Time For Dems To Stop Protecting Terrorist

[K3XR]

The terrorist best friend.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Y2EzMjk0M2NhZWY4N2IxM2Y1NTc0NzFhNWMyZWNmNzU=

[w2amr]

The terrorist best friend.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Y2EzMjk0M2NhZWY4N2IxM2Y1NTc0NzFhNWMyZWNmNzU=
"Only Democrats, it appears, are determined to protect terrorist communications."

Hard to believe there are people brain damage enough to believe this garbage.

[N9XR]

"Only Democrats, it appears, are determined to protect terrorist communications."

Hard to believe there are people brain damage enough to believe this garbage.

They are followers of Junkies and federal convicts.

It is really no surprise.

[KB9YCO]

Time for the republicans to stop creating terrorists...

[KV1M]

Time for the republicans to stop creating terrorists...

Oww!
There's nothing that hurts like the truth.

[KD0DKI]

Time for republicans to so something.

[K3XR]

Time for the republicans to stop creating terrorists...

More of the banks create bank robbers mentality, gotta love it.

[N9XR]

More of the banks create bank robbers mentality, gotta love it.

What Danno is saying is that if another country invaded here, he would not support fighting off the invasion.

Seems like there are a lot of cowards like that around.

[N4VGB]

What Danno is saying is that if another country invaded here, he would not support fighting off the invasion.


I propose that an army of American left wing liberals meet any invading army and talk to them. We right wing radical gun owners will stay at home and sit this one out. Let us know how it works out? :D

[KB9YCO]

Time for the republicans to stop creating terrorists...

More of the banks create bank robbers mentality, gotta love it.

Wow, the linkmeister general speaketh, so sayeth the shepherd...

What Danno is saying is that if another country invaded here, he would not support fighting off the invasion.

Seems like there are a lot of cowards like that around.

I'm not sure what he's saying, though I am surprised to see him saying anything that doesn't have a link attached to it.
I never said that the Republicans created terrorism, but many of their actions have certainly furthered the terrorists warped 'cause'. It's so amusing to me that certain people are so quick to associate Democrats with terrorists, yet they deny the all too often shown connections that the Republicans have had with some of these terrorists. On top of that they also refuse to admit that major mistakes like the Iraq invasion have actually prospered every stereotype that groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda have about American 'imperialism' in the middle-east since Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, or Al Qaeda, or the Taliban.
Most people here know that I am not a partisan person, but it's really easy to lay quite a bit of blame on the Republicans at this point since they have helped create "the bank" and "the robbers" and are meanwhile breaking our bank(s) in the process. So, wrong again linkbot, they made this mess (partially along with the Democrats and lots of spin and misinformation) and we are now in so deep that the light at the end of the tunnel seems really, really dim and far off. Agendas, agendas, agendas...

[AE6IP]

I propose that an army of American left wing liberals meet any invading army and talk to them. We right wing radical gun owners will stay at home and sit this one out. Let us know how it works out? :D

The last time an Army of American left wing liberals met an invading army, under the direction of that horrible evil socialist, FDR, we kicked serious butt.

Despite the right wing radical gun owners wanting to sit that one out causing us to have to wait until it was almost too late.

[KU0DM]

I propose that an army of American left wing liberals meet any invading army and talk to them. We right wing radical gun owners will stay at home and sit this one out. Let us know how it works out? :D

Did we attack the Cubans?

Or clear our minds and talk with the Cubans?

And what was the outcome?

War-fever is running rampant among ranks of Republicans.

[N4VGB]

The last time an Army of American left wing liberals met an invading army, under the direction of that horrible evil socialist, FDR, we kicked serious butt.
Despite the right wing radical gun owners wanting to sit that one out causing us to have to wait until it was almost too late.


Your own statement should make it clear to you just how far to the ultra left that many have swung in recent years. In current politics FDR would be considered a right leaning centrist. You might even make a case for him being quite the "hawk" in military matters. America was very much involved in WWII before committing any troops to the action. FDR even subverted popular opinion with that "lend lease" affair!? UH OH, sounds a lot like "screw popular opinion, I'm going to do what needs to be done", now doesn't it? Remind you of anyone today? :rolleyes:

[AE6IP]

In current politics FDR would be considered a right leaning centrist.

Nonsense. FDR was no farther right than the modern democratic party, and many would say was farther left.

The revolutionary war was won by liberals too. The right wingers, few that there were, supported the king.

[N4VGB]

Did we attack the Cubans?
Or clear our minds and talk with the Cubans?
And what was the outcome?
War-fever is running rampant among ranks of Republicans.


Have you ever engaged a true communist in any debate? I have and it was a truly eye opening event in my life. Absolute and total control of everyone and every aspect of life is their mantra.

Fidel is soon to be in the ground and Raoul has already started changes that Fidel would never have tolerated. Just imagine the radical thought of Cubans actually owning electronics, appliances and their own homes, which Raoul has just started to legalize!!!

We are very Socialist in nature in the U.S. and have many Socialist programs here. But our econnomy remains Capitalist and should stay that way.

I'm comfortable with Socialism but cannot abide Communism.

[N4VGB]

Nonsense. FDR was no farther right than the modern democratic party, and many would say was farther left.

The revolutionary war was won by liberals too. The right wingers, few that there were, supported the king.

That is true nonsense!

[KB9YCO]

...sounds a lot like "screw popular opinion, I'm going to do what needs to be done", now doesn't it? Remind you of anyone today? :rolleyes:

The glaringly huge difference between FDR and Bush is the fact that FRD's actions were necessary for overall stability, in the case of Bush they had more to do with serving an agenda than fighting the war on terror. If it was just about the war on terror then he would never have needed to invade Iraq, he would've stuck to the job in Afghanistan and done more about Iran and all the other breeding grounds for terrorists. In Iraq we actually created a place that was perfect for terrorists out of a country that was mostly secular and westernized (though Saddam was a nut, everyone knows that.) So, your comparison does not apply, one was necessary, the other was based on some seriously flawed data, misinformation, spin, and agenda instead of a necessity for international stability.

[AE6IP]

That is true nonsense!

Really? and who were the conservatives among the founding fathers?

[N4VGB]

The glaringly huge difference between FDR and Bush is the fact that FRD's actions were necessary for overall stability, in the case of Bush they had more to do with serving an agenda than fighting the war on terror. If it was just about the war on terror then he would never have needed to invade Iraq, he would've stuck to the job in Afghanistan and done more about Iran and all the other breeding grounds for terrorists. In Iraq we actually created a place that was perfect for terrorists out of a country that was mostly secular and westernized (though Saddam was a nut, everyone knows that.) So, your comparison does not apply, one was necessary, the other was based on some seriously flawed data, misinformation, spin, and agenda instead of a necessity for international stability.

So Sadaam wasn't causing instability in the ME!? JFK financed Sadaam and the Baath Party to be a stabilizing effect in the ME and then it backfired and became a destabilizing element. So who's responsibility was it to remove him? And you totally forget that Bush offered a course of action to Sadaam and his family and cronies to avoid conflict, leave Iraq.

Iran is an impossible target for conventional warfare for the U.S. We don't have the military strength for such an endeavor, look at the size and population of Iran as compared to Iraq.

I'm betting the Israelis believe those rockets that fell on their butts should be classified as WMD!? The only attack on Isreali soil that has ever been tolerated without massive response from Israel. The Saudis probably feel the same way about the ones they received also. And of course the Kuwaitis loved Sadaam also. There's little doubt that Iranians loved Sadaam, now is there?

There was no threat to the U.S. involved when entering WWI or WWII or Korea or Vietnam. It was just the right thing to do, plain and simple.

[N4VGB]

Really? and who were the conservatives among the founding fathers?

By the words of the documents they penned and the commonly accepted meaning of those words in the English language of their day, ALL OF THEM. The most liberal among them would be seen as a right winger today.

[KU0DM]

Have you ever engaged a true communist in any debate? I have and it was a truly eye opening event in my life. Absolute and total control of everyone and every aspect of life is their mantra.

Fidel is soon to be in the ground and Raoul has already started changes that Fidel would never have tolerated. Just imagine the radical thought of Cubans actually owning electronics, appliances and their own homes, which Raoul has just started to legalize!!!

We are very Socialist in nature in the U.S. and have many Socialist programs here. But our econnomy remains Capitalist and should stay that way.

I'm comfortable with Socialism but cannot abide Communism.

OK...glad to hear that.

So is that the reason for war fever?

Is that why we should be such an aggressive Nation?

[N4VGB]

OK...glad to hear that.

So is that the reason for war fever?

Is that why we should be such an aggressive Nation?

Who suffers from your perceived "war fever"? If you confuse my stance that since the U.S. started the current situation in Iraq and should now stay to finish the mission with a state of "war fever", you are mistaken completely.

Isolationism is a fine thing in the short term of world history but has never worked in the long term for any nation that practiced it.

[w2amr]

The last time an Army of American left wing liberals met an invading army, under the direction of that horrible evil socialist, FDR, we kicked serious butt.

Despite the right wing radical gun owners wanting to sit that one out causing us to have to wait until it was almost too late.
This time it will be different. We are sending in the neo-con chicken hawk brigade. Lead by Ted Nugent and limbaugh.

[KU0DM]

Who suffers from your perceived "war fever"? If you confuse my stance that since the U.S. started the current situation in Iraq and should now stay to finish the mission with a state of "war fever", you are mistaken completely.

Isolationism is a fine thing in the short term of world history but has never worked in the long term for any nation that practiced it.

OK, glad to hear that.

However, in the past almost all of the modern wars we have entered, were under Republican leaders. After 9/11, and still, there is a case of war fever.

But what would you describe it? Scoffing at us who believe in a peaceful ways to solve conflict, and emphasizing on owning weapons and using them.

[AE6IP]

By the words of the documents they penned and the commonly accepted meaning of those words in the English language of their day, ALL OF THEM. The most liberal among them would be seen as a right winger today.

Nonsense of the highest order. Orwell would be proud.

[n2ize]

By the words of the documents they penned and the commonly accepted meaning of those words in the English language of their day, ALL OF THEM. The most liberal among them would be seen as a right winger today.

Thats what you think.

[N4VGB]

OK, glad to hear that.

