehow OK to be vicious and hostile to law-abiding fellow citizens if they belong to a different party but not OK to be hostile to criminal non-citizens?
Ritmo, your compulsion to score cheap shots at Repubs drives you to say incredibly stupid things.
It's not a cheap shot nor an incredibly stupid thing to admit the bleeping obvious truth that Republicans says incredibly stupid things if not appearing hostile to both hispanic voters and those sympathetic to them are a concern at all.
Please explain what you think is the effect of mass immigration of low-skilled workers on the earnings of low-skilled US citizens.
I could, but why get into that? The point is that the Republicans don't even understand their own political optics. Or maybe they do, but somehow think the open-ended, potentially contentious and complicated conversation you're inviting me into is more politically important.
If you don't care about that, then your position makes perfect sense. But then pls STFU about growing inequality in the US.
I could care about a lot of things. I don't have a problem debating controversial topics. But I'm not a politician. But Athouse's post is inherently about the politics alone. What the fuck is not to get about that?
As every lawyer knows, enforcement is always a matter of selective priorities.
So, when AZ was willing to provide its own enforcement resources to help out the feds, were you ok w/ that?
I mean, if it's all just a matter of "selective priorities", any help should be welcome, right?
R&B wrote 12:09: "Which Democrat has made it a point to emphasize ... border security as a more important consideration than what to do with Mexican immigrants already in the country? ...."
Providing adequate border security is "hostile" and analogous to "raping and pillaging" only if you are a sociopathic lefty who thinks winning elections is more important than addressing the nations problems.
Which, of course, is our problem exactly - sociopathic lefties leading Obamadupes down the primrose path.
Lee Atwater?
What did you drink for b'fast?
The same thing that Saint Reagan drank for electoral success!
But I just sampled. Didn't imbibe deeply like he and Bush (and their progeny) did.
I could, but why get into that?
Put me down for, "b/c the deep contradictions in std Dem talking points would be exposed."
Providing adequate border security is "hostile" and analogous to "raping and pillaging" only if you are a sociopathic lefty who thinks winning elections is more important than addressing the nations problems.
I see Lee Atwater taught you well, young disciple!
Life has contradictions, Chip.
Address your complaints to the Department of "Life".
It's funny, in a way. They should make a caricature of a viking who sits down on a rocky crag, and laments about how poor his image has been made to look by everybody. Because, underneath all the raping and pillaging, he really isn't such a bad guy.
No wonder you were so worked up about that judge's mention of prison and crime statistics the other day. You really do think white people are evil.
No wonder you were so worked up about that judge's mention of prison and crime statistics the other day. You really do think white people are evil.
Right, Pollo. That's intelligent. Now you're getting somewhere...
Lol.
You caricaturize yourself, R&B--without much help. You are the only one who can't see it.
Baron Zemo said...
Romney needs to take advantage of an honorable retirement and go off and marry some more sister wives or something.
He is just a loser and should realize that and leave the stage to new aspirants.
No, he won. All the gyrations of the Choom Gang tend to prove it.
The surveillance led to the intimidation and, when it didn't work (and it didn't), they turned on the vote fraud machine.
PS What's the percentage of "ineligible" votes in the Empire State?
Mexicans and Mexican-Americans oppose policies that will slow the occupation of the US. Is that not obvious?
Sé lo que estoy hablando.
You caricaturize yourself, R&B--without much help. You are the only one who can't see it.
People are more complex than periodic tables, but the socially functional already know that.
@R&B: When Althouse wrote this the other day, I thought she might also be referring to you:
Whenever I encounter someone who insists that he's purely reasoning about the issues and deciding everything rationally, I always wonder what's going on in his psyche that's given rise to his need to be seen that way.
Unless she shows up here and denies it, I still think she might be referring to you just as well.
Partisan Democrat: "Gun control laws are sensible!"
Republican: "You don't know who you're offending!"
Althousian: "Border security and deportation rhetoric helps advance the cause of security and totally objective/coherent (like it ever existed) enforcement"
Anyone with a clue: "You're offending a lot of constituencies necessary for gaining office"
Althousian: "Not fair!!! Waaaahhh!"
Whenever I encounter someone who insists that he's purely reasoning about the issues and deciding everything rationally, I always wonder what's going on in his psyche that's given rise to his need to be seen that way.
Unless she shows up here and denies it, I still think she might be referring to you just as well.
I don't care who she's referring to. I don't look at her as some mommy whose approval over my own opinions I need to secure. Maybe you do.
But the rational (and realistic) answer to any actual challenge contained in your counselor's argument (seeing as you prefer she do your arguing for you), is that life has gradients, and not just all-or-nothing options. Black-or-white thinking prevents someone from understanding that how much you pay for something is a different argument from whether you get it or not.
So someone can be more rational without foresaking any non-rational considerations. Or they can be more irrational. Again, it's only an all-or-nothing/either-or thing to black-and-white thinkers.
@R&B: I think you're just afraid to confront your own prejudices. I'll enumerate some of them, in the form of refutations:
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Middle Americans.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with white people.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with heteronormality.
There is nothing intrinsically evil about the military.
There is nothing intrinsically evil about carbon based fuels.
I could name others.
Ritmo is on to something.
We need to go back to the Lee Atwater days. Or the James Carville days.
The days were you would not be afraid to go after your opponent in every way possible. Especially unfair ways to demonizes your opponent.
We need to make Willie Horton commercials and not let him get elected by playing Mr. Nice Guy on Meet the Press.
I could exercise my constitutional rights to speak Norwegian, but here in Albuquerque it would not get me very far.
We currently have a little bit of a fuss because a referee ejected a kid from a basketball game for speaking Spanish on the court. The media does not mention it, but I suspect the referee's action was due more to what was said than that it was said in Spanish. Or he did not speak Spanish well enough to understand it, but could tell from the tone that it was not good.
The last three dust-ups we have had about "speaking Spanish" have been that way; it was not about the Spanish, but about what was said and how.
One more time; regardless of what language you are speaking in, do not assume there is no one around to understand what you are saying.
English is one of the official languages in both Pakistan and India, as well as in many other countries around the world because it is the one language they all understand at least a little of.
Remember the pictures from the bin Laden raid and the big sign in the hillside above Abbottabad ("Abbot's Town," named for the Englishman who founded it, or owned a place there, or something) reading "Go Bengal Tigers!" or something like that? Not only in English, but this thing of painting signs exhorting sports teams up in the hills above town is a very American custom. The English would never permit it.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Althousian: "Border security and deportation rhetoric helps advance the cause of security and totally objective/coherent (like it ever existed) enforcement"
Anyone with a clue: "You're offending a lot of constituencies necessary for gaining office"
Anyone with a REAL clue: No, they're not. Immigration (and for the illegals, amnesty) are way down on everybody's priorities. And Hispanics tend to be less amnesty-friendly the longer they're here.
Ritmo: "Facts, you're using facts!!!!! Not fair!!! Not fair!!! Not fair!!! Waaaahhh! Waaaahhh! Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
@R&B: I forgot to mention guns. I think you're afraid of guns. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with guns.
My first prejudice is anti-esssentialism, so I object to your framing with "intrinsically wrong" or "intrinsically evil" in the first place. Things become wrong (or even "evil", a trickier concept) based on how they are used. Not generally on what they are. You are assuming that your thinking on this is more complex than my own, for some reason.
In any event, I'd love to know which of your own prejudices you've ever confronted, but I somehow doubt that you'd enthusiastically grant me the reciprocity of that courtesy.
Ritmo is on to something.
We need to go back to the Lee Atwater days.
Yeah, but I don't think it's going to work, dude. Demographics.
And, I think the public just wants less emotional arguments these days when it comes to group issues.
Ritmo: "Facts, you're using facts!!!!! Not fair!!! Not fair!!! Not fair!!! Waaaahhh! Waaaahhh! Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
Ed: You're demonstrating that MY facts aren't as important or as relevant as YOURS!!! Not fair!!! Not fair!!! Not fair!!! Waaaahhh! Waaaahhh! Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
Well, Ritmo, with your behavior on this blog, you are not due any courtesy.
Oh it will work.
You just have to find the fault lines in the coalition to split it up.
As I said the Hispanic demo is not monolithic. You can split it off into segments.
That happens all the time in New York City with the Jewish community.
They split the orthodox off from the reform and conservative Jews.
We just need to be smart in our deviltry.
Obama won strictly on emotion.
Nobody voted for a totally inexperienced Senator on the grounds that he was prepared for the job.
It was all feel good emotion.
Hagar speaks for the blog, and uses its blog-rules to over-ride basic expectations of human behavior. Pollo and I interact widely outside of this little sandbox, I'll have you know.
