Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Anarchy: I'm all for diversity, but I'm still going to give shit to people who are different. If some bible bashing freak comes to my door, I'll call them a freak and then tell them to fuck off. If they really press the issue, then I'll crack out the Nietzsche.

The point is though, otherwise, you end up like some whiny goth kid and woe is me and the world hates me and all that shit.

Of course people will get flack for not conforming. That's people.

No, no, no. I wasn't saying that a different lifestyle automatically meant a fucked up lifestyle. What I was saying is that if people do something that prevents them from getting a job, then that's their choice if they want to fuck up. Likewise, if someone wants to use heroin, then good on them. If they want to fuck their lives, I'm happy for them.

It's their choice. It's pretty silly though.

For some things, yeah, okay, it's taking away a freedom to say everyone must drive on one side of the road, or that people must speak the same language. It gets practically impossible to get anything done though. Also, saying doctors and patients don't need to communicate is absurd. You can't be serious that grunts of pain are good enough. In fact, I think a major problem with doctors is their bedside manner.

Then again though, let's get rid of language all together and just go back to pointing and grunting, and banging clubs on the ground.

If freedom of speech is imperative, then I have the right to choose not to serve a non-English speaking customer or not employ a non-English speaking customer. I have the right to openly say so also. Don't start defining my freedoms like that though.

It's rude to speak another language in front of other people who don't understand. Like at our kendo (Japanese martial art) club, all of the Japanese there speak English (to varying degrees). However, they often speak Japanese amongst themselves so as to talk shit about some of the whites behind their backs. One of them has translated for us once. That is what I mean by rudeness.

The same works in reverse for English speakers in other countries. When I was in Quebec, I didn't walk right up to people and start babbling in English. I tried to speak French, and then asked (in French) if they spoke English. Europeans often get pissed off with American tourists who cram their culture and language on them, and rightly so. I'm saying the converse is also true.

The saying is when in Rome, do as the Romans do. In other words, observe their customs and cultural practices and don't fuck with them because of it. I think you'd be the first to complain about American Imperialism.

Nero: Most countries drive on the right instead of the left. The only exceptions are Great Britain and a few Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand. I think India might also. I know some European countries such as Sweden used to, but they changed. Then there are countries such as Egypt where, failing physical obstructions, you drive where you like, overtake someone who is turning on their inside lane at 120kph, and hold on for dear life. I've never been so scared on the road as I was in that country! *L*

Anarchy: The problem with using translators is that once more, yes, it does come back to money. My money being spent on things for which I get little return. If it were something where I put a dollar in, and got a dollar out, I'd be cool with that. It's not though. It's basically a whole lot of people having to support a few. You're for choices and consequences. However, they make the choice, and I face the consequence. If they can fund their own translators, then good on them. Go for it.

My big point in all this is that if it affects me, then it's a problem. I'm sick of funding special interest groups in life. Let them fund themselves. They're free to make that choice.

shorbe

Anarchy: I'm all for diversity, but I'm still going to give shit to people who are different. If some bible bashing freak comes to my door, I'll call them a freak and then tell them to fuck off. If they really press the issue, then I'll crack out the Nietzsche.

Fine! That's wonderful that you express your opinions! But that doesn't mean you can force them. You are free to convert persuade or attempt to change the Christians beleif, however you Cannot pass a law making it illegal to practice his religion. Same with language, Congress may NOT pass a law incriminating peoples free speach and right to speak their language. don't belive me? This is a little document you might know of. It's called the constition.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I know that you are australian, so you might not be familiar, however the topic IS langauge of americans, and therefore this is revelant.

No, no, no. I wasn't saying that a different lifestyle automatically meant a fucked up lifestyle. What I was saying is that if people do something that prevents them from getting a job, then that's their choice if they want to fuck up. Likewise, if someone wants to use heroin, then good on them. If they want to fuck their lives, I'm happy for them.