However, in the past almost all of the modern wars we have entered, were under Republican leaders. After 9/11, and still, there is a case of war fever.

But what would you describe it? Scoffing at us who believe in a peaceful ways to solve conflict, and emphasizing on owning weapons and using them.

There are no "modern wars", just a continuation of world history that is full of war from the beginning of time.

Perhaps my age and years of viewing many peaceful soles in the U.S. getting the snot beat out of them by not so peaceful soles has ripened my views into more realistic ones.

You will also ripen in the next 40+ years and change considerably in your views, it happens to us all.

[KU0DM]

Are we talking internationally or on a person to person?

What happens person to person doesn't reflect how nations should be run and wars be fought.

[N4VGB]

Are we talking internationally or on a person to person?

What happens person to person doesn't reflect how nations should be run and wars be fought.

What do you think the real difference is??? Reminds me of a line from the movie Red Dawn when a downed F-15 pilot was ask what started the conflict portrayed in the movie, "I dunno, two toughest kids on the block, they're gonna fight".

[KU0DM]

"I dunno, two toughest kids on the block, they're gonna fight".

That my friend is a metaphor.

The issues between nations are far more complex than between two people.

You are talking about how you see peaceful people get taken advantage of everyday, however peaceful nations are not taken advantage of. Switzerland for instance, pretty peaceful nation, no one pushes them around.

So, do you think it is a good idea to compare peaceful people to peaceful nations?

[N4VGB]

That my friend is a metaphor.

The issues between nations are far more complex than between two people.

You are talking about how you see peaceful people get taken advantage of everyday, however peaceful nations are not taken advantage of. Switzerland for instance, pretty peaceful nation, no one pushes them around.

So, do you think it is a good idea to compare peaceful people to peaceful nations?

What is a peaceful nation? You might be surprised to find that some of those "peaceful nations" have long practiced Universal Military Training and all those peaceful civilians can go home and in seconds become uniformed and armed soldiers.

Denmark was ranked as the "happiest nation & people on earth" at one time but they also severely limit immigration to maintain that status. Isn't that a bit racist and isolationist?

[KU0DM]

What is a peaceful nation? You might be surprised to find that some of those "peaceful nations" have long practiced Universal Military Training and all those peaceful civilians can go home and in seconds become uniformed and armed soldiers.

Denmark was ranked as the "happiest nation & people on earth" at one time but they also severely limit immigration to maintain that status. Isn't that a bit racist and isolationist?

Any nation that does not engage in violent militaristic action against other nations or their citizens in my definitions would be peaceful.

but they also severely limit immigration to maintain that status. Isn't that a bit racist and isolationist?

Isn't that was the Republicans are doing to our southern borders, where the people on the other side are a different color and speak a different language?

[N4VGB]

Any nation that does not engage in violent militaristic action against other nations or their citizens in my definitions would be peaceful.
Isn't that was the Republicans are doing to our southern borders, where the people on the other side are a different color and speak a different language?

Yes indeed, give that young man a prize! Now it works for the nation that is ranked as number in stabile economy and personal happiness but it won't work here because ???????????? :D

Keep in mind that you are the one who brought the Scandinavian nations into the debate. :)

[KB9YCO]

So Sadaam wasn't causing instability in the ME!? JFK financed Sadaam and the Baath Party to be a stabilizing effect in the ME and then it backfired and became a destabilizing element. So who's responsibility was it to remove him? And you totally forget that Bush offered a course of action to Sadaam and his family and cronies to avoid conflict, leave Iraq.

Iran is an impossible target for conventional warfare for the U.S. We don't have the military strength for such an endeavor, look at the size and population of Iran as compared to Iraq.

I'm betting the Israelis believe those rockets that fell on their butts should be classified as WMD!? The only attack on Isreali soil that has ever been tolerated without massive response from Israel. The Saudis probably feel the same way about the ones they received also. And of course the Kuwaitis loved Sadaam also. There's little doubt that Iranians loved Sadaam, now is there?

There was no threat to the U.S. involved when entering WWI or WWII or Korea or Vietnam. It was just the right thing to do, plain and simple.

The threat in the second world war was to the general welfare of Europe and larger portion of civilized society. As you pointed out elsewhere, and as was pointed out at the time, we can't be isolationist forever, especially when it comes to someone bent on world domination. Take a look at the ground that Hitler was covering, and factor in the imperialist Japanese and their zealous warring, very little of it compares to what's going on now. The Iraq situation comes nowhere near comparing to 'the right thing to do' during the second world war, extremely dissimilar in almost every way.

Vietnam was also politically motivated, and a huge tactical error that ignored a number of factors in an anti-commie fervor. Korea half worked out, but was another cold war miscalculation. The first world war was largely about politics and the power play, though there was some justification there, again the whole 'trying to take over everyone' deal. And again does not compare to the current or recent situation.