In any event, how will the voting shape up? Anyone else want to second that nomination? Hagar for 1st ever Speaker of the Blog! Hurray!
You are assuming that your thinking on this is more complex than my own, for some reason.
I think I am more complex than you know. I grew immersed in many prejudices, rebelled (left America even), reconsidered, and reformulated and reassimilated. Aside from still being white and straight, I think I've lived both sides of the prejudices I projected onto you. That is why it is relatively easy for me (and others) to spot them in you.
Well I think courtesy is overrated.
As does the Nutty Perfessor.
She is never courteous to her commentors. In fact when she interacts with them it is most often contemporaneous at best.
In any event, it's funny that Hagar wants to deny the importance of reciprocity in courtesy. You wouldn't think that would be a contentious point, but Hagar certainly finds a way to see it.
He'd make an even better Speaker of the Blog than I thought. Go Hagar!
As does the Nutty Perfessor.
She is never courteous to her commentors. In fact when she interacts with them...
No doubt, that.
Hear, hear!
I think I am more complex than you know. I grew immersed in many prejudices, rebelled (left America even), reconsidered, and reformulated and reassimilated. Aside from still being white and straight, I think I've lived both sides of the prejudices I projected onto you. That is why it is relatively easy for me (and others) to spot them in you.
It's good to know that you're so much more complex than you give others credit for, Pollo. And no simple, syllogistic tautology there, of course. You simply refused to engage the very argument that you started... on the basis of, what was it again, bumper sticker wedge issues.
Surely a very complex and personal way to get a reading into someone's psyche. Just subject them to the yes/no only questions available on a survey devised by political strategists.
Surely you must be privy to the deep insights of humanity, Pollo. No doubt. Modern political strategists get their talking points from you! no less!
Why are Pollo and Hagar and I arguing here? It doesn't even make sense. I'm in pretty solid agreement with Simon on the NSA thread, and over here Pollo is telling me I'm not complex. That hurts.
Surely you must be privy to the deep insights of humanity, Pollo. No doubt. Modern political strategists get their talking points from you! no less!
If I came across as pompous, then I succeeded in getting you to feel about me how others often feel about you (or so I've read). Win-win insight for both of us.
edutcher said...
Rhythm and Balls said...
You're demonstrating that MY facts aren't as important or as relevant as YOURS!!!
No, I'm demonstrating how you react when I throw facts against your propaganda.
"Not fair!!! Not fair!!! Not faiiiirrrrr!!! Waaaahhh! Waaaahhh! Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
Baron Zemo said...
Well I think courtesy is overrated.
As does the Nutty Perfessor.
She is never courteous to her commentors. In fact when she interacts with them it is most often contemporaneous at best.
No, she can be quite courteous, and has been, but, she has, of late, done more to keep people at arm's length.
The last 6 months or so, I think she's been dealing with some hard issues (speculation on my part) that have put an edge on the things she says to us.
Edutcher peeps into Althouse's windows. He knows all the intimate details......
Edutcher peeps into Althouse's windows. He knows all the intimate details......
There was a "journolist" who actually did that up in Wasilla, Alaska. He was lauded and richly rewarded.
I don't know ed she seems to have smacked you around a lot lately.
And you are her loyalist fanboy.
Just sayn'
Shove it.
Inga said...
Edutcher peeps into Althouse's windows. He knows all the intimate details.....
Fuck you (she wishes).
But she's been snapping at an awful lot of people the last six months and I have a couple of theories.
We are allowed to speculate.
I mean, I'm still trying to figure how your "daughter" went from a jarhead to a swab.
Edutcher, what an incredible idiot you are. Navy Corpsmen and women are attached to the Marines. The Marines do not have their own medics, they use Navy Corpsmen as their medics, you dumbass. My daughter was attached to the MLG that were in Camp Leatherneck for a year. She wears a Marine uniform, she is essentially a Marine while attached to the Marines. She continues to be attached to the 1st MLG while in Camp Pendleton. She is what is called a FMF(Fleet Marine Force) Corpsman. She also has a warfare device she proudly wears on her uniform bestowed on her by the marines as well as other commendations by the Marines.
Why do you speak about things you know NOTHING about. Quit mentioning m daughter if you know nothing about the Marines and the Navy.
Ignoramus.