That's true, and then you agree with me, They have the right to do what they want, whether you or I approve or not. They have the right to speak their langauge. Glad you agree with my arguments.

Also, saying doctors and patients don't need to communicate is absurd. You can't be serious that grunts of pain are good enough. In fact, I think a major problem with doctors is their bedside manner.

A hospital is a business. They may chose to hire those based on their abilities, obsviously. Speaking a language is an ability. If they require doctors to speak english, that's fine, its their business, if they require an english speaker to speak another language, that's fine too, but making it Illegal not to speak english, that's insane.

Then again though, let's get rid of language all together and just go back to pointing and grunting, and banging clubs on the ground.

You're free to do so, That's what's great about america, If you wanna fuck society, Fuck it! Go back to those caves kid!

If freedom of speech is imperative, then I have the right to choose not to serve a non-English speaking customer or not employ a non-English speaking customer. I have the right to openly say so also. Don't start defining my freedoms like that though.

And Again I will Point to freedom of speach.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This means congress cannot prohibit people speaking freely. I have no idea how you say you can discriminate against some one or as I quote from you "right to choose not to serve a non-English speaking customer" from that. However yes I do agree that langauge should be a factor in hiring. Speaking language is a qualification, if a qualifacation is not met, you shouldn't have to hire.

The same works in reverse for English speakers in other countries. When I was in Quebec, I didn't walk right up to people and start babbling in English. I tried to speak French, and then asked (in French) if they spoke English. Europeans often get pissed off with American tourists who cram their culture and language on them, and rightly so. I'm saying the converse is also true.

I agree, If I were in quebec, I would attempt to speak french. If I were in England I would speak english. IF I were in germany I would speak german. If I were in america I would speak...? There is no offical american langauge. becuase American democracy is based not on nationality or traditions but on freedom.

The saying is when in Rome, do as the Romans do. In other words, observe their customs and cultural practices and don't fuck with them because of it. I think you'd be the first to complain about American Imperialism.

I think the saying is stupid. You should not look at others for finding out what is right. Try some individualism, I don't want to follow traditions just becuase that's how it was done before me, And I refuse to. The same is for any american. They don't have to speak english just becuase you do, or just becuase a majority does.

Anarchy: The problem with using translators is that once more, yes, it does come back to money. My money being spent on things for which I get little return.

Businesses can chose whether to hire a translator or not. They can chose to spend the money and open business or not. You can't chose whether they may or not unless you own that specific buiness. It's absurd to say, that sence you support that business through purchasing their product or service you then have the right to dictate how they use their income.

My big point in all this is that if it affects me, then it's a problem. I'm sick of funding special interest groups in life. Let them fund themselves. They're free to make that choice.

Who said anything about special intrest groups? That's esoteric and irrelevant, The point is, we have the right to speak what language we want and infriging opon that is not ONLY immoral but Illegal.

Anarchy penguin.

At 5/11/01 07:11 PM, Tyrant_Nero wrote: Today in my World Geography class, we got into a discussion about foreigners and immigrants. Apparently, my teacher believes that someone from another country should not have to know how to speak English to become a citizen. Come on! I think that in order to be a member of a country, you must know how to at least speak the language good enough to where other people can understand you. There was an incident concerning a foreigner and several police officers. The foreigner was told to freeze, and keep his hands up. Not understanding what they said, he walked away. They yelled at him again, and he turned around, then reached near his coat. He was shot and killed because of this, thinking he was reaching for a weapon. His family is currently trying to take this to court. How stupid!!! If you want to be a member of a country/organization/club, I think that there are certain things you need to know. And to be a legal citizen, you should be able to speak the language. Does anybody agree with me?

I totally agree with you. I think that if you want to become an American citizen you should now how to speek English. Other countries can do whatever the hell they want about their language(s). If they want they can have 100 different languages and I wouldn't give half of a rats ass.Besides America is full enough. We shouldn't allow any more immagrants in.

:: I totally agree with you. I think that if you want to become an American citizen you should now how to speek English. Other countries can do whatever the hell they want about their language(s). If they want they can have 100 different languages and I wouldn't give half of a rats ass.Besides America is full enough. We shouldn't allow any more immagrants in.

Thats quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time.

Thats quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time.

i don't give a fuck what you think of me you son of a bitch. so what if i'm ignorant what the hell are you gonna do about it? are you gonna sue me, you dumbass?! leave me the hell alone you motherfucker. if you have a problem with what i have to say, you can fuck yourself and die,Anarchypenguin.

SO IN OTHER: WORDS FUCK YOU Anarchypenguin

At 7/11/01 10:21 PM, ThunderBolt2001 wrote: Thats quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time.

i don't give a fuck what you think of me you son of a bitch. so what if i'm ignorant what the hell are you gonna do about it? are you gonna sue me, you dumbass?! leave me the hell alone you motherfucker. if you have a problem with what i have to say, you can fuck yourself and die,Anarchypenguin.

Wow, I thought you might acually put some hint of intelligence, maybe even a bit of anything resebeling it, but unfortunatly not. I'd suggest that If you want to say things compeletly devoid of reason with out examples to back yourself up and then mudsling some bull when your mommys not in the room to see the naughty words she wont let you use, either go to the general BBS or try AOL. In the political board however, I'd suggest we keep to the topic, thanks.

Anarchy: My big problem with all this, whether it's hospitals and doctors, or the legal system, or roads, etc is that you say everyone has the right to speak their own language. I agree. However, so long as the majority of taxpayers are English speaking, then their tax dollars should be going to English speaking programmes. Say all the people who speak Urdu want things in Urdu, doctors, lawyers, etc, then their tax dollars and their tax dollars only should be paying for that. Taxation is about utility. However, it's so much a case of the many having to pay for the few. Fuck that.

If people want non-English speaking programmes, then let them pay for it themselves. So long as English-speaking taxes are going to public utility, then those dollars should be spent on English-speaking utility. Simple as that.

Regarding the caveman like communication: I was being sarcastic.

Regarding an employer or businessman's right to discriminate: Free assembly and speech surely only apply to public places. When on private property, the owner surely has the right to choose who comes and who goes, and why. There must be something regarding property rights and ownership in the constitution.

It's not about following a tradition in America. It's about communication. It's also about public spending upon public utility.

I'm talking about public systems here. I'm all for private systems doing whatever the fuck they like. If they want to discriminate against me, then good for them. If they're public though, then let's divvy up the funding for language along language lines. Almost all of it would be English and Spanish. I bet that's not the case though.

The special interest groups would be those trying to get tests written and translators provided in the public systems such as educational, legal aid, medical, traffic, etc. That's not esoteric at all. It's very real.

Also, regarding the immigration thing...

In principle, I'm for it, so long as they're not criminals or carrying some bizarre disease that's going to kill half the population. Immigrants are what built the New World afterall.

In practise though, it's perhaps not such a great idea environmentally. Some politicians here are saying Australia should double its population in the next ten years. Maybe this is best left for another topic, but basically, Australia is already facing some major problems centred around water that include, but are not restricted to, salination, loss of rain catchment areas, not enough damns/water restrictions, pollution of waterways.

I think the California energy crisis is a good example in the US of such problems. Of course, people could always cut back on their environmental impact, but that's unlikely to happen, and so you'd have to ask: Could California hold 50 million people, and so on?

shorbe

Geez, I stay off my computer for a day and look what happens? The topic reaches 95 posts! I'll reply to other things later, but i'm tired and lazy. So I'll just reply to this one segment...

The saying is when in Rome, do as the Romans do. In other words, observe their customs and cultural practices and don't fuck with them because of it. I think you'd be the first to complain about American Imperialism.

I think the saying is stupid. You should not look at others for finding out what is right. Try some individualism, I don't want to follow traditions just becuase that's how it was done before me, And I refuse to. The same is for any american. They don't have to speak english just becuase you do, or just becuase a majority does.

Its not an issue of majority. Sure, expressing idividuality is important, but to go into another country and refuse the culture and customs of that country is downright rude. You are the guest. You are the foreigner. That place is their people's home and nobody has the right to go in and change their home.

Too tired to complain more....

At 7/11/01 10:38 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Wow, I thought you might acually put some hint of intelligence, maybe even a bit of anything resebeling it, but unfortunatly not. I'd suggest that If you want to say things compeletly devoid of reason with out examples to back yourself up and then mudsling some bull when your mommys not in the room to see the naughty words she wont let you use, either go to the general BBS or try AOL. In the political board however, I'd suggest we keep to the topic, thanks.

i am intelligent, dumbass. i get straight a's. you obviously haven't been to philly, asshole. and you know what my mom doesn't give a shit if i use "naughty words". leave me alone. you are starting to get on my nerves you motherfuckin flordia asshole. just leave me the hell alone.

i am intelligent, dumbass. i get straight a's. you obviously haven't been to philly, asshole. and you know what my mom doesn't give a shit if i use "naughty words". leave me alone. you are starting to get on my nerves you motherfuckin flordia asshole. just leave me the hell alone.

No one cares about your mud slining bull. If you want to act like a child you would have better luck in chat room or general BBS but no one cares here, we care about the topics and issues not about your baby rants and whining.

At 7/11/01 11:15 PM, ThunderBolt2001 wrote:

At 7/11/01 10:38 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Wow, I thought you might acually put some hint of intelligence, maybe even a bit of anything resebeling it, but unfortunatly not. I'd suggest that If you want to say things compeletly devoid of reason with out examples to back yourself up and then mudsling some bull when your mommys not in the room to see the naughty words she wont let you use, either go to the general BBS or try AOL. In the political board however, I'd suggest we keep to the topic, thanks.

i am intelligent, dumbass. i get straight a's. you obviously haven't been to philly, asshole. and you know what my mom doesn't give a shit if i use "naughty words". leave me alone. you are starting to get on my nerves you motherfuckin flordia asshole. just leave me the hell alone.

Wow. You get straight A's. Big Fucking Deal. A grade doesnt represent someone's inteligence level. They represent how much effort and time you are willing to put into a class. I've seen total morons make A's in classes and some of the smartest people I know fail. Its not because they are stupid, its because they dont want to put forth effort.

At 7/11/01 11:27 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: No one cares about your mud slining bull. If you want to act like a child you would have better luck in chat room or general BBS but no one cares here, we care about the topics and issues not about your baby rants and whining.

shut the fuck up!! you're giving me a fucking headache',you pussy assed bitch!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! AND DON'T FORGET SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! GOD DAMN YOU MOTHERFUCKER!!

At 7/11/01 11:32 PM, ThunderBolt2001 wrote:

At 7/11/01 11:27 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: No one cares about your mud slining bull. If you want to act like a child you would have better luck in chat room or general BBS but no one cares here, we care about the topics and issues not about your baby rants and whining.

shut the fuck up!! you're giving me a fucking headache',you pussy assed bitch!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! AND DON'T FORGET SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! GOD DAMN YOU MOTHERFUCKER!!

Stop your whining! Grow up a little bit. I know it may be hard for someone as immature as you, but please try. And if you are going to insult someone, please try to be a bit more inteligent or thoughtful with your words. You make think your rambling makes you look cool, but you're wrong. You have not only degraded yourself, but Newgrounds as well. Do us all a big favor and go away.

At 7/11/01 11:01 PM, shorbe wrote: Anarchy: My big problem with all this, whether it's hospitals and doctors, or the legal system, or roads, etc is that you say everyone has the right to speak their own language. I agree. However, so long as the majority of taxpayers are English speaking, then their tax dollars should be going to English speaking programmes. Say all the people who speak Urdu want things in Urdu, doctors, lawyers, etc, then their tax dollars and their tax dollars only should be paying for that. Taxation is about utility. However, it's so much a case of the many having to pay for the few. Fuck that.