I find it also amusing that the new line now is to blame the actions of Iraq and Saddam Hussein on Kennedy, when of course the reality is that the Iraq of that era, and the motivations and agendas of this country at that time, compared to about 40 years later were not similar in most ways either. The initial motivations may have been the same as, hmm, lets say Reagan and the 'enemy of my enemy' motivation, but that's about the only comparison that is apt. Blame Kennedy, that's just funny. You seem to also forget, or omit the fact that we can actually largely thank Reagan for his bolstering of Iraq for the sake of trying to control and one-up Iran. (Remember that lovely picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein? Yes, he wasn't the only one, but they were all about helping out Saddam in order to control Iran, and that was where the real 'backfiring' came from, they gave Iraq too much power without caring about the instability that that would cause.) Reagan/Bush, Sr. also helped fund the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to combat the Soviets. But please, blame Kennedy... what a joke. Kennedy was no saint, but he as by far the least of them all to blame for the developing of the current, or more recent anyway, Iraq government.

To say that Bush offered them a peaceful 'course of action' is also revisionist history. What Bush offered was an ultimatum to a tyrant that Bush knew would never listen. Most of those instabilities in Iraq, while some horrible, were minor compared to what's happened since then. Most of the action that you speak of by Hussein (Israel, Saudi Arabia, WMD's) was long before all of the Bush, Jr./9-11 emphasis on Iraq as the 'central front on the war on terror', when in reality the Iraqi government had nothing to do with 9-11, it was just a convenient excuse to start something with Iraq. Iraq wasn't blameless or innocent, but what's happened since then does not warrant the way things are now. It's been noted more than once, by more than one source (including Rumsfeld) that there was an agenda at play to 'find something' in relation to Iraq. That's almost an exact quote, look it up. That's not rumor, it's reality, and the reality is that the current war in Iraq was based on pumped-up information, erroneous information (that was also spun and pumped) and an agenda of starting something with Iraq. To believe otherwise is just ignoring the reality and context of what was going on at the time. That being said I would agree that we have a duty to try and clean up the Iraq situation, just leaving would make it even worse than the mess that we largely created.

Lastly, I never said that Bush should have invaded Iran, but there were plenty of things that he could have gotten international support on to use against Iran. Actually, the same goes for Iraq, invasion was not the only possible course of action, there are many, many other ways to 'mess with' someone beyond starting a badly planned war. But, that wouldn't fit in with the agenda.

But please, blame Kennedy, it's good for a laugh every time I see it.

[N4VGB]

But please, blame Kennedy, it's good for a laugh every time I see it.


Blame? What blame? Installing Sadaam at the time was a good idea, he just got too full of himself and over confident. That's all there is to it.

Hey old LBJ thought Torrijos was a good idea in Panama, then Jimmy Carter turned the Panama Canal over to Torrijos and Torrijos turned Panama over to Noriega. No blame there, just a plan that went off course.

Apparently Bush should have ushered in another dictator to replace Sadaam immediately, left the Baath Party in control and all would have worked nicely. It probably was a big mistake to have elections and allow the Iraqis to have a government that they actually chose themselves and then stay around to help defend that government.

[KB9YCO]

Blame? What blame? Installing Sadaam at the time was a good idea, he just got too full of himself and over confident. That's all there is to it.

I pretty much said the same thing in my previous post, so on that we agree, but it doesn't seem to stop you from consistently posting a relation between Kennedy and Iraq's later brutality in other threads. Perhaps I misread your intention, no one is perfect, but it seems I've seen that statement more than once here.

Hey old LBJ thought Torrijos was a good idea in Panama, then Jimmy Carter turned the Panama Canal over to Torrijos and Torrijos turned Panama over to Noriega. No blame there, just a plan that went off course.

Again, no disagreement, it's all about the context of the times. With Johnson it was just advantageous for the moment, with Carter it was just a kindness sort of gesture along with what seemed advantageuos. I really think President Carter was a good, well-intentioned person who just wasn't an effective leader, perhaps he was too nice.

Apparently Bush should have ushered in another dictator to replace Sadaam immediately, left the Baath Party in control and all would have worked nicely. It probably was a big mistake to have elections and allow the Iraqis to have a government that they actually chose themselves and then stay around to help defend that government.

I don't agree with that, but with as much money and power as we've had to spend on this war we could have done a lot of other things that didn't involve an out and out invasion. We certainly could have just blockaded a large portion of that country, worked for more international support for economic pressure, along with other forms of suppression that didn't involve a badly planned war. Alas, the Bush administration was more into ultimatums that they knew would be ignored, and 'war fever' as some have called it. Too bad, many a missed opportunity now turned into a seemingly endless war.

[n0ov]

Not sure what is worse

A lame duck president or some of the lame comments posted

To keep it simple, we are all living at a point in history where two bullies tried to pick a fight -- when that happens and neither backs down there is bloodsheed

Not important what has been done -- the question is how do we defuse this mess and move the world a little farther from the trigger finger

[KV1M]

Not sure what is worse

A lame duck president or some of the lame comments posted

To keep it simple, we are all living at a point in history where two bullies tried to pick a fight -- when that happens and neither backs down there is bloodsheed

Not important what has been done -- the question is how do we defuse this mess and move the world a little farther from the trigger finger

Excellent question.
I think first off a good start would be to ignore the MSM (whether you think it right wing or leftie) since either way you think of them they are full of ****.

Then maybe get over the Party Ubber Allles thing and consign both of the losers to the dust bin of bad history. Neither really knows or cares about how you live or what you do or want anyway, wouldn't be a loss no matter how you looked at it.

Then start talking like adults instead of little idiot propaganda machines.

After that maybe we can begin to unravel the mess.

[N4VGB]

I think first off a good start would be to ignore the MSM
Then start talking like adults instead of little idiot propaganda machines.
After that maybe we can begin to unravel the mess.


What the devil does MSM or methylsulfonylmethane have to do with anything!?

All in a position to unravel the mess and actually have a position of power to apply their decisions, raise your hands? Yeah, that's what I thought.

This is a U.S. based political BS forum, not the Security Council of the UN! :D

[KV1M]

What the devil does MSM or methylsulfonylmethane have to do with anything!?

All in a position to unravel the mess and actually have a position of power to apply their decisions, raise your hands? Yeah, that's what I thought.

This is a U.S. based political BS forum, not the Security Council of the UN! :D

Main Stream Media pinhead, and they have everything to do with the divisions in the US.
Dilute the message as much as possible I see, even if the message is not partisan.

[N4VGB]

Main Stream Media pinhead, and they have everything to do with the divisions in the US.
Dilute the message as much as possible I see, even if the message is not partisan.

I'm not as familiar with "text speak" as most, English works best for me. :p:p:p

Main strean media is a business and as in all businesses, you give the customer what they want.

[KU0DM]

Yes indeed, give that young man a prize! Now it works for the nation that is ranked as number in stabile economy and personal happiness but it won't work here because ???????????? :D

Keep in mind that you are the one who brought the Scandinavian nations into the debate. :)

Why? Do you think a WASP America is a happy America?

Do you think it is minorities that are creating our economic issues and unhappiness?

It wouldn't work here because I think to many people can accept others differences in thought, color, and race, I am one of those people. I think cutting off non-WASP immigration would anger many and satisfy only a few, even cutting off immigration altogether would anger many, and we could no longer call ourselves a haven for those oppressed by totalitarianism. I think America would lose a lot of standing among the major nations, I think even Britain at that point would look down at us. Plus I think it would be wrong to cut off immigration, I can't help that Denmark does it, but I'll do all in my power as a citizen to make sure that we don't follow their lead.



Would it satisfy you?

[N4VGB]

Why? Do you think a WASP America is a happy America?

Do you think it is minorities that are creating our economic issues and unhappiness?

It wouldn't work here because I think to many people can accept others differences in thought, color, and race, I am one of those people. I think cutting off non-WASP immigration would anger many and satisfy only a few, even cutting off immigration altogether would anger many, and we could no longer call ourselves a haven for those oppressed by totalitarianism. I think America would lose a lot of standing among the major nations, I think even Britain at that point would look down at us. Plus I think it would be wrong to cut off immigration, I can't help that Denmark does it, but I'll do all in my power as a citizen to make sure that we don't follow their lead.



Would it satisfy you?

I think that 25-40 million illegal Mexican immigrants is too much for the U.S. economy to bear at this time, plain and simple, we can't afford them. I've got no problem with immigration in controlled numbers. The idea is to allow the immigrants to blend into our society in a controlled way and in controlled numbers. This nonsense that immigrants are to be allowed to immigrate and then insist on changing America to suit themselves is ridiculous. I don't have to accept the common practices of other peoples & nations.

[w2amr]

I think that 25-40 million illegal Mexican immigrants is too much for the U.S. economy to bear at this time, plain and simple, we can't afford them. I've got no problem with immigration in controlled numbers. The idea is to allow the immigrants to blend into our society in a controlled way and in controlled numbers. This nonsense that immigrants are to be allowed to immigrate and then insist on changing America to suit themselves is ridiculous. I don't have to accept the common practices of other peoples & nations.


Oh my God, Mark this date on the calendar. I agree with you . :eek:

[N4VGB]

Oh my God, Mark this date on the calendar. I agree with you . :eek:

I retract that post immediately! Something is way off here! :)

[KU0DM]

I think that 25-40 million illegal Mexican immigrants is too much for the U.S. economy to bear at this time, plain and simple, we can't afford them. I've got no problem with immigration in controlled numbers. The idea is to allow the immigrants to blend into our society in a controlled way and in controlled numbers. This nonsense that immigrants are to be allowed to immigrate and then insist on changing America to suit themselves is ridiculous. I don't have to accept the common practices of other peoples & nations.

I agree for the most part, you make a good point on the economy.

However, they aren't insisting that America change just for them. That is propaganda being broadcasted by all the fancy pants in Washington.

I think I am going into shock with the fact I agree with you.

[N4VGB]

I agree for the most part, you make a good point on the economy.

However, they aren't insisting that America change just for them. That is propaganda being broadcasted by all the fancy pants in Washington.

I think I am going into shock with the fact I agree with you.