The Fleet Marine Force (FMF) Enlisted Warfare Specialist Device
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...etMFBadge.jpegThe Fleet Marine Force (FMF) Enlisted Warfare Specialist Device is a qualification insignia of the United States Navy earned by Navy enlisted members assigned to the Fleet Marine Force of the U.S. Marine Corps who have successfully completed the necessary requirements of the Enlisted Fleet Marine Force Warfare Specialist (EFMFWS) Program per OPNAV Instruction 1414.4B. This involves serving one year with a Marine Corps Unit (two years for reserves), passing the Marine Physical Fitness Test (PFT), a written test, demonstrating skills used in service with the Marines such as weapon breakdown and familiarization,land navigation,combat communications and an oral examination by senior enlisted sailors who are FMF qualified. The Enlisted Fleet Marine Force Warfare Specialist designation is most commonly awarded to the Hospital Corpsman (HM) and Religious Programs Specialist (RP) ratings, although it is also awarded to other sailors who support Marine Corps Commands.
An enlisted person who has qualified as a EFMFWS may place the designator (FMF) after his/rate and rating; for example, HM2 Radabaugh, having qualified for his FMF pin, is identified as HM2(FMF) Radabaugh.
Although this is a qualification is for Navy enlisted personnel, it is unique in that only Commanding Generals or Commanding Officers of qualifying U.S. Marine Corps commands, Division, Group, or Wing; can approve awarding of the designation.
The insignia is a silver metal device depicting the eagle, globe and anchor atop two crossed rifles on a background of ocean swells breaking on a sandy beach.
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?90301-The-Fleet-Marine-Force-(FMF)-Enlisted-Warfare-Specialist-Device
Shut the fuck up about my daughter edumber, you weirdo and pervert, you despicable ignorant fool.
"Why are Pollo and Hagar and I arguing here?"
I think it's because, regardless of your stance on a topic, you invariably behave like a dick.
Baron Zemo said...
"[Althouse] is never courteous to her commentors. In fact when she interacts with them it is most often contemporaneous at best."
You mean "contemptuous"—it is hardly a criticism to say that she interacts with them within the same period of time.
Courtesy may be overrated, but using the right words most certainly is not.
You are exactly right Simon.
Spell check did me in again.
Thank you.
I think Althouse is courteous enough -- she is rarely rude or snarky to people. But 'courteous' and 'nice' or 'engaging' are not the same thing.
I wouldn't be surprised if most of the commenters didn't bug the shit out of her.
I know.
Imagine how great this blog would be if there were no messy comments.
It would be perfect.
I think it is perfectly fine when the Nutty Perfessor is rude and snarky and contemptuous of those she deems inferior in status.
Then you get to see what she is really like in real life.
That's keeping it real yo!
Inga said...
Edutcher, what an incredible idiot you are. Navy Corpsmen and women are attached to the Marines. The Marines do not have their own medics, they use Navy Corpsmen as their medics, you dumbass. My daughter was attached to the MLG that were in Camp Leatherneck for a year. She wears a Marine uniform, she is essentially a Marine while attached to the Marines. She continues to be attached to the 1st MLG while in Camp Pendleton. She is what is called a FMF(Fleet Marine Force) Corpsman. She also has a warfare device she proudly wears on her uniform bestowed on her by the marines as well as other commendations by the Marines.
You've called her a Marine, but she's a sailor, not a Marine, as we now find out.
Like the Days Of Our Lives, the story keeps evolving...
When you get it straight, let us all know.
Why do you speak about things you know NOTHING about. Quit mentioning m daughter if you know nothing about the Marines and the Navy.
Ignoramus.
You keep calling her a Marine. She's not, she's a Navy Corpsman, so you're the ignoramus.
Or the phony.
After all, it was your Messiah that called her a "corpseman".
Three times.
Baron Zemo said...
I think it is perfectly fine when the Nutty Perfessor is rude and snarky and contemptuous of those she deems inferior in status.
Then you get to see what she is really like in real life.
That's keeping it real yo!
Bloody Sunday was 2 years ago.
Get over it.
Again, you unbelievably STUPID man, do you not understand the relationship between the Navy and the Marines? I have ALWAYS said she was in the Navy ATTACHED to the Marines, you stupid stupid old fool.
Why aren't you embarrassed to show your ignorance, instead you double down on dumb. Take your Aricept, you obviously need an increased dose, ask the Blonde to go get it for you.
No, dear, you always called her a Marine and now you're throwing a fit because you've been caught in one of your lies.
So much easier to tell the truth, isn't it, Allie Oop, or Mitochondri-Allie, or whoever you were before that?
