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

[mrmitchell]

I probably should have clarified. Language is a different issue, that gets entangled in efficiency. I never said everyone should speak a different language, or some should learn English while some don't, or English should be used across the world, or whutever it is you think I said. I really had issue with the cultural part. X said "learn our culture or run back home", and unless you're living in a defined ethnic state, shouldn't it be fair that you have a different culture from your neighbor, just as long as you can still live together?
---
And about the right-to-not-not-be-offended-bit: I was exercising my right to be offended. As long as I didn't try to stop you from offending me, I was in clear zone.

[Ted Striker]

...are bad azz mf'ers

[Spiffor]

Long time no see, Ted. How are you doing ?

[Urban Ranger]

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

There's a group of sensible people outside your door who want to have a word with you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Long time no see, Ted. How are you doing ?

What do you mean? Didn't you see him letting loose in other threads?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Long time no see, Ted. How are you doing ?

Very good, thanks.

How is Deutschland?

How is your woman?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Very good, thanks.

How is Deutschland?

Pretty good thanks. The weather is way too hot these days, but I'm beginning to get used to it. I have given back a paper (more accurately, a pain in the ass) last week, and I feel very relieved

How is your woman?

Everything is fine as well. We went to Constance Lake last week end. Beautiful place

[Tingkai]

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

The article is incredibly naive, contradictory and shallow. The writer hasn't thought about what he/she wrote.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth.

Yup, so just because you can afford a gas-guzzling, pollution spewing car doesn't mean you have the right to own one. And just because you want to own a 50-cal machine gun and 200 assault rifles doesn't mean you get to own them. Just because you have money, doesn't mean you get to buy whatever you want, although there will still be lots that you can buy.

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!

Yup, so just because you don't like people who speak a language other than English doesn't mean you get to deport them. And you don't get to deport them because they eat different food, pray to a different god, celebrate different holidays. You don't get to deport them because they're not "patriotic". You don't get to throw them in jail just because they burn a peice of cloth that they own, that we call the national flag.

Then again, you don't have the right to incite violence against others.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm.

Nope, this one just doesn't work. We have a right to live in a peaceful society where we are free from harm. People who violate this right (harm someone by murdering them) should pay a penalty.

We most certainly do have the right to be free from harm caused by others.

And yes, people have the right to sue others, even if we think the lawsuit is completely stupid. If the courts side with stupidity, then we have a problem.

Simple, really.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing.

Is this what you will tell the starving child who had the misfortune to be born in a poor family?

Economically developed countries have the ability to guarantee that every child has access to shelter, food, healthcare and education. We must ensure all children are free from abuse.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care.

Why not? Why should health care be only for those who can afford it. We provide a high-standard of universal healthcare in Canada, as do many other countries. There is no reason not to do it.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. ... don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair (yes, capital punishment).

This one is really stupid. It says you do not have the right to kill others, but you do have the right to kill others.

If you do not have the right to kill others than the government cannot allow capital punishment.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others.

Nope, you have the right to possessions of others if they give it to you, such as inheriting property from your parents. A law like this would give the government the power to deny inheritance.

And do we really want to give back the land that was stolen or coerced from the First Nations?

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You don't have the right to a job.

If that means the government will stop handing out corporate welfare payments, I'm all for it. Let's stop the hand-outs to McDonald's, farming corporations, the rich, and all the other companies that get tax breaks and interest-free loans.

As for an individual's right to a job, I have a right to my current job for the next 18 months. That's the length of my contract.

Also, do you want to be protected from unfair dismissal?

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to happiness.

No ****. Next they'll be telling us that we have the right to feel sad.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE X:
This is an English speaking country. Learn it or go back to the country and the living conditions you were fleeing.

This one is just plain stupid. Either this idiot hasn't heard about freedom of speech, or he doesn't understand it.

We should all have the right to freedom of speech. That means being free to say whatever we want*, in whatever language that you want. If you want to speak Klingon, go for it buddy.

*Within limits. You do not have the right to incite violence. You do not have the right to slander others.

[DinoDoc]

We should all have the right to freedom of speech

Greece and the Netherlands lack freedom of speech? I never knew that.

[St Leo]

This one is the most funny. Someday, latin descent people will outnumber english-speaking descent people in this country. I guess when they rule and tell you to learn Spanish or get out you will have no right to complain.

Doofus. That will never happen in the US for two reasons:
1) Primary immigrant groups never stay the same.
2) Everyone, especially the second generation everyone, learns English. Well, they do in Canada. Maybe they don't in non-multicultural countries like the US.

I disagree with IV, V, VI, and X. I am not too keen on II, III, VII, and VIII, but I do agree with what is actually written in them if not what is meant.

VIII is interesting because the Right-to-a-Job is something right-wingers are likelier to harp about than left-wingers. After all, they tend to be the ones whose platforms revolve around "more employment opportunities".

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Will they at least be more helpful if I make an attempt to speak thier language?

Most people I know with South American ancestry are at least bilingual with Spanish as a first language or were raised bilingual. Yes, I realize many fourth and fifth generation Americans whose distant anscestry spoke only Spanish cannot themselves speak Spanish.

But teaching your kids Spanish and English is no longer frowned upon in imigrant communities. And given that Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population, I suggest you guys learn some Spanish.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by St Leo
VIII is interesting because the Right-to-a-Job is something right-wingers are likelier to harp about than left-wingers. After all, they tend to be the ones whose platforms revolve around "more employment opportunities".

Isn't that why they cut taxes?

[Cyclotron]

For the most part, the spanish speakers are at the economic bottom of society. That's why I can live in California and not meet a whole lot, because I just don't know a lot of itinerant farm workers, etcetera.

Economic advancement is impossible without knowing the language, and the language won't change unless people speaking a new language become strong economically. Therefore, English will remain the major language in use.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
For the most part, the spanish speakers are at the economic bottom of society. That's why I can live in California and not meet a whole lot, because I just don't know a lot of itinerant farm workers, etcetera.

Economic advancement is impossible without knowing the language, and the language won't change unless people speaking a new language become strong economically. Therefore, English will remain the major language in use.

I live in New York City, where we don't hide from poverty in our suburbs and cars.

I'm saying that the demographic changes in this nation will increase the power of Spanish speaking people. Look, if I were an entrepenuer and saw an underserved market of primarily Spanish-speaking people. I would use Spanish-speaking people to deliver goods and services. My overcoming the language barrier would mean profit for me. Others will follow suit. So the haves in society may legitimate the language of some have not ethnic groups in order to achieve profit.

There you go - a libertarian explanation of why you should learn Spanish.

[Berzerker]

Tingkai -

The article is incredibly naive, contradictory and shallow. The writer hasn't thought about what he/she wrote.

Then you should be able to refute the author's arguments, but you appear to be confused instead.

Yup, so just because you can afford a gas-guzzling, pollution spewing car doesn't mean you have the right to own one. And just because you want to own a 50-cal machine gun and 200 assault rifles doesn't mean you get to own them. Just because you have money, doesn't mean you get to buy whatever you want, although there will still be lots that you can buy.

The author says you don't have a right to a new car and you seem to agree after attacking him? Of course, the author is talking about a non-"right" to compel others via government to buy us new cars.

Yup, so just because you don't like people who speak a language other than English doesn't mean you get to deport them. And you don't get to deport them because they eat different food, pray to a different god, celebrate different holidays. You don't get to deport them because they're not "patriotic". You don't get to throw them in jail just because they burn a peice of cloth that they own, that we call the national flag.

Where did the author mention deportation for any of these? He asked people refusing to learn English to go home.

Nope, this one just doesn't work. We have a right to live in a peaceful society where we are free from harm. People who violate this right (harm someone by murdering them) should pay a penalty. We most certainly do have the right to be free from harm caused by others.

Strawman. The author clearly put that comment into the context of people inline for the Darwin Award and suing the makers of products, nothing about hurting others.

And yes, people have the right to sue others, even if we think the lawsuit is completely stupid. If the courts side with stupidity, then we have a problem.

Which was the author's point. So, what do we do to solve this problem? Remove this "right" to sue people for our own stupidity? Hmm...

Is this what you will tell the starving child who had the misfortune to be born in a poor family?

Nope, I'd give them food or tell them where to get it.

Economically developed countries have the ability to guarantee that every child has access to shelter, food, healthcare and education. We must ensure all children are free from abuse.

Feel free, but my needs don't create a right to steal from you.

Why not? Why should health care be only for those who can afford it. We provide a high-standard of universal healthcare in Canada, as do many other countries. There is no reason not to do it.

That all depends on how we define the word "right". If I have a "right" to force you to pay for my health care, and since "rights" are supposed to be equal, then why can't a rich person exercise the right to force poor people to pay for their health care? And what you have in Canada or anywhere else is irrelevant, the author has provided a satirical addendum to the US Bill of Rights.

This one is really stupid. It says you do not have the right to kill others, but you do have the right to kill others. If you do not have the right to kill others than the government cannot allow capital punishment.

Please tell us you understand the distinction between a murderer and their victim... I don't have a right to put you in a cage, but if you run around punching people, that's what'll happen here and in Canada.

Nope, you have the right to possessions of others if they give it to you, such as inheriting property from your parents. A law like this would give the government the power to deny inheritance.

If you had a right to your parents property, their will would be irrelevant. Now you're confusing rights with privileges...

If that means the government will stop handing out corporate welfare payments, I'm all for it. Let's stop the hand-outs to McDonald's, farming corporations, the rich, and all the other companies that get tax breaks and interest-free loans.

Sounds good to me, but you lack consistency here, not the author. I don't see where he said corporations have this right to government subsidies.

As for an individual's right to a job, I have a right to my current job for the next 18 months. That's the length of my contract.

Did you have a right to that job before the contract?

Also, do you want to be protected from unfair dismissal?

Did the author say we have no rights under contractual obligations?

No ****. Next they'll be telling us that we have the right to feel sad.

The author was merely pointing out the difference between the right to pursue happiness and the non-right to be happy at the expense of others.

This one is just plain stupid. Either this idiot hasn't heard about freedom of speech, or he doesn't understand it.

We should all have the right to freedom of speech. That means being free to say whatever we want*, in whatever language that you want. If you want to speak Klingon, go for it buddy.

Did the author demand that government deport people for not speaking English? Nope... That was quite a hatchet job...