I definitely retract it all now! :)

I'm just a little sick of government jobs requiring fluent Spanish language as a prerequisite to employment in the U.S. Old mean neocon me believes it behooves the immigrants to learn English. :eek:

Push one for English and marches in the streets by illegal Mexican immigrants demanding their rights, of which they legally have none, aren't trying to force change on us? :rolleyes:

[w2amr]

I definitely retract it all now! :)

I'm just a little sick of government jobs requiring fluent Spanish language as a prerequisite to employment in the U.S. Old mean neocon me believes it behooves the immigrants to learn English. :eek:

Push one for English and marches in the streets by illegal Mexican immigrants demanding their rights, of which they legally have none, aren't trying to force change on us? :rolleyes:
There must be a breech in the space time continuum, You are right on!

[N4VGB]

There must be a breech in the space time continuum, You are right on!

This could be a previously unknown side effect of us both being vintage Chevrolet addicts? :o

[w2amr]

This could be a previously unknown side effect of us both being vintage Chevrolet addicts? :o

Nice thought ,but I think it's more a matter of use both believing illegal immigrants should be rounded up and shipped back to wherever they came from. :D

[N4VGB]

Nice thought ,but I think it's more a matter of use both believing illegal immigrants should be rounded up and shipped back to wherever they came from. :D

Doesn't that make you a neocon? :)

[w2amr]

Doesn't that make you a neocon? :)
No, if that were the case I would shoot myself. That is if my wife didn't shoot me first.

[N4VGB]

No, if that were the case I would shoot myself. That is if my wife didn't shoot me first.

TIP: Don't let the wife have a key to the gun cabinet! She may shoot me but I'll be darned if she's going to do it with my guns and ammo!

Of course, she does have her own? :(

[KV1M]

I'm not as familiar with "text speak" as most, English works best for me. :p:p:p

Main strean media is a business and as in all businesses, you give the customer what they want.

Not quite, in America it's give the masses what the boss wants to give them.
And the boss's are as tone deaf and Republican as you.

[N4VGB]

Not quite, in America it's give the masses what the boss wants to give them.
And the boss's are as tone deaf and Republican as you.


Yeah, I heard the BBC stepped out of line and caused quite a flap. Only took them 40 years to deviate from the government line there. Must have been an enlightening experience for Brits? Nice to spin the dial here and get a few dozen different versions of every story. :p

[KV1M]

Yeah, I heard the BBC stepped out of line and caused quite a flap. Only took them 40 years to deviate from the government line there. Must have been an enlightening experience for Brits? Nice to spin the dial here and get a few dozen different versions of every story. :p

And yet the quality, quantity and reporting integrity is light years ahead of US media. Imagine that.
And they get the story right, so I can trust em.
If I need verification there are a couple hundred within 500 miles from here that I can get to on the net, cable TV or SW radio (you remember that?) or if I want to hot foot it down to the local store there are papers in 9 different languages offering far more reliable information in far larger quantities than I ever got in the US.

But you wouldn't know anything about that.

[N4VGB]

And yet the quality, quantity and reporting integrity is light years ahead of US media. Imagine that.

Yes it does indeed make a homogeneous society to have only one news source. A bit Orwellian but homogeneous. :p

[KV1M]

Yes it does indeed make a homogeneous society to have only one news source. A bit Orwellian but homogeneous. :p

So having 5 sources (all of those "choices" are owned by 5 companies Jethro) that are all not only wrong but working together to further the cause of one Party is better eh?

Right.

[N4VGB]

So having 5 sources (all of those "choices" are owned by 5 companies Jethro) that are all not only wrong but working together to further the cause of one Party is better eh?

Right.

Only 5? What planet are you on? I've got everything from the far left to the far right on my dial and everything in between. :confused:

[n2ize]

I definitely retract it all now! :)

I'm just a little sick of government jobs requiring fluent Spanish language as a prerequisite to employment in the U.S. Old mean neocon me believes it behooves the immigrants to learn English. :eek:

Push one for English and marches in the streets by illegal Mexican immigrants demanding their rights, of which they legally have none, aren't trying to force change on us? :rolleyes:

Actually "push one for English" makes good sense from a business standpoint. Not only with regards to immigrants who are more comfortable in their native tongue but with regards to many persons who visit the USA from Spanish speaking countries.

Here in NYC and in other states you will see bilingual Spanish/English signs. makes good sense. Go into extreme upstate NY and the signs are bilingual. But not in Spanish. They are in French. Why ? many French speaking tourists come down from Quebec. It makes good sense to help them find their way along in their native tongue And, if you run a business up there you'll appreciate it. Even if you don't like the tourists you will like the money they bring with them.

I always thought it would be a good idea to go beyond the "press one para Espanol" menu and have something like, "press 1 for a selection of languages" Or make it standard that pressing certain keys will change to different langauges.

It's time we go from a bilingual nation to a multilingual nation.

[W4DFW]

Actually "push one for English" makes good sense from a business standpoint. Not only with regards to immigrants who are more comfortable in their native tongue but with regards to many persons who visit the USA from Spanish speaking countries.

Hhmm . . .

Do you suppose in France, they have a "touch 1 to continue in France!"

Or in Spain, "touch 1 to continue in Spanish."

How about in Italy, "touch 1 to continue in Italian."

I think not.

We speak English in the US. Learn the damn language!!!!!! :mad:

[KU0DM]

Ignorance is no excuse.

I am sure they DO have those options in foreign countries.

In England they do, and Spain.

The rest of the world uses the metric system, should we be obligated to use it?

The most spoken language in the world is Mandarin, should we be obligated to use it?

If everyone ran on that principle, we would get no where. The world is a compromise, we all need to step down once in a while.

[W4DFW]

Ignorance is no excuse.

I agree completely. If you're going to move to the US, learn the language.

Ignorance is no excuse!!

[AE6IP]

I agree completely. If you're going to move to the US, learn the language.

Which one? At one time over five hundred languages were spoken in the United States. Probably more than eighty are now. There's never been a time when the majority of residents spoke English as their only language. The period in which the majority of people living here spoke English as their first language extended from sometime in the late 1920s until about ten years ago.

[N4VGB]

Which one? At one time over five hundred languages were spoken in the United States. Probably more than eighty are now. There's never been a time when the majority of residents spoke English as their only language. The period in which the majority of people living here spoke English as their first language extended from sometime in the late 1920s until about ten years ago.

Hmmmmmm, the most successful economic period in U.S. history!? I'm sure you were trying to make a case for the opposite, BUT! :):):)

[AE6IP]

Hmmmmmm, the most successful economic period in U.S. history!? I'm sure you were trying to make a case for the opposite, BUT! :):):)

I doubt there's anyone who would consider the Great Depression to be part of "the most successful economic period in US history."

[N4VGB]

I doubt there's anyone who would consider the Great Depression to be part of "the most successful economic period in US history."

But it didn't last and we've been through recession several times since. It's just the natural course of a capitalistic economy.

[AE6IP]

But it didn't last and we've been through recession several times since. It's just the natural course of a capitalistic economy.

Which has nothing to do with the number of languages spoken in the country. You're drifting away from the point again. Well, 'drifting' in this case is an understatement. You're jumping away from it in leaps and bounds.

[N4VGB]

Which has nothing to do with the number of languages spoken in the country. You're drifting away from the point again. Well, 'drifting' in this case is an understatement. You're jumping away from it in leaps and bounds.

Well, I can't hire a Mexican that doesn't speak English at my business and make any good use of his labors. It would tie another employee up daily just keeping the non English speaking employee on track.

I'll never accept the idea that Americans that only speak English should be required to learn another language to accomodate foreign immigrants, legal or illegal.

No other country in world does this to my knowledge?

[AE6IP]

Well, I can't hire a Mexican that doesn't speak English at my business and make any good use of his labors. It would tie another employee up daily just keeping the non English speaking employee on track.

I, on the other hand, can and have, without tying up another employee.

I'll never accept the idea that Americans that only speak English should be required to learn another language to accomodate foreign immigrants, legal or illegal.

So don't accept it. And don't hire from the talent pool that doesn't speak English. More talent around for those of us who know how to take advantage of it.

No other country in world does this to my knowledge?

The United States doesn't require it. There are countries that do require their citizens to be multilingual, although they are, as in the case of Canada, often merely paying lip service to an existing linguistic minority.

[N4VGB]

The United States doesn't require it. There are countries that do require their citizens to be multilingual, although they are, as in the case of Canada, often merely paying lip service to an existing linguistic minority.

Japan requires English in school for obvious reasons, business ones. China does the same today for their better students and for the same reasons as Japan. If your whole economy depends on communicating with your number one customer, why not, it makes sense.

I don't even have an opinion on the Canadian French vs. English question in any provence, it's the Canadians business, not mine.

So I presume that you agree that to be hired as a public school teacher in the U.S. that applicants should be required to speak Spanish to accomodate our mostly illegal Mexican immigrants? And also many other gov. jobs that are starting to carry the same requirement, for the same illogical reason?

[AE6IP]

Japan requires English in school for obvious reasons, business ones.

Nope. Japan requires English in schools for entirely different reasons.

China does the same today for their better students and for the same reasons as Japan.

Nope. None of the mainline Chinese I know were required to learn English in the PRC, for any reason.

If your whole economy depends on communicating with your number one customer, why not, it makes sense.

China's number one customer is still China. When they're ours, will you learn Mandarin?

I didn't think so.

So I presume that you agree that to be hired as a public school teacher in the U.S. that applicants should be required to speak Spanish to accomodate our mostly illegal Mexican immigrants? And also many other gov. jobs that are starting to carry the same requirement, for the same illogical reason?

In 2000, approximately 10% of the legal US population spoke Spanish, according to the census. Certainly teachers who can speak that language will do a better job teaching those students, and should be additionally compensated for that extra skill.

You do realize that there are people in California whose families were here speaking Spanish before there was a United States on the west coast, right?

[N4VGB]

In 2000, approximately 10% of the legal US population spoke Spanish, according to the census. Certainly teachers who can speak that language will do a better job teaching those students, and should be additionally compensated for that extra skill.

You do realize that there are people in California whose families were here speaking Spanish before there was a United States on the west coast, right?

Good move on avoiding the question completely there Marty. :rolleyes:

[W4DFW]

Which one? At one time over five hundred languages were spoken in the United States. Probably more than eighty are now. There's never been a time when the majority of residents spoke English as their only language. The period in which the majority of people living here spoke English as their first language extended from sometime in the late 1920s until about ten years ago.