Ok, I understand. That's an opinon, however the topic at hand is " the langauge of americans" so regardless of whether You or I am in support of such programs, they still have the right to speak their language and the languages they want to speak and not what another person wants them too.

Regarding the caveman like communication: I was being sarcastic.

Obviously.

Regarding an employer or businessman's right to discriminate: Free assembly and speech surely only apply to public places. When on private property, the owner surely has the right to choose who comes and who goes, and why. There must be something regarding property rights and ownership in the constitution.

Why? Show me evidence in the US constition or any valid document showing me that you have the right to discriminate based on lanaguage or diffrent culture of a person.

It's not about following a tradition in America. It's about communication. It's also about public spending upon public utility.

Just becuase someone doesn't speak english doesn't mean we have to pay money to accomidate that, They can speak their lanague all they want, and not have to convert but your arguements that they shouldn't do that becuase we would have to spend taxes on them is absurd becuase we don't have to spend anything on them, just let them alone.

I'm talking about public systems here. I'm all for private systems doing whatever the fuck they like. If they want to discriminate against me, then good for them. If they're public though, then let's divvy up the funding for language along language lines. Almost all of it would be English and Spanish. I bet that's not the case though.

What Funding? I don't follow what funding your talking about... Money based on what language someone speaks? What money is this? And Discrimination is not legal or moral so It's not alright with me.

The special interest groups would be those trying to get tests written and translators provided in the public systems such as educational, legal aid, medical, traffic, etc. That's not esoteric at all. It's very real.

As for medical and traffic, We don't need to spend on that it will stay like it is. For Educational, you must learn english in the public american school system regardless of your background so that doesn't hold up, and as for legal aid, americans are given the right to be defended justly so yes we have to pay for their translator if they can't afford it just as we have to pay for a public defendor for those who can't afford it.

Also, regarding the immigration thing...

In principle, I'm for it, so long as they're not criminals or carrying some bizarre disease that's going to kill half the population. Immigrants are what built the New World afterall.

Yes, the only true americans are native american indians and there is no real offical heritage for an american citizen regardless of what some 3 toothed imbred tennesse resident who thinks that black people are from hell, says.

I think the California energy crisis is a good example in the US of such problems. Of course, people could always cut back on their environmental impact, but that's unlikely to happen, and so you'd have to ask: Could California hold 50 million people, and so on?

The world's population is on a steady incline, Stopping immigration won't magically stop it.

Anarchy penguin.

And thunderbolt I never said you were stupid, I said that your comments were ignorant and you showed no sence of intelligence in your posts. I don't know how smart you are, and really I don't care, this is a forum and the topic is language of americans, We're trying to express our views and generally that's easier when aided by examples and something to back up what we say, Not just some rant that has had no thought put into it and then a bunch of profanity for no reason, please try to act a little more mature.

At 7/11/01 11:47 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: And thunderbolt I never said you were stupid, I said that your comments were ignorant and you showed no sence of intelligence in your posts. I don't know how smart you are, and really I don't care, this is a forum and the topic is language of americans, We're trying to express our views and generally that's easier when aided by examples and something to back up what we say, Not just some rant that has had no thought put into it and then a bunch of profanity for no reason, please try to act a little more mature.

Okay. I guess I'm sorry about all that. I guess I'm a little tired or something. I am smart though.

Anarchy: As I've said, I'm all for people speaking their own language, just not if they expect public funding to do so. In a similar vein, I'm all for people having their own religion, but I'm not for public funding of religion.

The point I made about people being able to discriminate on their own private property must come down to some form of property law. Basically, whoever owns the property is king of the castle so to speak. As such, in private property such as a business, church or house, the owner(s) should decide who comes and goes, and why. Otherwise, there's no distinction between private and public property. I am sure there are thousands of pages written on distinction between private and public property, yet once more, governments always want to tell you what to do with yourself, your mind, and your property and money.

We do have to spend money on non-English speakers if they want to get a driver's license, get legal aid or anything else where they don't provide their own translator, so yes, it does require money being spent upon them.

They want to be left alone, but they don't when it's not convenient or too costly. That's the double standard.

The funding of which I speak includes writing tests and other documentation in languages other than English as well as translators or doctors who can't communicate with their patients.

Since you want to talk about discrimination, let's talk about discrimination. Presumably, you don't want any group getting any less of a service than any other. However, if say, one group pays 51% (or any other arbitrary figure) of the tax, then that group should get 51% of the representation for their tax dollar. However, a whole lot of special interest groups get a lot more than their proportional representation in this respect. As such, who funds it? Why, the majority of course. As such, there is discrimination against the majority.

Let me explain it another way.

We have ten people, five in group X, 3 in group Y, and 2 in group Z. They all contribute one dollar. Therefore, there are ten dollars. Now, if we spend then ten dollars evenly based soley on the number of groups, each group get's $3.33.

This in fact means that each member of group X gets $0.67 (rounding up), each member of group Y gets $1.11, and each member of group Z gets $1.67 (rounding up).

As such, there is discrimination against the members of group X.

This is precisely what happens when public funds pay for anything not written or spoken in English (such as driver's tests in other languages or doctors who don't speak English).

So don't talk to me about discrimination.

Of course, this problem is indicative of taxation and public spending in general. Too many special interest groups, and not enough proportional representation.

As for the state paying for legal aid, once again, it's still not proportional spending. If people have the right to public representation, then they should have the responsibility of paying the same amount of tax as everyone else to use such public representation. Of course though, that's not how it works. Everyone wants rights, but no one wants responsibilities.

American Indians are immigrants just like everyone else. They came from Asia. Whether that happened thousands of years ago or yesterday is irrelevant. Everyone came from somewhere else.

I never said stopping immigration won't stop population increase. All I said was unchecked immigration would also lead to environmental disaster within a country.

shorbe

Anarchy: As I've said, I'm all for people speaking their own language, just not if they expect public funding to do so. In a similar vein, I'm all for people having their own religion, but I'm not for public funding of religion.

K, then you agree with me, but I want to respond becuase before we were debating things and I want the last word.

The point I made about people being able to discriminate on their own private property must come down to some form of property law. Basically, whoever owns the property is king of the castle so to speak. As such, in private property such as a business, church or house, the owner(s) should decide who comes and goes, and why. Otherwise, there's no distinction between private and public property. I am sure there are thousands of pages written on distinction between private and public property, yet once more, governments always want to tell you what to do with yourself, your mind, and your property and money.

Well, that would be true if a person owns their land and is a seperate entity from the government, IE they are their own country, but if they're are laws in a country, and your Property is IN that country, you can't break the law just becuase it's on your land. I.E. if you own land and some one walks onto it you can't just kill them unless they make some aggressive behavior. If someone walks on your drive way you don't have the right to shoot them. Of course if you are endangerd on your property you have every right, but just breaking a discrimination law becuase your on your land isn't and excuse.

We do have to spend money on non-English speakers if they want to get a driver's license, get legal aid or anything else where they don't provide their own translator, so yes, it does require money being spent upon them.

Yes, I cited some examples like that, as them having that right, Just as we have the ability to get a free public defendor if we are convictied they have the right to a translator, protecting our rights does come at cost.

The funding of which I speak includes writing tests and other documentation in languages other than English as well as translators or doctors who can't communicate with their patients.

There are costs of freedom, Just like how the military doesn't have the right to quarter in our homes, we have the right to speak. It would be less expensive if, instead of having to build bases, G.I. Joe holded up in your home for a little while ate your suger smacks and macked with your sister, but Cost is not an excuse for releving us of our rights. I E the freedom of speach.