You lying sack of shit, you pathetic loon, I NEVER called her aMarine, even if I would've it would NOT have been wrong to d so, don't you get it YET? How fucking dumb can you get, my god, I'm embarrassed for you.
You should never show your senile self on Althouse again, I will always henceforth remind you of your abject ignorance of today.
And you, a pussy, Paco.
As for nutty perfess, she's rude to the idea of a responsibly cogent thought. And that's enough to bug the shit out of me.
It's really the narcissism. I don't mind people being arrogant about accuracy, as long as they can take it.
Hey Simon how do you spell "lickspittle"?
Inga poisoned Mr. Ed with anti-freeze: chirbit
"Lickspittle" is correct - as Simon would probably attest. You didn't get the red dots below it, did you?
That's the one thing that bugs me about all this auto-correcting Cupertino Apple business. Have you checked out the website "Damn you, Autocorrect!"? Some funny threads on that one.
Edumber, you PRETEND to know Althouse and you pretend to know why she has been calling you on your repeated wrong-headedness, she has done this repeatedly over the last 6 months because she is probably as sick to death of your stupidity as I am and ohers here as well, no doubt.
I do not pretend anything.
I speculate as to her change in mood. And I know her only insofar as we have conversed a few times in email.
As I've said.
You pretend all over the place (actually she just lies through her teeth) and you called her a Marine lots of times.
Calm down, take a snort of schnapps, listen to a couple of choruses of "Yes, We Can", and remind yourself you're making a spectacle her in the name of Hopenchange.
And wipe your chin.
Good God, the utter abject lunacy. Now I feel bad for you, what a pathetic man you must be. IF here is really a BLONDE which I seriously doubt, she is a saint.
If you're talking about yourself, I agree.
Edutcher, time for a Depends change the Blonde is looking for you.
Now stop addressing me you loon.
Ritmo wrot:
"As every lawyer knows, enforcement is always a matter of selective priorities. Republicans say there are too many laws. Lawyers know that good enforcement and good government dictate that you allocate the best resources you have toward enforcing the laws that matter the most. It's an economic thing that Republicans seem to go apeshit goofy over when it comes to the fact that governments, too, need to determine priorities and allocate resources accordingly."
------------------------
They just need to allocate the resources the way you want them to, otherwise they're racist. Right?
I would think that those arguing we aren't sufficiently enforcing our immigration laws are suggesting that those are laws that should be enforced, and thus that we should be allocationg our resources to enforcing those laws. And are suggesting that govt needs to do that.
WHat laws matter the most? Are you the arbiter of that Ritmo?
Inga said...
Edutcher, time for a Depends change the Blonde is looking for you.
Now stop addressing me you loon.
You've been the one shrieking at me, I just defend myself against your lies.
So you can shut up anytime you want.
Ritmo wrote:
It's not a cheap shot nor an incredibly stupid thing to admit the bleeping obvious truth that Republicans says incredibly stupid things if not appearing hostile to both hispanic voters and those sympathetic to them are a concern at all.
What you shoudl recognize is that immigration does not equal HISPANIC. There are plenty of people from Africa, or CRoatia who are being penalized so that we can kowtow to people coming here illegally.
ANd furhter, every country, even Mexico, is not so nonchalant about its borders as you expect us to be.
And if we aren't, then "RACISM".
My questeino is, why do those hispanics who feel like crossing the border feel they should get special treatment?
Simply because they are hispanic? Fuck the west indian immigrant who has to wait ten years to become a citizen?
Mexican immmigration laws, compared to our immigration laws:
http://youviewed.com/2013/03/27/mexico-has-tougher-immigration-laws-than-us/
And yet Mexico is going to lecture the US about tough immigration laws?
Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest at any time. And for those seeking permanent residency or naturalization, Mexico requires that they must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.”
How come Mexico gets a free pass here? Thats Mexico's law. And if you look around the world,that most countries immigration laws.
Is Mexico RACIST for having tough immigration laws and enforcing them. Or is it smart?
As the link statesm Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
"•in the country legally;
•have the means to sustain themselves economically;
•not destined to be burdens on society;
•of economic and social benefit to society;
•of good character and have no criminal records; and
•contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
•immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
•foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
•foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
•foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
•foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
•those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison."
Why are thse not good goals for immigration policies to have, and why is it wrong for Mexico to prioritize enforcement of said laws for the betterment of it's country?
