amor Posted February 11, 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 11, 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. If she's not going to win, why bar her from office? Do you not find that this move to have her English level assessed was the initiative of her main political opponent? If he can beat her in a fair fight, why do you think he's sought to have her barred from standing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted February 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. People have the right to vote for any idiot they want to and those idiots should have the right to stand for election. That doesn't mean that their opponents are restricted from pointing out their idiocy. No that's not true. There are certains standards in the Constitution and in just about every State Constitution that candidates must meet and those standards are set by Represenatives of the people. As I keep stating, We are a Represenative Republic, and the people decide who they want representing them through certain standards. No matter how you try to twist it Amor, Democracy works here through representation, and in Arizona it's clear that the desires of the Represented are that they don't want someone who can't speak fluent English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amor Posted February 11, 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 11, 2012 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. People have the right to vote for any idiot they want to and those idiots should have the right to stand for election. That doesn't mean that their opponents are restricted from pointing out their idiocy. No that's not true. There are certains standards in the Constitution and in just about every State Constitution that candidates must meet and those standards are set by Represenatives of the people. As I keep stating, We are a Represenative Republic, and the people decide who they want representing them through certain standards. No matter how you try to twist it Amor, Democracy works here through representation, and in Arizona it's clear that the desires of the Represented are that they don't want someone who can't speak fluent English. How do you know it's the desire of the represented if you don't allow them to make the choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. People have the right to vote for any idiot they want to and those idiots should have the right to stand for election. That doesn't mean that their opponents are restricted from pointing out their idiocy. On what planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 11, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.20 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. People have the right to vote for any idiot they want to and those idiots should have the right to stand for election. That doesn't mean that their opponents are restricted from pointing out their idiocy. No that's not true. There are certains standards in the Constitution and in just about every State Constitution that candidates must meet and those standards are set by Represenatives of the people. As I keep stating, We are a Represenative Republic, and the people decide who they want representing them through certain standards. No matter how you try to twist it Amor, Democracy works here through representation, and in Arizona it's clear that the desires of the Represented are that they don't want someone who can't speak fluent English. How do you know it's the desire of the represented if you don't allow them to make the choice? Its clear by the laws already put in place. You go have your politics in your country the way you want to. Let us Arizonans have our politics the way we wish to. And if you really want to get into it, why cant anyone become king or queen in your country. There is no voting them into office there. Its by issue of birth only. How fair is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. People have the right to vote for any idiot they want to and those idiots should have the right to stand for election. That doesn't mean that their opponents are restricted from pointing out their idiocy. No that's not true. There are certains standards in the Constitution and in just about every State Constitution that candidates must meet and those standards are set by Represenatives of the people. As I keep stating, We are a Represenative Republic, and the people decide who they want representing them through certain standards. No matter how you try to twist it Amor, Democracy works here through representation, and in Arizona it's clear that the desires of the Represented are that they don't want someone who can't speak fluent English. How do you know it's the desire of the represented if you don't allow them to make the choice? Its clear by the laws already put in place. You go have your politics in your country the way you want to. Let us Arizonans have our politics the way we wish to. And if you really want to get into it, why cant anyone become king or queen in your country. There is no voting them into office there. Its by issue of birth only. How fair is that? A.J., trhat is an EXCELLENT question! Amor?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. People have the right to vote for any idiot they want to and those idiots should have the right to stand for election. That doesn't mean that their opponents are restricted from pointing out their idiocy. No they should not have the right to stand for election. This is not a free for all. If you can't do the job and it is obvious you can't do the job i.e., cannot speak the language, you should not be allowed to run. There is no Constitutional right to run for office. We are fully within our rights to restrict who can and cannot run for office. The truth is that if you don't care enough about our country to learn the language, you won't care about even bigger issues and you won't seek what is best for those you seek to govern. When someone has proven themselves faithful in the little things, they can be trusted with bigger things. It really isn't any of your business any way, amor. We are not going to listen to you. You do what seems right to you in your country and leave our state politics to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted February 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. People have the right to vote for any idiot they want to and those idiots should have the right to stand for election. That doesn't mean that their opponents are restricted from pointing out their idiocy. No that's not true. There are certains standards in the Constitution and in just about every State Constitution that candidates must meet and those standards are set by Represenatives of the people. As I keep stating, We are a Represenative Republic, and the people decide who they want representing them through certain standards. No matter how you try to twist it Amor, Democracy works here through representation, and in Arizona it's clear that the desires of the Represented are that they don't want someone who can't speak fluent English. How do you know it's the desire of the represented if you don't allow them to make the choice? Its clear by the laws already put in place. You go have your politics in your country the way you want to. Let us Arizonans have our politics the way we wish to. And if you really want to get into it, why cant anyone become king or queen in your country. There is no voting them into office there. Its by issue of birth only. How fair is that? A.J., trhat is an EXCELLENT question! Amor?? And if you really want to get into it, why cant anyone become king or queen in your country. Do it like they did? Take it by force, conniving, arranged marriage, starting your own "christian faith", and then write your own laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amor Posted February 11, 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 11, 2012 If you think I'm some deranged monarchist, you clearly haven't got the drift of my politics. Some of you may be keen to defend the status quo however absurd, but I have no such desire. Clearly, the institution of the monarchy and indeed the fact that we have 100hereditary lords and 24 bishops in our parliament is absurd and the sooner they go the better. There were some very nasty things done in the name of Elizabeth II in Kenya during the 1950's and I'd be happy tosend her off to the ICC to face charges of crimes against humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted February 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2012 I don't believe that your a Monarchist. I believe that you are a Marxist in the pure sense of the Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts