We, the sensible people of the United States,...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by ajbera
Sloww. I think I'll send this to my liberal pals.

I even agree with X, though I would rephrase it:

X: English is the dominant language of this country, and you should make every effort to learn it to facilitate your ability to live here more easily. You have the right not to learn English, but you do not have the right to demand the rest of the English-speaking nation understand you, hire you even if you can't communicate with anyone, or take the time and effort to comprehend what it is you're trying to say.

Communication is the cornerstone of civilization; the clearer and more direct the communication, the better the function of civilization.

Let me get this straight.
I think they should understand "Learn the ****ing language!", and you want to lay this intricate piece of work on them instead?
To the one's who can't speak the language?

Well, all righty then.

[ajbera]

I'm curious what points people disagree on (aside from Article X). Let's (try to) open this to a reasonable, rational, polite discussion about philosophical/ideological differences, and see if we can find some common ground.

This will either a) bring us closer together, or b) drive us farther apart. I will feel good about the world if we accomplish a), and I'll have a good laugh if we accomplish b).

Give me unity, or give me chaos.

[Main_Brain]

In Times like these I remember U.S. never had an Age of Enlightment...

[ajbera]

How about this:

Article X: (In a loud, slow voice) YOU SPEAKEE ENGLISH, OR YOU (insert alternative here)!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy by telling them they didn't warn you not to stick the screwdriver in your eye.

I generally tend to agree, and I think the US should really stop with all the crappy trials and crappy disclaimers which are only a waste of time. However, the legitimate willingness to get rid of stupid trials shouldn't lead to the opposite excess, which is to say "your loss, sucker" everytime someone suffers. For instance, I think the trials against the tobacco companies about the period before the 70's, when they actively hid the health hazards despite knowing about them, these trials are perfectly legitimate.
The responsibility of the producer sometimes exists, and often doesn't. This article should only deal with the latter.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

I don't adhere to the "you're poor, it's your fault" crap. Some people sure abuse from welfare system, but it is no reason to let all the others starve to death

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we should be wary of public health care or public anything.

I wonder why Canada has an HDI and a life expectancy so much higher to the US despite the harsh weather conditions...
Rejecting the very idea public intervention simply because some public interventions do suck is extremely stupid and dangerous.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair (yes, capital punishment).

I am against Death Penalty. Barbaric practice which isn't even an efficient deterrent

ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness-- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights

Again, one of those stupid "Get it yourself or don't have it" articles. It doesn't take into account one second those who simply can't.

ARTICLE X:
This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from. We welcome you here. English is our language and like the one you left behind, we also have a culture. Learn it or go back to the country and the living conditions you were fleeing."

I have no real problem with the article. Except that it is only valid if there are plenty of good, available, and cheap/free English courses for potentially illterate foreigners. Otherwise it's just anothe "You're deep in the mud ? Stay there !" article.

[Maniac]

I disagree with IV, V and X: Spanish should be an official language in the USA!

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: We, the sensible people of the United States,...

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is
based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just
you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different
opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always
will be ... and like the rest of us you need to simply deal with it.

Think about this for a minute. If enacted it would allow Klansmen to burn crosses next door to a black person's house, or a Nazi to paint a swastika on his house which happens to be across from a synagogue.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are
the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone
in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation
after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing
more than the creation of another generation of professional couch
potatoes.

I sure hope they never close the place you've worked at for the past thirty years while you're living in a part of the country that hasn't seen a new job in the past twenty, and you without as spare cent to your name because you used your last one to buy little Bobby chemotherpay for his leukemia after the company cut out your insurance beneifts the year before they moved to China.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice,
but from the looks of public housing, we should be wary of public
health care or public anything.

I sure hope you're never get old only to discover that your pension fund got used to pay for the legal defense of the guy who embezzled your pension fund.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you
kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be
surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric
chair (yes, capital punishment).

Can we add something to this to the effect that if the prosecution suppresses important evidence, like for instance that the lab tech that processed the DNA evidence used against you has recently been convicted for faking evidence in ten other cases the prosecution should share your fate?

[DAVOUT]

At last a Constitution saying what is really important.

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: We, the sensible people of the United States,...

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I sure hope you're never get old only to discover that your pension fund got used to pay for the legal defense of the guy who embezzled your pension fund.

Wow, did you have a client in THIS situation ?

[oedo]

Re: We, the sensible people of the United States,...

You do not have the right...

anyone else noticed that almost each article starts out this way?
a funny read nonetheless.

[Kidlicious]

That's because it's fascist crap. No chance.

[ajbera]

What's fascist about it? Tough, yes. (Rightfully) dismissive of the notion that every person, simply by virtue of being alive, deserves to automatically be coddled and fulfilled from cradle to grave by the State, yes. Fascist, not at all.

There's nothing in here that says the poor must starve; it merely says that you have no right to expect the State to feed you. Individuals are, by and large, charitable, and nine people out of ten would voluntarily give the poor what they need to survive, and help them try to do better for themselves. But, even individuals are not obligated to help; they just will, out of decency. the problem is people thinking that somehow they have the right to expect the world to take complete care of them, and it just ain't true.

An irrelevant aside - William F. Buckley Jr. is on MSNBC's Hardball right now, and he acts a lot like Hannibal Lecter (as portrayed by Hopkins). Kinda amusing (particularly since I really like Lecter.)

[MrFun]

Serious discussion?

Well, I disagree with X, for reasons others have mentioned.

I disagree with capital punishment system, since too often, it seems to be racially-biased.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ajbera
What's fascist about it? Tough, yes. (Rightfully) dismissive of the notion that every person, simply by virtue of being alive, deserves to automatically be coddled and fulfilled from cradle to grave by the State, yes. Fascist, not at all.

There's nothing in here that says the poor must starve; it merely says that you have no right to expect the State to feed you. Individuals are, by and large, charitable, and nine people out of ten would voluntarily give the poor what they need to survive, and help them try to do better for themselves. But, even individuals are not obligated to help; they just will, out of decency. the problem is people thinking that somehow they have the right to expect the world to take complete care of them, and it just ain't true.

I don't want to be obligated to work. That means I'm not going to do it.

[Q Classic]

i disagree with only the last sentence of article X. everything else i have no problem with.

imho, if a chinese, kazakh, ugandan, or hungarian immigrant has to learn english to survive here and fully function in society, so should every mexican, columbian, honduran, and so on. sure, they're more than welcome to speak spanish in their own homes, and in their communities... i have no problem with privately-funded non-english language bulletins, newspapers, and magazines; i do have a problem, however, with having government papers translated into other languages simply because they refuse to learn english, which, although is not the legal official language, is the de facto official language.

it boils down to this: if my mom had to learn english when she came here, you ought to too.