Ritmo, I'm sure was all for the type of immigration policy practiced by Cuba where they unloaded all their prison populations and sent them here. And if we were reluctant to accept them - RACISM!
If Cuba had sent them to Mexico instead and Mexico enforced its polices, why then good for Mexico. Why should it be forced to accept the dregs of society from another country that wants to get rid of its problematic populalations and make another country pay for their upkeep?
jr565 said- How come Mexico gets a free pass here? Thats Mexico's law. And if you look around the world,that most countries immigration laws.
All countries with a functional central government enforce immigration laws, except one- the United States. There are several countries in the world where immigration is darn near impossible.
And on the subject, and I think it is still true, there are 7th generation Koreans in Japan who speak only Japanese, who have never been to Korea, who are not Japanese citizens because they are- KOREAN! And a quick google search shows it is true. Quite a bit different from the anchor baby interpretation of U.S. citizenship.
They just need to allocate the resources the way you want them to, otherwise they're racist. Right?
More than merely a racist, you're an idiot who insults constituencies whose votes you'd need to win elections with hostile talk. So, perhaps that makes you a racist, an affliction which, after all, is a result of either hostility, ignorance or a combination of both. But either way, I'm happy to know that you're too dumb to accept, let alone realize, what comes of fatuous rhetoric too belligerent to win you any of the votes you need. That's good enough for me.
I'd say my best advice for people who think like you would be "learn to be civilized". But then, it's kind of funny watching you debate with yourself for the last half-dozen rounds. There ain't no one in the world that you need to learn to get along with, jr. No one.
Keep debating yourself. Have you considered reinforcing the sound-proof walls in your echo chamber? You're putting others at risk for actually hearing your own self-validated ideas for how ridiculous they are.
"WHat laws matter the most? Are you the arbiter of that Ritmo?"
Um, elections are, you dungleberry.
Ritmo wrote:
More than merely a racist, you're an idiot who insults constituencies whose votes you'd need to win elections with hostile talk. So, perhaps that makes you a racist, an affliction which, after all, is a result of either hostility, ignorance or a combination of both. But either way, I'm happy to know that you're too dumb to accept, let alone realize, what comes of fatuous rhetoric too belligerent to win you any of the votes you need. That's good enough for me.
pot meet kettle, cunt face.
Ritmo wrote:
More than merely a racist, you're an idiot who insults constituencies whose votes you'd need to win elections with hostile talk. So, perhaps that makes you a racist, an affliction which, after all, is a result of either hostility, ignorance or a combination of both. But either way, I'm happy to know that you're too dumb to accept, let alone realize, what comes of fatuous rhetoric too belligerent to win you any of the votes you need. That's good enough for me.
pot meet kettle, cunt face.
If you are a cunt face and lick your lips can you give yourself cancer?
Labia pejora, lingua est.
It's not complicated. Language is a facility to enable communication. A common language serves to unify people through mutual understanding.
Spanish is an active second tier language in America. Other languages occupy even lower tiers The only purpose served by promoting secondary or competing languages is to divide people into manageable classes.
Anyway, the people who are actively dividing Americans by language, among other features, classes, etc., should be understood to foment division for personal political, economic, and social profit. They are corrupt and sponsoring corruption of our society.
edutcher said...
wyo sis said...
No one calls out a Republican faster than another Republican. No wonder they can't win.
This was the primaries, dear.
Remember how Hillary! used the 3 AM phone call?
Yes, and I remember how Romney couldn't muster one tenth of the venom he had in the primaries in the general election.
Want to know a key reason why I (and I suspect others) think establishment Republicans are actually the no-salt version of Democrats? The amount of venom they have for non-establishment Republicans in comparison to the amount they have for Democrats.
How often do the establishment types, if they lose a primary, fail to support the winner? How often, for the good of the public, do they support the Democrat instead of the extremist? Yet, when they win the primary, often with more venom for the losers than they'll use in the general election, do they demand unity?
They've been telling me regularly how people like me spoil their club and we're not wanted. They only stop doing that between Labor Day and Election Day.
I've decided instead to hang with people who want me year round.
False beggars accost me in the parking lots of supermarkets in southern california.
I politely tell them that I can't understand them. In German. It throws them off their stride.
My daughter is so impressed, she decided to learn Japanese, so she can do the same.
The entire world should be speaking english together and commonly. Keep your language to yourselves, but when with anyone else in doing business, make it english.
Post a Comment