Votes: Is this accurate? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pxland · #31 09-22-2006, 08:00 AM

Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to learn a new language.

So much for the melting pot.

Speak my language or get out is entirely un-patriotic.

thinly veiled indeed.

Now. 'Bout the social security benefits for illegals.... Hell no. Who in their right mind would even consider this to be good for America?

Honus · #32 09-22-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It has EVERYTHING to do with an official language. Airliners and ships are interstate, mostly. The fed governs all things interstate.

Bot

I understand that, but I still don't see why new legislation is needed. Is it your position that the feds cannot require airliners, ships, etc., to communicate in English? If so, then you might have a point, but so far I haven't seen anything to support that view.

And even if that were the case, there is still no need for the federal government to enforce patriotism by mandating an official language. Such a law doesn't seem very libertarian to me.

Botnst · #33 09-22-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I understand that, but I still don't see why new legislation is needed. Is it your position that the feds cannot require airliners, ships, etc., to communicate in English? If so, then you might have a point, but so far I haven't seen anything to support that view.

And even if that were the case, there is still no need for the federal government to enforce patriotism by mandating an official language. Such a law doesn't seem very libertarian to me.

My assertion is that the Constitution as it exists and has been interpreted empowers Congress with power necessary and sufficient power to enact a national language.

I have indicated several classes of need that fall within the commerce clause of the constitution.

I think that a similar argument could be made concerning the equal protection clause.

Appealing to libertarianism is a red herring. People are free to speak whatever language they wish to invent. An official language would be the language within the constitutional framework of government. IMO.

Bot

t walgamuth · #34 09-22-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

What you call racism, i call patriotism.

patriotism....the last refuge of a scoundrel.

someone famous said that...can't remember who.

tom w

Botnst · #35 09-22-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

patriotism....the last refuge of a scoundrel.

someone famous said that...can't remember who.

tom w

Doesn't matter. It's an observation that is substituted as an argument by people too lazy to form an argument.

Bot

t walgamuth · #36 09-22-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unkl300d

Perhaps the idea of an official language is good in order to stem future law suits.

Our country has become so legalistic, the humanity is being sucked out of us !

See you in COURT, Bud !

It's a matter of time before radical groups sue for language discrimination etc.

In San Francisco, if you make the mistake of entering a resdiential rental contract with someone and you speak some Spanish during the process, you are obligated BY LAW to provide the written contract IN SPANISH and all further documents IN SPANISH.
OR GET SUED.

I am a landlord and speak three languages. I will NEVER now try to help folks in a language other than English.

Hugo Chaves says that Europeans massacred the Americas [sic. indigenous people}. English be damned.

Long live the 'noble savage'.

i can see why they have that law. you may have been perfectly honorable in your bilingual dealings but it is a slippery slope in a contract situation.

tom w

t walgamuth · #37 09-22-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Doesn't matter. It's an observation that is substituted as an argument by people too lazy to form an argument.

Bot

i often am not too lazy to form an arguement.

this subject seems trivial though, really. and i believe the statement really sums it up.

and calling names is not really what i expect from the eloquent b.

tom w

Honus · #38 09-22-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...I have indicated several classes of need that fall within the commerce clause of the constitution...

If you indicated any public safety needs fulfilled by this official language bill, please post that info again. So far I have not seen anything that says that current law creates any public safety issue, whatsoever.

Quote:

...Appealing to libertarianism is a red herring...

No. The appeal to libertarianism might be based on my misunderstanding of your position, but it's not a red herring.

Quote:

People are free to speak whatever language they wish to invent.

Then what is the point of the proposed legislation?

Quote:

An official language would be the language within the constitutional framework of government...

I don't know what that means. Are you saying that exising law requires the government to use multiple languages even in cases involving public safety? If so, then I see the need for new legislation (but not the psuedo-patriotic type). If not, then what's the point?

Botnst · #39 09-22-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

1. If you indicated any public safety needs fulfilled by this official language bill, please post that info again. So far I have not seen anything that says that current law creates any public safety issue, whatsoever.No.

2. The appeal to libertarianism might be based on my misunderstanding of your position, but it's not a red herring.

3. Then what is the point of the proposed legislation?I don't know what that means. Are you saying that exising law requires the government to use multiple languages even in cases involving public safety? If so, then I see the need for new legislation (but not the psuedo-patriotic type). If not, then what's the point?

1. Huh?

2. Huh?

3. don't be needlessly pedestrian. The point of the legislation is to make English the official language. Official means official, not universal.

Kuan · #40 09-22-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

1. Huh?

2. Huh?

3. don't be needlessly pedestrian. The point of the legislation is to make English the official language. Official means official, not universal.

I know you're not serious. You cannot be saying that we need more legislation.

Botnst · #41 09-22-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

I know you're not serious. You cannot be saying that we need more legislation.

Ah, now you've done it. You outted me.

I was following a reasonable argument to it's conclusion.

Damn.

Bot

BENZ-LGB · #42 09-22-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

All essential communication is done in English already. What's the big deal? The language is constantly evolving. English was once Middle German and is what it is today due to immigration, war, and royal marriages. Who knows what it will be tomorrow. We laugh at the French when they create official French words, or when Norway differentiates between two different classes of Norwegian. What are we, afraid of tainting the purity of the English language?

Anyway it's OK. That funny feeling in your stomach will go away once you get to know "them." Hanging out with other cultures has only enriched my life. It's given me an appreciation of duende. Someone translate that please... duende.

Kuan, you have either accidentally, or purposedly, twisted the intent of the English-as-official-language (EAOL) legislative drive.

I t has nothing to do with maintaining the "purity" of the English language. the richness of our language is due to the fact that is is so open to assimilating new words and linguistic concepts. So that is not the issue.

It has nothing to do with rejecting other cultures. I am certain that The people on this board who propose EAOL rule are not opposed to absorbing other cultures. They are happy to order chow-mein or eat tacos. So intolerance is not the issue.

The real issue is that a common language tends to unify and strengthen a nation. A nation divided by language pockets will evnetually become balkanized and will eventually fall apart.

We are Americans and we all come from different corners of the world A common language can be, and should be, the common thread that pulls this wonderful tapestry together.

Demanding EAOL is not anti-diversity it is pro-strength.

Stop trying to change the debate and stop trying to tar proponents of EAOL with the anti-diversity, racists-bigoted brush.

Is not fair.

BTW, duende has many meanings. It can be a goblin, a ghost, an apparition. It can also mean a charm, or inspiration.

Honus · #43 09-22-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

1. Huh?

I believe that you have said that the proposed bill would be of value in the regulation of interstate trucking, shipping, etc. You haven't specified what relation the proposed bill has to trucking or shipping, but I assumed that we were talking about public safety. My position is that the feds already have all the authority they need to require communication in English when public safety is at stake. Now, for at least the third time, am I wrong about that? Is there some public safety purpose served by the proposed bill.

Quote:

3. don't be needlessly pedestrian. The point of the legislation is to make English the official language. Official means official, not universal.

I don't know what that means. Please excuse my ignorance.

BENZ-LGB · #44 09-22-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

Look{or Mita}...hell,I'm half Spanish myself! ...

Que bueno chico, eres mitad Español.

I am sure that it must be your good half.

Botnst · #45 09-22-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I believe that you have said that the proposed bill would be of value in the regulation of interstate trucking, shipping, etc. You haven't specified what relation the proposed bill has to trucking or shipping, but I assumed that we were talking about public safety. My position is that the feds already have all the authority they need to require communication in English when public safety is at stake. Now, for at least the third time, am I wrong about that? Is there some public safety purpose served by the proposed bill.I don't know what that means. Please excuse my ignorance.

In order to convey information between any two or more entities there must be a common means of communication. If the entities incompatibly code information then the chances of miscommunication increase.

All of this time I maintained that the constitution empowered Congress to define (or not) any number of official languages. Esparanto if they desire. Are you now agreeing with me? If so, then I guess this message is unnecessary.