amor Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,194 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 34 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/18/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 So Mattijah force everyone to conform to the norm, is that the idea. Does that justify the treatment meted out, (look around this example and you'll also find a review of the genocidal policies of the British Empire)to the indigenous peoples of North American they were massacred and their cultures destroyed in the creation of the uniform culture? And remember what happened in europe in the 1930's with the slaughter of Jews and Slavs to make way for a homogenous German state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amor Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,194 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 34 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/18/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 Matthiajah you are the one rejecting the right of the people of San Luis to exercise their individual democratic liberties by telling them they can only vote for candidates who conform. Actually, No! No one has denied her the right to speak Spanish and even teach it to her children in the privacy of her own home. No one has denied anyone the right to Vote. ..and the serpent was more subtle than any other beast in the field, which the Lord God had made......... Don't you just love exposition? You're good at this my friend. Is Lord God unkind or less than Righteous to demand a standard? An odd little rant this as Ican't see what is wrong with "exposition" One definition I found describes it as the art of explaining. So i suppose if you think i'm good I should be grateful. As to the serpent bit well it's true that I seek to be as wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So Mattijah force everyone to conform to the norm, is that the idea. Does that justify the treatment meted out, (look around this example and you'll also find a review of the genocidal policies of the British Empire)to the indigenous peoples of North American they were massacred and their cultures destroyed in the creation of the uniform culture? And remember what happened in europe in the 1930's with the slaughter of Jews and Slavs to make way for a homogenous German state? You are really misrepresenting our position and spinning it into something no one is arguing for, amor. Expecting our representative leaders to have a good command of English is imperative to governing our country. We want a leader we can understand who doesn't have to constantly go back and restate in better English what he meant. We don't want to have to try and interpret what he said because he/she can't speak our language. Commonsense would dictate that a good command of English is a necessary skill set for seeking political office. If you dont' care enough about our society to learn the language and learn it well, you probably won't care about our society's well-being when it comes to bigger issues either. I think it is interesting that the liberals will castigate people like Sarah Palin or other conservatives for every mispoken word or minor error of history as prove they are not qualified or intelligent enough to hold office, particularly that as president, but seem to turn the other way and ignore a bad command of English just because the person running for office is not a native born American. During the BP oil debacle, BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg stated on camera that "we care about the small people..." which angered a lot of people in the US. But his mother tongue is Swedish. He was trying to use a common euphemism in the US that refers to the common working class. We often refer to the "little guy" the person who works the daily 9-5 who doesn't get the large salary, perks and accoutrements that are afforded to the company CEOs. Svanberg's gaffe shows in a small way, the problems and misunderstandings inherent in someone trying communicate without a good commnand of English AND a good command of American slang on street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.06 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 During the BP oild debacle, BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg stated on camera that "we care about the small people..." which angered a lot of people in the US. But his mother tongue is Swedish. He was trying to use a common euphemism in the US that refers to the common working class. We often refer to the "little guy" the person who works the daily 9-5 who doesn't get the large salary, perks and accoutrements that are afforded to the company CEOs. Svanberg's gaffe shows in a small way, the problems and misunderstandings inherent in someone trying communicate without a good commnand of English AND a good command of American slang on street. Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way. Communication is key....no matter where one lives; to pretend otherwise is standing bent over, head in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So Mattijah force everyone to conform to the norm, is that the idea. Does that justify the treatment meted out, (look around this example and you'll also find a review of the genocidal policies of the British Empire)to the indigenous peoples of North American they were massacred and their cultures destroyed in the creation of the uniform culture? And remember what happened in europe in the 1930's with the slaughter of Jews and Slavs to make way for a homogenous German state? OK, Amor, you are truly taking things out of context. The topic is about a potential politician's ability to communicate in the language of the nation. Ayin Jade, who lives in Arizona, had this to say about the matter (which seems to have been lost in the discussion: Arizona law states that govt business is conducted in english. If she cannot communicate then she cannot effectively serve. Arizona, unlike apparently the uk, has standards for political office. Case closed. All right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 Arizona law states that govt business is conducted in english. If she cannot communicate then she cannot effectively serve. Arizona, unlike apparently the uk, has standards for political office. Case closed. All right? The only requirement then is that she conducts Government Business in English. Not that she cannot run for office. She has every right under the Constitution/Laws of the Land to run, as she meets every other legal qualification. Until there is a law that states "Unless you can speak English fluently, you cannot run for office", then all is fine. Even then, that law would probably be struck down as unconstitutional, since denying someone the right to run for office based on their language abilities is unequal treatment under the law. It would require nothing short of a very specifically worded Constitutional Amendment, that also repealed small parts of it. People have every right to apply social pressure, or to believe what they believe regarding this, but there is no precedent in this manner for selectively applying freedoms regarding running for office. Laws that required, for example, people to be able to pass a reading test were struck down since those laws were used to keep African Americans from voting in the South. That's the kind of precedent that would likely be cited in a case like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.06 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 Arizona law states that govt business is conducted in english. If she cannot communicate then she cannot effectively serve. Arizona, unlike apparently the uk, has standards for political office. Case closed. All right? The only requirement then is that she conducts Government Business in English. Not that she cannot run for office. She has every right under the Constitution/Laws of the Land to run, as she meets every other legal qualification. Until there is a law that states "Unless you can speak English fluently, you cannot run for office", then all is fine. Even then, that law would probably be struck down as unconstitutional, since denying someone the right to run for office based on their language abilities is unequal treatment under the law. It would require nothing short of a very specifically worded Constitutional Amendment, that also repealed small parts of it. People have every right to apply social pressure, or to believe what they believe regarding this, but there is no precedent in this manner for selectively applying freedoms regarding running for office. Laws that required, for example, people to be able to pass a reading test were struck down since those laws were used to keep African Americans from voting in the South. That's the kind of precedent that would likely be cited in a case like this. If she cannot FULFILL the requirements of the office (and she can't) then she is not eligible to RUN for said office, even if she was a blonde haired, blue eyed Swede. It can't be made any clearer than that and your inference that we, as Americans, are biased and racist is offensive, especially since we have elected a black President and most other non-African countries have not. Get a clue, my friend; foreign nationals don't always know just what is what in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 If she cannot FULFILL the requirements of the office (and she can't) then she is not eligible to RUN for said office, even if she was a blonde haired, blue eyed Swede. It can't be made any clearer than that and your inference that we, as Americans, are biased and racist is offensive, especially since we have elected a black President and most other non-African countries have not. Get a clue, my friend; foreign nationals don't always know just what is what in America. I never said anything about Racism, nor did I intend to imply anything of the sort. All that I said is that is the kind of precedent that would be cited if this where to be a court case. You made that connection yourself. The letter of the law is what matters in America. (And how it has been interpreted by the courts.) Under the Law, she has every right to run for office. If there is a law stating that she must conduct Government Business in English, then she must Conduct Government Business in English. Otherwise, since there is no law that states that she cannot run, she has every right to. Making a judgement that she cannot fulfill those requirements prematurely and barring her from running otherwise has no legal precedent and has no law supporting it. It's kind of like how convicted felons are not allowed to vote in America, but if someone is accused or in the middle of trial for a felony, they have the right to vote. The law does not allow ones personal biases to be placed upon it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Arizona law states that govt business is conducted in english. If she cannot communicate then she cannot effectively serve. Arizona, unlike apparently the uk, has standards for political office. Case closed. All right? The only requirement then is that she conducts Government Business in English. Yep, and if she can't speak the language, then she has no business running for office and she is out in left field if she thinks that she is going to win anyway. It's just a matter of speaking English, either. It includes being able to communicate in writing and by other elctronic means. It is also a matter of understanding legal and governmental jargon that often uses words that a person without a VERY good understanding of English won't understand. It will effect her ability to communicate effectively and efficiently with the her peers and her constituency. Her ability to conduct day to day affairs will be severely hampered if every one has to slow down so she can understand what is being said, much less wait for her to find the right words in English to respond. She is rightly barred from running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yep, and if she can't speak the language, then she has no business running for office and she is out in left field if she thinks that she is going to win anyway. It's just a matter of speaking English, either. It includes being able to communicate in writing and by other elctronic means. It is also a matter of understanding legal and governmental jargon that often uses words that a person without a VERY good understanding of English won't understand. It will effect her ability to communicate effectively and efficiently with the her peers and her constituency. Her ability to conduct day to day affairs will be severely hampered if every one has to slow down so she can understand what is being said, much less wait for her to find the right words in English to respond. She is rightly barred from running. I'd like to ask you then, whether people with Developmental Disabilities, or Mental Illnesses, or people who have Disabilities that affect Motor Functions should be allowed to run if they "have trouble communicating in English via Speech, Writing, or other Electronic Means." (To paraphrase what you said.) Part of my volunteer work involves people who happen to face challenges like that. Are they then "rightly barred from running for office" as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts