CBS's Couric Signs Off 'Evening News' in Chinese
Following a segment on American school children learning Chinese as a second language at the end of Wednesday's CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric tried her hand at reciting part of her sign off in Mandarin, telling viewers, "míngtianjiàn wanan," meaning, "See you tomorrow, good night." [Audio available here]
In the prior report, correspondent Terry McCarthy was critical of Americans for not having better foreign language skills: "Americans generally assume everyone speaks English....But Americans do not generally share such multilingual talents." He then cheered efforts in one Los Angeles elementary school to teach Chinese alongside English, starting in Kindergarten: "These kids have been studying Chinese for four years and they're pretty good....the Chinese immersion program is so popular, they have a waiting list."
View video below
McCarthy described how interest in the program was "driven by interest in China's $6 trillion economy, now the second biggest in the world." The teacher of the class, Theresa Kao, argued: "Learning Chinese as a second language will help their children to be able to find a better job later on."
McCarthy's reference to China's impending economic dominance in the world, combined with Couric's brief effort to make the broadcast bilingual, was reminiscent of cartoon TV newsman Kent Brockman.
Here is a full transcript of the January 19 segment:
6:53PM ET TEASE:
KATIE COURIC: And coming up next, learning Chinese along with their ABCs.
6:56PM ET SEGMENT:
KATIE COURIC: At the White House today, China's president said young people are the future of the relationship between his country and the U.S. He said it in Mandarin, a language most Americans don't understand. But Terry McCarthy tells us there are some American children who don't have to wait for the translation.
TERRY MCCARTHY: Americans generally assume everyone speaks English.
[CLIP OF MOVIE 'RUSH HOUR']
CHRIS TUCKER: Do you speaka any English?
MCCARTHY: Often they exceed our expectations. Former Chinese President Jiang Zemin surprised Mike Wallace in 2000 by reciting the Gettysburg Address in English.
JIANG ZEMIN: Four score and seven years ago.
MCCARTHY: Even the French president speaks English, kind of.
NICHOLAS SARKOZY: We will be happy to help you make money in France.
MCCARTHY: But Americans do not generally share such multilingual talents.
BARACK OBAMA: I don't speak a foreign language. It's embarrassing.
MCCARTHY: Instead of struggling with foreign grammar, Americans would rather struggle with headphones to hear the translation. But not in City Terrace Public School in east Los Angeles. Where 90 students have been learning Chinese since Kindergarten
[CHILD SPEAKING CHINESE]
MCCARTHY: Like his classmates, Nelson Enriquez even has his own Chinese name.
MCCARTHY [IN CHINESE]: What is your Chinese name?
NELSON ENRIQUEZ [IN CHINESE]: My name is Han Rui Ke.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN [TEACHER, CITY TERRACE ELEMENTARY]: Five years old, they're like little sponges.
MCCARTHY: Nelson's family speaks Spanish at home so he is trilingual, which the eight-year-old is already planning to exploit.
ENRIQUEZ: I'm going to get a better job, and a raise, too.
MCCARTHY: These kids have been studying Chinese for four years and they're pretty good, but this is an unusual school. Across the country, only 50,000 American school kids are studying Chinese. In China, by contrast, there are 200 million students learning English. The numbers are increasing. A decade ago, about 300 schools in the U.S. taught Chinese. Now it's close to 1600, driven by interest in China's $6 trillion economy, now the second biggest in the world. At City Terrace, the Chinese immersion program is so popular, they have a waiting list.
THERESA KAO [TEACHER, CITY TERRACE ELEMENTARY]: Learning Chinese as a second language will help their children to be able to find a better job later on.
MCCARTHY: And then there are the hidden benefits. Why do you think your parents wanted you to learn Chinese?
NATALIE LOVE [STUDENT, CITY TERRACE ELEMENTARY]: I think they wanted me to learn Chinese because they like to go to Chinese restaurants.
MCCARTHY: Two languages, two cultures, and no one at a loss for words. Terry McCarthy, CBS News, Los Angeles.
COURIC: And that is the CBS Evening News for tonight. I'm Katie Couric. Thank you for watching.
COURIC [IN CHINESE]: míngtianjiàn wanan (See you tomorrow, good night).
— Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Wonder how you say---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:16pm.
"on your knees" , in Mandarin? MDaccording to my translator
Submitted by SouthJersey1953 on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:21pm.
Zài nǐ de xīgài
(don't ask me how to pronounce it)
Guess I can't blame her. The
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:18pm.
Guess I can't blame her. The way Obama is running things we may all be speaking Chinese soon.
Bowing down to our My Drysdale?
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:22pm.
Remember her "hero" Oblunder basically called us out because we are so stooopid, we only know one language?
Actually Barry, I speak fluent schoolyard, F*** Y** and the horse you road in on.......
Now hand over the lunch money big ears.
How does one say "Katie is clueless" in Mandarin?
Jeez, tomorama, you're being
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:43pm.
Jeez, tomorama, you're being pretty 'un-civil' today!!! But I've got your back!!! I'm all for knowing how to speak other languages - I've been to foreign countries, and i'll try to do what I can. I think it's admirable and shows respect for where I am.............but I feel the same way about being an American and speaking English. And I have to say that I don't think a lot of our young people are being taught to speak English very well at all................or it's been relegated to 'second language' status. I guarantee you that if I were living in a foreign country, I'd better figure out a way to communicate with 'the locals', one way or another.
Hell, I'll bet you speak better 'schoolyard' that Boy Blunder anyway - he doesn't really seem to have a 'genuine' style of speaking, from what I can tell, and all of his 'accents' are pretty bad, as far as I'm concerned.
Right, Killa.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:05pm.
I had a buddy when I was on active duty who could say "I surrender" in more languages than I knew existed! He was ready for anything.
I always suspected that he was French.
Newsbubba---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 8:35pm.
That's why French tanks have three reverse gears and one forward gear. The forward gear is available in case the enemy gets behind them. MDJeez, MD...........I thought
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 4:05am.
Jeez, MD...........I thought the French guys LIKED people getting behind them!!!!!
Well, our so-called
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:09am.
president thinks that France is our "greatest ally". "Mr Obama said: 'We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.' This guy can't help himself, he manages to offend other allies every time he opens his pie-hole.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346006/Barack-Obama-declares-France-biggest-ally-blow-Special-Relationship-Britain.html#ixzz1BwDn6FMU
Y'all already know what I'm going to say
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:29pm.
LOL - So I just won't say it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Immersion? What about the Chinese Submersion Program?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:29pm.
The one that's currently housing 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo.
I wonder hoe far they can push....
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:34pm.
.....before the backlash takes full effect. Through endless picking, Spanish everywhere has been accepted as "just what we have to do" because of location. That won't fly with Mandarin.
Koric is the consumate
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:38pm.
Koric is the consumate professional, always bringing her audience to a ' happy ending '.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Good one.
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:48pm.
Good one.
Non-story. I wish our subpar
Submitted by mang on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:38pm.
Non-story. I wish our subpar school systems would be more aggressive in teaching children other languages.
I agree
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:49pm.
I agree, especially Latin . That way people could actually understand what that prescription really say
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not to Mention, CMan
Submitted by CommanderTaya on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:24pm.
I took 4 years during the jurassic period of my life and I can still sing Adeste Fideles without benefit of Bing Crosby.
How about being 'aggresive'
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:53pm.
How about being 'aggresive' with teaching children ENGLISH?????
Children should already know English
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:01pm.
Most children, living in an English speaking country, should already know quite a bit about the English language before they even enter Kindergarten. Yes, they may have a problem identifying proper syntax, be unable to differentiate between a verb and a noun, but they, at least,, have the ability to speak and understand basic English, be able to enunciate, be able to form a proper sentence, and, at the very least, be able to recite the alphabet. If they don't, then that's the fault of the parents and NOT the schools.
Perhaps it's time that we, as a people, get 'aggressive" on having the parent teach the children basic learning subjects instead of fostering that responsibility off to someone else?????
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Tru dat,
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:07pm.
Tru dat, Cobra.............but if the parents can't speak it coherently or lucidly, then where did THEY go to school? I agree that it should all start at home, but we have dumped a zillion dollars into our 'education' system, so 'some would say' that we should have some kind of result!!!
They teach kids Chinese in L.A. ?
Submitted by NeoKong on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:45pm.
Maybe they should worry about the kid's who can't speak english first.
If libs get their way, we'll
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:48pm.
If libs get their way, we'll all be speaking a mixture of chinese and mexican.
Don't forget all of those
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:55pm.
Don't forget all of those Mooooooooooooooooooslem words and phrases that have been integrated into our language allready!!! And Boy Blunder speaks much better Arabic than Chinese, Mexican, or...............maybe even English!!!
That's because the
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:59pm.
That's because the arabic languages roll much better off his forked tongue.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Learning a language
Submitted by fastaire54 on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:54pm.
You can tell the people who prepared this report only speak English. Learning a second language is one of the most difficult things one can do, probably only second to the difficulty of being able to consistently play under par golf. The only way to really be able to learn a language and speak it fluently like a native speaker is to live the language. That means to live in a country that speaks the language every day and even then it will be difficult. They make it sound like all you have to do is listen to the language on the radio and take some courses to learn. It takes years and years to learn a language and a lot of time that most people don’t have. Believe me I have been obsessed with learning the French language for 15 years and while I understand it fairly well, enough to get by; my speaking ability is not nearly as strong. Why? It is because one has to practice speaking the foreign language very very often preferably every day. How is it possible to do that in the USA? It isn’t, period. Most of the kids that are truly bilingual come from a home with a native speaker. I would love to see these so called little sponges speak to a Chinese child of the same age. I can guarantee you they would be lost. These kids go home every night and speak English. They don’t have the opportunity to really learn the language. They also won’t be learning Chinese when they are taking other courses. I would never discourage anyone from trying to learn a foreign language. It can be rewarding. But everyone should be aware that if you are in the USA and decide to learn Chinese you will always be less than mediocre in the language unless you live in China for years or are somehow able to speak with Chinese people every day. Couric and her CBS crew are living in a dream world on this issue and their ignorance shows.learning
Submitted by RN from Iowa on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 8:27pm.
Fastaire--You are correct, trying to learn a second language is difficult. These children who go thru this training will very soon forget this unless it is spoken every single day. As you say it can be rewarding but nothing more than a fleeting fancy by parents
That's right, Katie
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 5:54pm.
Just keep helping the US raise that white flag.
NE-VAH, NE-VAH, NE-VAH!!!!!!!!
is there media bias in this story?
Submitted by Q on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:00pm.
foreign language classes have not only been taught, but required in most schools. is it an issue because we don't particulary like china?
No bias in the story
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:05pm.
You're correct. American schools have been teaching foreign languages for most of our history. Latin, for example, used to be a required course in just about every school in America.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
4 years of spanish
Submitted by Q on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:06pm.
and all i remember is pantalones caliente con queso
to the guy above, no one speaks mexican - it's spanish
Ooh ooh let me try...
Submitted by mang on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:15pm.
Ummm....I have hot cheese in my pants. Eh?
close
Submitted by Q on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:24pm.
hot-pants should go together, but i don't think that's a real word in spanish
"i have cheese in my hotpants" is normally where we go via gibberish.
Do you have kids in grade school now?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:01pm.
Best you let them learn Chinese because they will need it when they grow up!
The first phrase they will need is "I surrender" followed by "Yes, Master."
Think I'm kidding? Think again.
Overlords
Submitted by r_cote on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:13pm.
To paraphrase Kent Brockman -- I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.
Who Would Ever Have Suspected
Submitted by JustAl on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:20pm.
. . . that she was such a cunning linquest?
As usual, I must be missing
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:31pm.
As usual, I must be missing out on all the fun here. What's wrong with learning a new language? Carl Gauss, the greatest mathematican of all time, assigned himself the task of learning a new language every year..surely you'd expect no less of your young?
You are because you are an ignorant troll.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:09pm.
Tell me, what is America's debt situation like today?
Tell me, who is the largest foreign holder of our debt?
Tell me, who is pushing the idea of making the yuan the international currency of choice and attempting to devalue the dollar further?
Tell me, which country has spoken of war with the United States and teaching the US a lesson?
And you still can't see it.
I only write this stuff to blow off some steam; I don't write it hoping that you, mamabear, Jer, or any of the other fact-resistant vacuities will ever learn anything, because you cannot teach the purposefully ignorant.
Visions and Principles blog
Oh, I see. You like their
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:24pm.
Oh, I see. You like their money but not their language. How interesting...I wonder who is forcing you to borrow money..couldn't be a frosty blue troll from the north??
learn to understand
Submitted by Q on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:31pm.
it's not enough that the dollar is the world standard, but some obviously think english should be the world standard too
imagine one day when we ship all of the IS+T jobs overseas, we'll no longer have to deal with stupid people who can't speak proper english
Ahh---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 8:44pm.
Another citizen of the world wannabe, like his Messiah. MDMD, another
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:13am.
1 week wonder, here to enlighten the heathens. Cut him some slack, he's just trying to point out how much better people we'll all be if we just follow the messiah, and go out there and learn a language. Most people should be able to do that, they've got the time, certainly, no jobs, but lots of time.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:33am.
Given my geographical location, I'd best be brushing up on my Espanol. :o) MDOh, and Q,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:27am.
research what the universal language of air traffic control is, just for starters. A hint? It is not Mandarin, Russian, Arabic, or French.
Oh no! It's the old " English
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:22pm.
Oh no! It's the old " English speaking Americans are the most oppressive, racist, xenophobic, scum evah!".
Take a look around America if you can. What do you see? Neighborhoods with many different houses of worship. All variety of people, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Koreans, Iranians, Indians, Russians, Dominicans, etc., etc.,.
Now how diverse do you think it is in China, Iran, Japan, Brazil? Not even close to the amount of different peoples that make up the United States. Buddy, I'm sick of this whiny liberal c**p over and over. Shove it up your arse!
Maybe when the Aztlan dream comes true thanks to it's racist liberal enablers, they'll allow you to stick around in some capacity because you speak Mandarin. Unless of course you're up there in Canada! You wouldn't be a Canadian troll bashing a country you only know from watching government television, would you?
100%
Submitted by Indefatigable B... on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:38pm.
american, born and raised
and "crap" ain't a bad word, no need to censor it.
unless you were using some new curse word that i hadn't heard before
~Wrong account
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:47pm.
Whoops.
LOL
No one.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 2:00pm.
can learn a "new language every year". One could learn some phrases, but certainly not a "language".
One of Maobama's dumbest statements was when he said that Americans should make sure "their kids learn Spanish" and that he was embarrassed because "Europeans come here and they speak French and they speak German (duh!) and we go there and all we can say is merci beaucoup."
Who's going to invest years to learn a foreign language to go on a 10-day trip when nearly everyone in Europe already speaks English? Obama can't even do that! Corpse-man, my flat white butt!
Most EU countries are the size of our states anyway. Why don't they speak one language? Can you imagine if you had to learn Polish to go to Chicago, and German if you went to Milwaukee and Swedish or Norwegian if you go to the Twin Cities? That's Europe.
(written only with slight sarcasm)
A couple of points.
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 2:17pm.
First, you should read about Guass before passing judgement. He learned a new language every year to maintain flexibliblty of his mind.
Second, I have friend who earned her PHd by translating the letters into English of some guy named Flaubert.. he wrote Mademe Blofelt or something. The point is she never set foot in France. But she is extremely smart.
Never underestimate the power of the mind!
Missing the point
Submitted by r_cote on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 3:11pm.
The point is not learning a new language. It's when you run stories about how indebted we are to China, how all the middle class manufacturing jobs are moved there by greedy stockholders. That and the fact that when a country is conquered it often has to learn the lanquage of the conquerers. And then a "news" woman signs off in another language.
Was she wearing a Burkha
Submitted by Van Halen on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:42pm.
Was Katie wearing a Burkha while speaking her beloved Chinese as well?
Good God, that woman is an ass!
What a bizarre notion--
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 6:53pm.
What a bizarre notion-- learning a language is capitulation?
Oh wait, I get it. It's a smokescreen, right? NewsBusters is just doing its patriotic duty to make Americans seem so xenophobic and reactionary that they won't arm themselves with useful skills for dealing with international competitors. Then, when we've put the Chinese at ease, we can have our young business executives listening in on conversations the Chinese think no one in the room will be able to understand!
Brilliant! I promise I won't tell anyone what you're up to...
holy conventional wisdom batman!
Submitted by Q on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:00pm.
better delete that post before your anti-posse shows up
No chance, those people are
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:06pm.
No chance, those people are on the ball!
Indeed.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:04pm.
Wait, I get it! Mamabear can't be completely oblivious to recent world events and uninformed about Katie Couric! She's feigning utter stupidity and is only pretending to have lived in a cave for the past six months! She's only doing this to make it seem like she's an intellectual lightweight, so that we'll be really bowled over when she denounces the Chinese as dictators like her patron saint, Harry Reid.
Brilliant. I promise I won't remind anybody of your desire to get rid of children.
Oops. Sorry about that.
Visions and Principles blog
Recent world events? What,
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 11:06am.
Recent world events? What, that China is emerging as our greatest competitor and most serious challenge for world dominance? I can't see any reason why we might want to be able to understand what they say...
And you'll have to explain to me why Katie Couric is the reason our kids shouldn't learn Chinese. That one's a little confusing.
mamabear
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 12:54pm.
IMO, I think there's a difference between "emerging as.. a challenger for world dominance" and being handed world dominance by reckless forfeiture.
Do you think that has to do
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 2:07pm.
Do you think that has to do with us learning their language? Because I would argue it is all in how you use that knowledge. Knowledge itself is almost never a bad thing.
You brought it up, love, you
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 8:44pm.
You brought it up, love, you expressed that point. Knowledge is never a bad thing. Unless.of course, for example, the electorate becomes knowledgable of a government gone off the rails, then it is called "sedition".
You brought it up, love, you
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 10:51pm.
You brought it up, love, you expressed that point
Love! Interesting... I brought it up as a reason why we should learn their language. You seem to be arguing against that, but apparently don't feel like explaining why.~Their language?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 12:25pm.
Before spouting sparkly multi-culturalist platitudes you might take the time to find out what you're talking about. There are about 14 different Chinese languages with numerous dialects and sub-dialects within them. Someone from northwest China speaks an entirely different language than someone from southern China. The different groups have their own distinct language, culture, mode of dress, and style of worship and religion. They even have distinctly different physical characteristics according to clan.
Interestingly, they also mutually despise each other.
You know, we were in the
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 6:35pm.
You know, we were in the middle of a conversation over on the Sharon Angle thread, which you abruptly dropped out of after calling me a liar and a bigot. A polite person (which I suppose the prevous observation should have made it clear to me you aren't) might have said something about the intention to bow out before simply disappearing.
On this topic, is there some reason why the diversity of the Chinese language is relevant to the discussion of whether we should learn it?
Shut up dead nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 6:53pm.
You have never once acknowledged your rampant stupidity as pointed out by numerous people here throughout the years you have utterly darkened this website.
You have zero room to complain when it comes to people giving up on your lies and walking out in disgust.
~Mbear
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 10:54pm.
You called me a hate-filled bigoted bastard (or something like that), so don't start whining now.
When I checked my Track page there were over 50 new comments on that thread, I wasn't about to wade through all that. There's 84 new comments as of this moment, and I have better things to do with my time. Whoever's been dealing with you has more patience than I do. A woman's gotta know her limitations.
Diversity of the Chinese language? Language? Lady, what part of 14 different languages passed you by? Languages. Plural. Say it with me, pllluuurrrraaalll. It means, "more than one". 14 different languages, all of which have somewhere between 4 and 40 dialects.
Have fun with that.
cào nǐ zǔzōng shíbā dài
I didn't call you anything.
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 11:16pm.
I didn't call you anything. Here's a quote from you though: Stop spreading lies, you disingenuous hateful bigot.
Like I said, a polite person, when unable to keep up with the thread, would leave a note to that effect. I think it is hilarious that I am the one always accused of being arrogant and condescending when I have never replied to anyone with something like this:
Languages. Plural. Say it with me, pllluuurrrraaalll. It means, "more than one".
I do know what plural means. Perhaps harping on that is just your spiteful way of trying to get me to forget I asked a question you aren't answering: why is that relevant to whether or not we should learn to speak any of those languages?
~My, you gotta thick skull
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 11:39pm.
You repeatedly claimed that Sharron Angle said that it was "okay to shoot your elected representative". This is what is known as a "lie". See also, "false attribution". See also, "bearing false witness". See also, "defamation".
I was pointing out that in your rush to display your cultural tolerance you made a gross over-simplification that betrayed your ignorance of the culture/s you fawn over.
Should learn? Should? Why "should" we learn any of them? Is it a moral obligation? Like you "should" return a lost wallet? And where do you get off telling people what they "should" learn? Why don't you try learning the simplest of things about Chinese languages before you preach to others about it.
mamabear LIES a lot. Oh my heavens, a friggin' lot.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:42am.
I was not privy to the original conversation but I know, holy fudgesticks, I know mamabear lies when the truth will do. I researched Mrs. Angles statement ---
"You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years," Angle said. "I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
What is wrong with that? It is the same language as presented in another document.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Armed rebellion is NEVER off the table should our government turn oppressive. What the hell is wrong with her statement? And that IS why the second amendment is there. If only the government had all the weapons, the people would not be able to alter or abolish it..
mamabear is a damnable LIAR for pushing the leftist LIE that there was some hidden problem with Sharon Angle's statement. To look at Mrs. Angle's statement and see it as anything other than a reaffirmation of a statement fromt the Declaration of Independence is a DAMNABLE LIE. So the LYING Dead nwahs started the entire conversation on that thread with a kick in the face LIE.
YOU LIE dead nwahs. YOU LIE AGAIN. It is all you have ever done here. It is ALL YOU WILL EVER DO.
There is no arguing with LYING trolls like Dead nwahs. They don't want a conversation. THEY WANT TO LIE. OVER and OVER and OVER. So you have to walk away at some point or risk spamming up the joint trying to shut down a LIAR that absolutley will not stop with the lies.
Pack sand Dead nwahs.
I suppose I might as well try
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:24pm.
I suppose I might as well try to have a rational conversation with you. Hope springs eternal.
She was talking about this Congress, as evidenced by the phrase "this Congress." It is not just a hypothetical reaffirmation of the point of the 2nd amendment. It is a suggestion that now is an appropriate time to use it.
As I asked Brunette, if you have some explanation for that phrase that allows me to not think that, I'll happily take it. But I've read that statement many times now, and it still looks... ominous to me.
Well, what do you know, Dead nwahs LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 6:23am.
It is a suggestion that now is an appropriate time to use it.
Do you teach English? YOU LIE. I took 12 years of English like everyone else. I understood it. Where were you?
Suggestion? What did you say? ...if this Congress keeps going the way it is... IF. IF. IF. IF.
It was CONDITIONAL. C-O-N-D-I-T-I-O-N-A-L. Not a suggestion.
Conditional Sentences are also known as Conditional Clauses or If Clauses. They are used to express that the action in the main clause (without if) can only take place if a certain condition (in the clause with if) is fulfilled.
ON THE CONDITION THAT --- congress keeps going the way it is
THEN THIS WILL HAPPEN ---- people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies
Was the condition ever fulfilled? NO. We know it was not fulfilled because there was no armed rebellion and the next Congress was sworn in this month.
LIAR.
Okay, that makes sense.
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 7:51am.
Okay, that makes sense. That's certainly, despite the grade-school-like syntax, a more cogent argument than Brunette ever made.
But it was IF things keep going the way they are! If they keep doing what they are doing, which means that what they are now doing is the grounds for the armed rebellion, which is the part I find creepy and the part that I reject.
I do understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment, but we still have elections that get rid of politicians we don't like. No one should be eyeing those second amendment remedies until that isn't the case. If enough of your fellow Americans agree with you, then you vote out the bad politicians. If there isn't enough agreement to get them unelected and you pursue a 2nd amendment remedy anyway while that political process is still in place-- well that's called a coup, isn't it?
Try one more time.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 8:20am.
If they keep doing what they are doing... We get a NEW congress every 2 years. She was referring to the 111th Congress at the time. That Congress is no more. Her statement made last year NO LONGER APPLIES. ...we still have elections that get rid of politicians... So you understand the concept. ...then you vote out the bad politicians... Uh, hello, that is what her last sentence in my quote said. I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.
.
So what if the new Congress
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:12pm.
So what if the new Congress keeps doing what the old one did?
I'm certainly glad, regardless, that that's what you think she meant when she said we needed to take Harry Reid out!
I'm still not going to agree with her, of course, because I think that 2nd amendment remedies are only appropriate when political remedies are no longer available. Not when they fail to get you what you want, when they cease to exist.
~Typing s l o w l y
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 6:54pm.
I think that 2nd amendment remedies are only appropriate when political remedies are no longer available
Yeah, that's what we've been talking about. That's what the Founders intended. How many different ways do we have to say it?
Lady, Angle was running for Nevada's Senate seat. So was Harry. Of course "Take Harry Reid out" means she wanted his job! "Reid out=Angle in".
But those remedies are
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:23pm.
But those remedies are currently available, and would be even if Congress kept doing what it is doing, as she put it.
That's what I don't understand. Why are we looking at 2nd amendment remedies if we don't need them?
~You
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 10:54am.
are one seriously dumb s@#t. In the future, I shall be sure to explain to you what the word "If" means. Mein Gott, you are thick as two short planks.
"Oh well, if you explain to me exactly what all those two letter words mean I might be able to understand what's going on. You only have to repeat the person's exact words and give me the definitions of his/her exact words, that's all. You know, those hard words. Like "If"."
It's not about understanding
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:09pm.
It's not about understanding what the word means, it is about trying to understand why you find the statement okay when I don't. Your explanations always seemed to boil down to "because that's what guns are for," which is seriously not okay given that my impression was that she was talking about how to deal with our current politicians. All you did was defend the 2nd amendment, when I kept trying to make the point that the issue isn't whether we need the 2nd amendment, but whether we need people to start shooting right now!
~See?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:40pm.
This is what I'm talking about, you're deliberately obtuse. I can say, "The Founders put the 2nd Amendment in place to safeguard the right of self-defense against government tyranny" and you shriek hysterically about how we're going to go hunt down Congresscritters vigilante-style.
Angle made a statement about a Congress that no longer exists. That Congress passed ObamaCare against the will of the majority of the people. They got their sorry @sses kicked out of office over it. The people we elected in their place have the responsibility to undo the damage, and if they don't we'll kick them out, too. Keep whining about how we need to follow the rules and not kill anybody while we're following the rules and not killing anybody. It makes you look so smart.
But if that's the case, then
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:25pm.
But if that's the case, then why bring up the 2nd amendment remedies at all? If you aren't going to use them, and I'm very thankful you aren't, why did they come up in that discussion of Congress's current direction?
Why is the sky blue Daddy?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 1:40am.
Because I said so. Now shut up.
Let's get this straight. You now want us to explain WHY Sharon Angle said what SHE said. Why Daddy, why did Sharon Angle say that?
Idiot.
You're right. I thought that
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 8:38am.
You're right. I thought that the best way to understand why you think her statement was okay was to understand what you thought she meant by it-- because if you took the same meaning from it that I did, you couldn't possibly find it acceptable!
At this point you and Brunette have made it perfectly clear what you think she was saying, and that picture has not in any way alleviated my concern. While that wasn't the outcome I had hoped for, it is what it is, and there probably isn't any benefit in me continuing to question you on the matter.
So, Sharon Angle and people who agree with her scare me. Statements like that make me less okay with gun ownership, not more okay with it. There we are.
My advice.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 10:07am.
Go hide under the bedcovers until such a time as Mrs. Angle and the people who agree with her are no more.
At great risk of diluting my statement above.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 3:55am.
Further you fascist little witch. Aren't you a teacher? FAIL. Every single troll, with the exception of JasonC and Dead Zippers have serious problems with the English language. EVERY SINGLE TROLL. Hundreds of them. EVERY SINGLE ONE taught 12 years of Englsh and every single one of them have problems with the one language taught. And little fascists like you want to dilute what little knowledge YOU are supposed to implant in their brain.
Even you have problems following simple instructions. And you TEACH. You were instructed to fill out the subject line so as not to subject everyone here with your case of the verbal hiccups. Because we have to read the first part of your fist sentence TWICE. And you are a TEACHER.
...our kids shouldn't learn Chinese....
Teach them English. Teach them math. And yes, trolls here have problems with math. Teach them the basic skill to live and survive and interact with other people on this planet. Because not a one of them can interact like they got 12 years of education. NOT ONE. Instead of further diluting their education, REINFORCE the basics they so sorely lack you friggin' fascist.
Now, as usual, skip off like you always do or pretend not a single word of what I just said sunk in.
I teach science in college.
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:33pm.
I teach science in college. I do my best to find the time to work on writing fundamentals, but it is tough with all of the scientific material I have to cover. However, your statement that "NOT ONE" student who leaves 12 years of public school can interact like they got 12 years of education is patently false. Therefore you are a damnable liar. There is one, and probably two, who can.
THE VET IS A LIAR.
Honestly, if you think you could do a better job than America's teachers, shut up and do it. We need good teachers, so quit whining and try to make a difference. If you aren't inclined to do that, then try to have a little respect for people who do.
Whoops. Dead nwahs puts words in my mouth and calls it a lie.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 7:48am.
...your statement that "NOT ONE" student.. Did I say student? Did I? We are not talking in the street here. I can simply scroll up and look. Coulda swore I said troll. Let's look...
Every single troll... Yep. Troll. I said it twice even. Go look. And I further said hundreds. There are only hundreds of former students walking around now? Since I did not say student as you claimed, how can I be a liar? Whoops.
Why don't you try to be honest with the people here? You might find less people like me slapping you around.
Ah, I understand. I wasn't
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 7:54am.
Ah, I understand. I wasn't being dishonest, I misunderstood. The quote you were answering said "teach our kids Chinese" and I thought "our kids" was the subject of the rant that followed, with "yes trolls have trouble with math" as an aside. If trolls were intended to be the subject of the rant, then my complaint was invalid.
So I apologize and retract my accusation of liar.
Well, thanks for that.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 8:58am.
I thought.... Try reading what I said and these little incidents will stay out of your record.
Oh, trolls certainly have issues with me slapping you around. Trolls have issues with me saying slapping you around. First Dead Zippers and now Bracky the ScatBoy. You certainly bring about the chivalry of 18 time retread trolls and trolls that love scat.
By the way, this is called taking the conversation in a new tangent. We are not bound to by law to discuss only what you want to discuss. Maybe that is one of the reasons other people slap you around as well. Might want to send a PM to Bracky. He is getting slapped around as well, with a dictionary of all things.
Oh, trolls certainly have
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:34pm.
Oh, trolls certainly have issues with me slapping you around.
Since I don't know where you claimed to be slapping me around, I have no idea how I ended up being the subject of any of that conversation. For the record, I don't mind insults if they go along with reasonable debate. I mind them when they replace reasonable debate, as they often do with you. As long as you have the upper hand, you display what I have come to think of as your own peculiar brand of magnanimity, which involves only insulting me every other sentence while still bothering to address the points I make. You often clearly do an impressive amount of work compiling information and assembling arguments.
It is when you start losing that you become unhinged and apparently incapable of typing coherent sentences. While that is a disappointing way to win for someone who likes debate, it is hard to be angry about the insults you fling around when they are the clearst sign of victory I'll ever get from you. Certainly, I know that when you make similar mistakes to the one I just did, an apology is not likely to make its way to your keyboard! So I take what I can get.
As for being on topic, it is not about only discussing what I want. My presence tends to pull threads off topic because people can't resist the urge to vent about more general liberal failings than what is being discussed. That makes other people annoyed, and they send me PMs about pulling the thread off topic. So I try not to let that happen. Otherwise every conversation I enter becomes about nanny state communist fascist thieves who coddle people and hate America. That gets kind of boring.
grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 6:36pm.
Your presence tends to pull threads off topic because, it appears to me (it is my opinion, anyway), that no matter the subject: abortion, DADT, homosexuality, whatever; you are so liberal -through and through- that you simply do not, or cannot, recognize that what to your mind is a common sense portrayal of the goodness and appropriateness of liberalism, is to most conservatives, unrealistic, feel-good, whack-a-doodle bullshit. While I realize that you in all likelihood view conservatives in much the same way, if you, or a conservative, were to "swap shoes" for a significant period of time, there might well be a better chance for, if not understanding, at least a bit more tolerance on both sides. Life experience, however,has shown me that even if things were to even out and that a desire for comity were uppermost in the minds of all; the very fact of us being fallible humans would guarantee an extremely short reign of love and sensitivity. It just ain't gonna happen.Well, that's kind of why I'm
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:26pm.
Well, that's kind of why I'm here. In the absence of NB, I would get very little glimpse of conservative shoes in my life, let alone have the opportunity to put them on. Regardless, though, you can choose to only berate me for one aspect of my liberalism at a time :) Eventually, they will all come up.
(P.S. That smiley is intended to be self-deprecating, and to indicate that I have a wry smile on my face while I invite you to berate me. It is not intended to insult you, or to make anything I have said less insulting than it would otherwise be)
So far, mamabear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 3:27am.
you have only questioned me; never insulted, nor berated. We disagree down to our very marrow, and though that will likely, no, strike that, while that will NEVER change, I do realize that I have not always been, no strike that, I have NEVER been as polite in return as I should have been. That is not conservatism's fault, that is on me alone. I am unsure if I was born impolite, or if I learned to be so along the way. Either way, that was merely an admission; not an apology. You libs make me crazy. :o)Dude, do NOT go soft on me!
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 8:41am.
Dude, do NOT go soft on me! I'll lose all faith in humanity ;)
Just for me, personally, a sense of humor excuses almost any other personality failing, and because of yours I've always enjoyed our debates-- even if you aren't as nice as I think people should be to each other.
Edit: Oh, and by the way, I'm pasting your post into a word document so that I can taunt you with it mercilessly whenever I want, because I'm not going soft either! ;)
(P.S. the smiley means I'm kidding, and I'm not going to do that)
~I'm loving
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 11:21am.
the explanatory footnotes defensively attached to every facial tic.
Good, because they're for you
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 7:52pm.
Good, because they're for you and Rad.
You repeatedly claimed that
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:53am.
You repeatedly claimed that Sharron Angle said that it was "okay to shoot your elected representative"
No I didn't. I repeatedly explained why that was what her words seemed to mean to me, and repeatedly asked you to explain how I was wrong, which you repeatedly failed to do. You were the one who convinced me that my impression of her meaning was correct.
Is it a moral obligation? Is that what you think the word "should" means? No, it's not a moral obligation! It just seems like a smart move. And where do you get off telling people what they "should" learn? This isn't about me telling you what you should learn. It is about NewsBusters complaining about what kids are learning, and me disagreeing. Where exactly does NewsBusters get off telling anyone what they shouldn't learn, then? I know there is more than one Chinese language. I notice, though, that you don't chide the orignial article for using exactly the same terms I did when talking about "Chinese" as a language in the singular. Apparently accuracy isn't important in people you agree with. But I could have guessed that. Hypocrisy is an art form around here!~Typical
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:12am.
You can't refute my point (because it is incontrovertibly true) so you just whine about being picked on.
As The Vet pointed out so eloquently above, an armed citizenry is the sole defense against government tyranny. Imagine how the world would be if the German people had risen up against Hitler and removed him from power before he managed a total takeover. Millions upon millions of innocent lives would have been spared. But screw them, no one should ever challenge their government when it oversteps it's lawful bounds.
You do realize that the only
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:20pm.
You do realize that the only reason Hitler resigned himself to coming to power legally is because he tried and failed to overthrow the democratically elected government with guns, right? If he and his friends had been better armed, we might have had to deal with him a lot longer.
People with guns who think they know better than their fellow citizens are not always friends of democracy. If enough of your fellow Americans agree with you that our current government is tyrranical, then those politicians will lose their upcoming elections and be replaced by people who are more in line with the will of the majority. If not enough of your fellow Americans agree with you to get rid of the current crop and you do something about it with your guns, then YOU are the wannabe tyrant.
~Over and over and over and over....
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:59pm.
I keep saying the same thing and manbear keeps trotting out an answer to her fallacy rather than address what is actually said. This is why people walk away from you; it's like saying "the sky is blue" to someone who always counters with, "You're wrong, giraffes are great kissers".
Tell me about it...
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:05pm.
Tell me about it...
~The giraffes?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:14pm.
LOL
Not sure about the kisses
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:26pm.
But when I go visit them, they lick me with a very sticky tongue
~Oh man!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:31pm.
I am so jealous. I have to drive an hour and a half to get to a zoo, and it's nowhere near that cool.
You made a point about
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:26pm.
You made a point about Hitler, which one only does in the hopes of provoking an emotional response. I countered with a way in which the example of Hitler could be used against your position, and not for it. If you didn't understand how I was addressing the topic, then I apologize for being confusing. But really, I can only be held partly responsible for your ability to comprehend things, despite the Vet's attempt to blame me for everyone in this country who makes mistakes!
And truth be told, giraffes are much more into necking than they are kissing :)
(P.S. That smiley face is not meant to insult anyone. I am not calling you a giraffe, or knocking your preferred display of affection. The smiley is simply an attempt to take advantage of a brief opportunity to lighten the tone, something which only happens rarely when I am arguing with people on this site)
~I made a point
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:14am.
that if a fully armed German populace had risen against Hitler when he first began implementing his agenda we wouldn't be talking about him right now. You countered with some dumb@ss non sequitur about how he didn't use arms to rise to power. Did I say he did? Did I imply it, even? Was I talking about how he rose to power? NO. No, I wasn't. Stop talking about giraffes, double-dipped dimwit.
See, what this shows about you is that you think that an armed populace defying the government indicates the rise of an illegal force about to install a dictator. This, my dear lying leftist, is a fallacy you're still pushing from the last thread.
In this case, what we're talking about is the American citizenry fulfilling the Constitution by casting out those who violate it. If, if if if if if if if if if if if, government officials persist in violating the law they swore to uphold, it is incumbent upon the American people to fulfill their civic duty and relieve them of all government power.
Irony escapes Dead nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:33am.
The whole time she has been in a snit about Mrs. Angle's paraphrasing of the Declaration of Independence, a nation was shaking off the iron fist of tyranny.
Tunisia.
You countered with some
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:46pm.
You countered with some dumb@ss non sequitur about how he didn't use arms to rise to power. Did I say he did? Did I imply it, even? Was I talking about how he rose to power? NO. No, I wasn't. Stop talking about giraffes, double-dipped dimwit.
Okay, I'll try to lay this out simply. First of all, you misread-- I said he DID use guns to rise to power. That was the whole point. Your contention is that a better armed populace would have had a chance of overthrowing Hitler. That may be the case, although I don't know anything about how well armed the German populace actually was. Maybe they had tons of guns, I don't know. The point about his rise to power is that before Hitler rose to power, he was a member of the populace, which you think should have been better armed.
So if we went back in history and better armed the German people, overall, then two things might have happened-- Hitler might have had an easier time taking power, and the populace might have had an easier time overthrowing him. Only one of those is a good result. Do you understand my point now?
It is only through hindsight that we know who the good guys and the bad guys are in a case like Germany. Hitler was clearly a bad guy from the start, but if he were an American citizen right now, saying nasty, racist, nationalist things like he did in Germany prior to taking power, would you defend his right to own the guns he would eventually try to use to overthrow the government? Would you want to give him even more guns with which to try and accomplish his aims?
My point is that more guns is not just a good thing. It can also be a bad thing. Your failure to understand the argument I'm making really gives the impression that you have a blind spot about that-- you only see guns as a tool for well-meaning patriots to protect their country, and they can be that, but they are exactly the same tool that a potential despot would try to use to take that country away from them.
~Okay
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 6:20pm.
I'll try to lay this out simply.
I've never said one single thing about more guns. Once again you answer your own false premise instead of addressing what I said.
Then what did you mean by
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:33pm.
Then what did you mean by this:
if a fully armed German populace had risen against Hitler
Did you mean swords?! Because the subject is the 2nd amendment, I made what I think is a very natural assumption that the term "arms" referred to some sort of weaponry. As in when the 2nd amendment refers to the right to bear "arms." If you meant "armed" with knowledge and clear judgement, or some such thing, then you need to be much clearer when you state these things!
~Ppppffffffbbbbbbbbt
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 12:28pm.
That's roughly how you spell the sound a sigh makes when blown through pursed lips.
"More guns is not just a good thing'
This is what I mean when I say that you keep replying to your own false premise. I never said one single thing about "more", or even "better armed" as you imply. I said a fully armed German populace "could have" risen up against Hitler. The word 'could' means 'having the ability'. The ability is one thing, the will is another. If you've been treated like second class citizen all your life you're going to act like one. Their culture was not one of individual liberty. I used that as a theoretical example of how things would be different if other countries had a heritage and Constitution like ours. What Angle said represents the reason why we have not been taken over from within by a dictator like so many other countries.
I'm going to fill you in on a little history. As long as there have been governments, they've been restricting weapons to the upper/ruling class. Peasants weren't allowed to have swords and when guns came along they weren't allowed to have those, either. The rabble didn't have the right to be armed because the government regarded them as inherently hostile and dangerous to the ruling class. What sets America apart is the fact that the Founders recognized that all people have the right to defend themselves and their possessions and they ensured that the government would never be able to take away that right.
As long as the 2nd Amendment is respected and adhered to this country will remain free. You can shiver in fear of an armed populace all you want, but the only thing threatening your personal liberty is an intrusive central government.
You are not making any
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 8:04pm.
You are not making any sense.
You say this is a potential example of how things could be different if other countries had our guarantees of freedoms, and that a fully armed populace could have done something about Hitler. But you also say that being fully armed does not mean having more or better arms than they did, so what is your point? If the German populace was anything less than fully armed, then you would have a point-- fully armed could have been different, thus the importance of the 2nd amendment. But you don't think they were less than fully armed, or you would be talking about better arming them. Are you trying to say that they were overarmed?!
I understand that we are only dealing in hypotheticals. My counterpoint was a hypothetical as well. Hitler could have gotten himself into power faster if he were better armed, the German populace could have deposed him if they were fully armed. Neither one of us is presuming we know either way. But I no longer have any idea what you are talking about if "fully armed" does not mean more or better arms than not-fully-armed!
It's obvious that
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:34pm.
you aren't a teacher of history, grizzly. You do know that Hitler marched on the Government of Munich, right? The seat of the Bavarian government, Not the seat of the Weimar Republic, correct? That he was intent on overthrowing the government of Bavaria, before anything else? Actually, he was trying to overthrow what would be the equivalent of the city council of Munich. So, to say that he failed to "overthrow the democratically elected government with guns" is quite a stretch. But, we have come to expect that from you.
I understood that his larger
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:29pm.
I understood that his larger goal was the overthrow of the Weimar Republic, and that the first action in Munich was intended to start his "March to Berlin." That's where he was stopped, but that wasn't his end goal. As I said, he failed in that goal. I'm not a historian, so if I'm wrong, then I apologize.
I have an idea.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:38am.
Since you have such problems filling out the subject line just try this --- Put this is every subject line --- I apologize. That way we don't have to wait until the end of your every post to read it and it will kill 2 birds with every stone.
Well, was I right or was I
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:46pm.
Well, was I right or was I wrong? UpNorth can answer, or maybe the Vet can explain to me. I'm apologizing in advance, in case it is necessary, but I'd like to know if I've actually misunderstood something.
Now I am confused.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 10:12am.
Why are you replying to yourself?
Joining in*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 1:16pm.
I am not a history buff. Being an old woman, there is too much history. But I do follow current events a bit more. To put the following link in perspective, this incident is one fairly routine in La. Interstate 20 north and Interstate 10 south from Texas going east is a heavily trafficked area.
http://www.wdsu.com/r/26595282/detail.html
A recent arrest in the Lafayette La, along I-10, found an illegal alien with 10 AK-47's in the trunk on his car. That arrest had been his third in 5 yrs. He had been deported twice before by ICE on those previous arrests. The local police decided this time not to refer him to ICE but prosecuted him here and he is now at Angola State Prison.