~sigh~

It's posts likes this that just make me want to crawl under my bed, suck my thumb and wonder about the dumbing down of America. How can SO MANY be SO STUPID??

According to the 2000 census, there were 311 languages spoken in the US. One in five persons speak a language other than English.

Put another way, 82.1% of Americans speak SOLELY ENGLISH! 10.7% speak Spanish, and LESS THAN ONE PERCENT speak each of the rest of the remaining 309 languages.

http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/images/2000CensusHomeLanguages.jpg

Several states have passed laws making ENGLISH the official language of that state.

Link (http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/USlanguages.html)

I tell you what. Call up your mayor and tell him you have several questions to ask, but demand your questions be asked in Pashto and see how far you get.

You want to live in the US?? LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH! OTOH, just head on over to China, France, Italy or most any other country and demand THEY learn to speak your language and see how far you get!

Jesus . . . :rolleyes:

[AE6IP]

Good move on avoiding the question completely there Marty.

You asked a question based on a false premise. Even you don't expect answers to those sorts of questions.

[AE6IP]

It's posts likes this that just make me want to crawl under my bed, suck my thumb and wonder about the dumbing down of America. How can SO MANY be SO STUPID??

It's a reading comprehension problem. You've confused citizen with resident.

It's OK. Happens all the time.

[W4DFW]

It's a reading comprehension problem. You've confused citizen with resident.

It's OK. Happens all the time.

Then by all means, show us how many more illegal "residents" there must be to overcome the legal citizens who make up the data I posted that proved your claim bunk.

You won't mind if I don't wait up, will you?? :rolleyes:

[AE6IP]

Then by all means, show us how many more illegal "residents" there must be to overcome the legal citizens who make up the data I posted that proved your claim bunk.

My claim's not "bunk". It's only half right. I confused myself looking at some statistics.

It is indeed true that prior to the 1920s English was never the majority language in what is now the United States. Waves of immigration from Europe and Asia, coupled with a large, but declining population of native American language speakers made that so.

What I got wrong is that the period of English as the majority language hasn't ended yet. My mistake.

Unlike yourself and Dilmus, I'm willing to admit them when I make them.

[W4DFW]

Unlike yourself and Dilmus, I'm willing to admit them when I make them.

Huh??

I simply pointed out that the vast majority of folks here in the US speak ENGLISH as their main language. If that is a mistake, then please show the evidence.

Until then, I stand by it and don't *NEED* to admit I made a mistake.

Of course, you could be sufferin' from lib'rul lunacy that causes folks to misspeak from time to time . . . that I can understand. It's a common problem among those who speak from the heart but forget to engage the brain. But don't worry.

It happens all the time.

Toodles!

[AE6IP]

I simply pointed out that the vast majority of folks here in the US speak ENGLISH as their main language. If that is a mistake, then please show the evidence.

I wasn't referring to this thread. You've been wrong plenty of times on QRZ and, as far as I've encountered, never admitted it.[/QUOTE]

[KV1M]

Only 5? What planet are you on? I've got everything from the far left to the far right on my dial and everything in between. :confused:

You sure do, owned by 5 big media conglomerates:

Time Warner
Disney
Murdoch's News Corporation
Bertelsmann of Germany
Viacom (formerly CBS)

General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

You have no idea what's going on do you?
And it seems you are proud of that fact.

[KV1M]

I wasn't referring to this thread. You've been wrong plenty of times on QRZ and, as far as I've encountered, never admitted it.[/quote]

Not once, and I've caught him up multiple times a day for over 2 weeks now.
He just switch's to attack mode to change the subject.

Why do yo think I give him no respect?

[N4VGB]

You sure do, owned by 5 big media conglomerates:
Murdoch's News Corporation
Bertelsmann of Germany


See there, I've even got an Aussie and a German providing me news. I thought you said any of the non American news groups were good & truthful sources. You are quite the confusing fellow. :p:p:p

[KV1M]

See there, I've even got an Aussie and a German providing me news. I thought you said any of the non American news groups were good & truthful sources. You are quite the confusing fellow. :p:p:p

You are trying to obfuscate and spin again.
And once again you were wrong. As usual.

[N4VGB]

You are trying to obfuscate and spin again.
And once again you were wrong. As usual.

OK, Aussies and Germans are liars also, so BBC is it? :)

[KV1M]

OK, Aussies and Germans are liars also, so BBC is it? :)

Murdoch and Bertelsmann are liars. And they are hot on the US market because they can't do that over here.
And Murdoch is a US citizen and News Corp US corporation.
Bertelsmann primarily publishes books for the likes of Hannity, Coulter and other right wing gas bag liars.

Spin some more Jethro?

[N4VGB]

Murdoch and Bertlesmann are liars. And they are hot on the US market because they can't do that over here.

Spin some more Jethro?

OK, now I've got it, the BBC IS the only source of truthful news in the world. Making myself a note now, thanks. :rolleyes:

[KV1M]

OK, now I've got it, the BBC IS the only source of truthful news in the world. Making myself a note now, thanks. :rolleyes:

You really can't read can you? I didn't say that at all.
You did.

[N4VGB]

Spin some more Jethro?


Only listen to BBC, only listen to BBC, only listen to BBC. I'm getting it Todd! :p