Let me explain it another way.

We have ten people, five in group X, 3 in group Y, and 2 in group Z. They all contribute one dollar. Therefore, there are ten dollars. Now, if we spend then ten dollars evenly based soley on the number of groups, each group get's $3.33.

This in fact means that each member of group X gets $0.67 (rounding up), each member of group Y gets $1.11, and each member of group Z gets $1.67 (rounding up).

As such, there is discrimination against the members of group X.

This is precisely what happens when public funds pay for anything not written or spoken in English (such as driver's tests in other languages or doctors who don't speak English).

Ok, nice algebra buddy, but I don't think that's how it works. Your example of the rivers tests in other langauges, I'm pretty sure that they have an assumed quota which they meet. If your equation was true, then they would have the same number of english spanish and any other language of tests at the DMV... but they don't. Maybe there is some example where this is true, But I don't know of it. Maybe you can show it here.

As for the state paying for legal aid, once again, it's still not proportional spending. If people have the right to public representation, then they should have the responsibility of paying the same amount of tax as everyone else to use such public representation. Of course though, that's not how it works. Everyone wants rights, but no one wants responsibilities.

What your saying is that If you don't have the money to defend your self then you shouldn't be defended, but the constitution disagrees with you, and theres no way to lessen the consistution.

I never said stopping immigration won't stop population increase. All I said was unchecked immigration would also lead to environmental disaster within a country.

Ok... I always was for quotas.

AP

I just like to do what I want to and not give a flying fuck about what people think....

At 7/17/01 08:19 AM, pyroarchy wrote: I just like to do what I want to and not give a flying fuck about what people think....

I complelty Agree. We have the right to speak the language we want and not to have the government impose it on us.

At 8/14/01 10:08 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 7/17/01 08:19 AM, pyroarchy wrote: I just like to do what I want to and not give a flying fuck about what people think....

I complelty Agree. We have the right to speak the language we want and not to have the government impose it on us.

Can't this topic crawl back to the hell-hole it came from? There is no more debate. All facts have been stated and there really is no true 'winner'. Let's find something else to complain about.

Anarchy: It seems we're not going to agree on this, so it's pointless. However, you said the following, which I found a little strange, since it's very much a Libertarian type argument I would propose:

I complelty Agree. We have the right to speak the language we want and not to have the government impose it on us.

I'm all for the government not imposing things on us, including taxation which is then spent on people/things of no interest, relevance or concern to me.

That's typical of liberals and other left-wing hypocrites though. When it suits them, they don't want big, bad daddy government telling them what to do, yet they just love going crying to big, bad daddy government for a handout to fund their contradictory (not to mention wildly inefficient) and downright intrusive social programmes.

shorbe

Anarchy: It seems we're not going to agree on this, so it's pointless. However, you said the following, which I found a little strange, since it's very much a Libertarian type argument I would propose:

I complelty Agree. We have the right to speak the language we want and not to have the government impose it on us.

I'm all for the government not imposing things on us, including taxation which is then spent on people/things of no interest, relevance or concern to me.

That's typical of liberals and other left-wing hypocrites though. When it suits them, they don't want big, bad daddy government telling them what to do, yet they just love going crying to big, bad daddy government for a handout to fund their contradictory (not to mention wildly inefficient) and downright intrusive social programmes.

shorbe

in germany you speak german.
in france you speak french.
in russia you speak russian.

but in america you speak english, i dont mind if immergrants come to america seeking a better life,and i dont mind if they come to america not knowing the offical language at first, but if you live in america for 5 or more years and dont eaven bother to learn the offical language, then you deserve to be shot

At 8/25/01 01:01 AM, FAT_MAN2k1 wrote: in germany you speak german.
in france you speak french.
in russia you speak russian.

but in america you speak english, i dont mind if immergrants come to america seeking a better life,and i dont mind if they come to america not knowing the offical language at first, but if you live in america for 5 or more years and dont eaven bother to learn the offical language, then you deserve to be shot

Wow That is Such wonderful wisdom from a 12 year old. But let's look at REALITY. First america has NO offical langauge, only the language in which government related writings are made. Also we have the freedom of speech. Acually we've gone over this argument about a million times, go back and look at the other posts instead of just spouting out junk without thining.

Anyway, in america there is no law shall be passed to restrict anyones speech, in germany the same is true, as with france.

Anarchy: Germany has restrictions speech relating to race issues.

shorbe

At 5/11/01 07:11 PM, Anti-You wrote: Today in my World Geography class, we got into a discussion about foreigners and immigrants. Apparently, my teacher believes that someone from another country should not have to know how to speak English to become a citizen. Come on! I think that in order to be a member of a country, you must know how to at least speak the language good enough to where other people can understand you. There was an incident concerning a foreigner and several police officers. The foreigner was told to freeze, and keep his hands up. Not understanding what they said, he walked away. They yelled at him again, and he turned around, then reached near his coat. He was shot and killed because of this, thinking he was reaching for a weapon. His family is currently trying to take this to court. How stupid!!! If you want to be a member of a country/organization/club, I think that there are certain things you need to know. And to be a legal citizen, you should be able to speak the language. Does anybody agree with me?

First of all.. English was not even the original language spoken on this continent. Do I think everyone should speak it to at least some degree? Yes. But people shouldn't be forced to do it. Let them speak whatever language they can.

And about the foreigner example you brought up.. That had nothing to do with not speaking English, and everything had to do with that guy being a complete moron. I mean, if you see police yelling at you and pointing their guns at you, what would possess you to walk away, and then start reaching into your pockets? That guy's family had no one to blame but his stupidity.

At 8/31/01 11:35 AM, UnclePecos wrote:

At 5/11/01 07:11 PM, Anti-You wrote: Today in my World Geography class, we got into a discussion about foreigners and immigrants. Apparently, my teacher believes that someone from another country should not have to know how to speak English to become a citizen. Come on! I think that in order to be a member of a country, you must know how to at least speak the language good enough to where other people can understand you. There was an incident concerning a foreigner and several police officers. The foreigner was told to freeze, and keep his hands up. Not understanding what they said, he walked away. They yelled at him again, and he turned around, then reached near his coat. He was shot and killed because of this, thinking he was reaching for a weapon. His family is currently trying to take this to court. How stupid!!! If you want to be a member of a country/organization/club, I think that there are certain things you need to know. And to be a legal citizen, you should be able to speak the language. Does anybody agree with me?

First of all.. English was not even the original language spoken on this continent. Do I think everyone should speak it to at least some degree? Yes. But people shouldn't be forced to do it. Let them speak whatever language they can.

My point exactly.

I haven't read all of the posts, so I don't know if someone's said this already or not.

I think that immigrants should be able to come live in this country speaking whatever language they choose, but they shouldn't be allowed to bitch about or sue people over incidents caused by their choice not to speak the national language, like the one mentioned where the cops shot the guy. Well, I guess it's ok if they bitch about it, because I'm not going to have to listen unless I know that language, but not claim damages from it.

People should have the freedom to do stupid things, as long as they don't harm others, and are willing to deal with the consequences of their poor decisions.

All right, I guess I'll respond to the first post I saw. I completely agree. A few hundred years ago, a couple of the top men in our small country voted on a national language. Beating German by only a few votes, English became the language of the United States Of America. Recently, I've worked two jobs - Shaw's Supermarkets and Blockbuster Video - foreigners come in all the time and act rude as hell towards everyone around them by speaking in their native tongue, even though when they show me their licence for a purchase, it's a New Hampshire licence. This annoys the fuck out of me. If you live here, speak our language - English, or Slang English [which is what most of us end up speaking]. Even Ebonics is an outrage - I've never heard such a degrading form of "English" as Ebonics. So, in closing... if you live in America - SPEAK FUCKING ENGLISH!