These arrests occur routinely here in La involving weapons and huge loads of drugs coming thru from Tx going eastward. This is what happens when "caring" people want to limit gun control to ordinary American citizens(good guys). That leaves the lawless (bad guys) the only ones armed.
Why are you replying to
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 8:05pm.
Why are you replying to yourself?
Because I am trying to prompt someone to explain to me, if UpNorth is correct, how I am wrong in my very brief description of Hitler's goals in his "March on Berlin."
Did he want to overthrow the democratically elected government, or was he just interested in changing the city council of Munich? I'm pushing the point because UpNorth was pretty sneery about accusing me of getting it wrong. I'm only going to put up with that if I actually DID get it wrong.
OK, in simple terms,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 9:20pm.
it was NOT a march on Berlin, he(Hitler) barely got out of the beer hall. He never made it to the seat of city government. So, whatever grandiose plans he had, they were for naught. Who cares what his intentions were? He did NOT have the ability to carry out his plans, and we only know what his plans allegedly were, from his piece of propaganda, Dreams from My Father, er, Mein Kampf.
Was that plain enough, and not "sneery" to you? And, you can either "put up with it", or not. Makes me no never mind, at all.
Well, because my whole point
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 10:16pm.
Well, because my whole point was about the fact that his plans were grander than his achievements, it does kind of matter. He CALLED it the "March on Berlin," indicating that he was trying to get there. My point was that he didn't have the ability, thus the failure to make it much past the beer hall, but might have done better if he had been better armed.
Thanks for coming back and settling the matter: I wasn't wrong about Hitler's plans, and I never said he achieved more than he did. You were just looking for something to ding me on, and thought you could make it sound like I'd gotten something wrong. Keep trying.
No trying
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 1:40pm.
involved. And I don't have "to look for something" to ding you on. You do that all on your own.
As for what he called it, if he'd called it the March to OVerthrow the Bolsheviks and Give Everyone Free Beer, would you run with that, too? Bending history to prove your points is usually called revisionism. And, if you go back and read what was published, or watch the History Channel, Hitler and his followers were as well armed as the military and police were. So, you better look for another strawman.
So first you imply that I
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 6:39pm.
So first you imply that I misrepresented Hitler's goals, then when unable to back that up, since I didn't, you turn to "who cares what he wanted." Well, because Brunette and I were engaged in speculating about what might have happened under different circumstances, what he wanted to do is important. I do care that his goal wasn't free beer! Perhaps you don't understand what a hypothetical is-- I'm not rewriting history, I'm imagining how it could have gone differently. As is Brunette.
Uh, no.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 01/28/2011 - 1:37pm.
History, and speculation, are usually exclusive of each other. Once you get to speculating about history, it becomes an exercise in, well, speculation. You're no longer treating history as history, but as a series of what ifs.
How's this for a what if? What if more Americans had been awake back in 2008, we wouldn't be saddled with monstrous debt, deficit and a rudderless ship of state, and a president that bows to just about every tinpot dictator he's been around, embarrassing his country and, probably, our allies.
As I said, who knows what Hitler's real goals were? We only have his tome of his ideas to judge what he really thought, written after the fact, addressed to his followers. Do you seriously think he would have put to paper the idea that he really only wanted to overthrow the government of Munich, perhaps as a stepping stone? OR, considering his narcissism, is it not more likely that he enhanced his role, and ideas, just to play to his audience.
As for your snark about a hypothetical, see my second paragraph. How's that for a hypothetical?
Well, you just demonstrated
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 9:47am.
Well, you just demonstrated that you also find speculating about history interesting, so I think I can rest my case!
Where, exactly,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 1:36pm.
did I say that? I just offered up an example. History tells us that the American people weren't awake, so we ended up with a naif in the White House, who doesn't know his elbow from his, well, you get the idea. That's an historical fact. The idea that if, with just a modicum of investigation, as I'm sure you'd expect from your students in your area of expertise, people would have seen through the Charlatan from Chicago, is speculation. And I was just offering that up for the speculator, you.
How cool
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 10:36pm.
Now we can teach three languages to bi-national students on the backs of one failing economy. How delightful.
Under the supervision of an
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 1:20am.
Under the supervision of an Arab/Kenyan/American communist who's held 3 passports and has numerous, as yet unknown, college 'degrees and credits'............and one, as yet unknown, birth certificate - maybe??? Perhaps they don't issue them in Kenya, but our little cretin Governor - Neil Abercommie - JUST ANNOUCED that he found some 'writing - buried in the archives', that verifies that Boy Blunder was born in Hawaii!!!
No kin of mine will EVER study the Koran (as a prerequisite) or live under Sharia law...........
Obummer could have been born
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 3:11am.
Obummer could have been born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the 4th of July while his mother whistled "Yankee Doodle" and I would still believe he has no love for this Country. Not as a whole anyway. I'm sure he loves his party and his fellow travelers, America.... uh.. not so much.
technicality.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 1:43pm.
I would argue that he has no love for the American way of life. I think he likes this country, he'd just like it better if it operated under a socialist democracy (an oxymoron if there ever was one).
Almost
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:14pm.
check out the link to the NY Post article about the Chinese piano player, who performed in OUR house, in front of Obumbler and Hu. And the song he played, and the reaction on certain Chinese blogs.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sour_note_at_hu_fete_sU6ZLyo3xXs8F...
What she actually said was
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 5:06am.
What she actually said was "And I'll have the Black Bean Chicken with egg ried rice."
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
LOL!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 1:41pm.
That's funny!
Great sig, by the way.
thanks almostcowboy!
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 3:02pm.
thanks almostcowboy!
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
~Down here
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 9:24pm.
Too skinny to continue up there.
Okay, I'm going to try to put this simply.
You keep missing the point and replying to your own fallacies.
Here's the crux of the matter on this whole 2nd Amendment topic.
What Angle said represents the reason why we have not been taken over from within by a dictator like so many other countries.
What sets America apart is the fact that the Founders recognized that all people have the right to defend themselves and their possessions and they ensured that the government would never be able to take away that right.
As long as the 2nd Amendment is respected and adhered to this country will remain free. You can shiver in fear of an armed populace all you want, but the only thing threatening your personal liberty is an intrusive central government.