Jump to content

Recommended Posts


  • 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:  0.29
  • Reputation:   34
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/18/2004
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

Reallt I just think that American citizens should be allowed to run for public office.

Americans citizens are allowed, but not all of them. And it really doesn't matter what you think.

That should be the rule in a democratic society.

No, it shouldn't.

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

Do you see yourself as one of the superior Americans?


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,869
  • Topics Per Day:  0.73
  • Content Count:  46,509
  • Content Per Day:  5.76
  • Reputation:   2,254
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

Posted

If she's not going to win, why bar her from office?

If the law states she cannot hold the office, why spend the money and time running? Why present a candidate that would be a wasted vote?

It would actually benefit the competition to have people of the opposite political party split on someone, even better to have one side of the split vote count for nothing. Don't you think?

Allowing a dead-end candidate to run is plain nonsense.

Unless, of course, you want her to run to make a point and/or establish a precedence. If that's the case, please be honest and say so.

Reallt I just think that American citizens should be allowed to run for public office. That should be the rule in a democratic society. As to wasted votes, at every election I've voted in there have been candidates who have no chance of winning. I don't vote Green,few do. But they have the right.

You are skirting the obvious again.

You are promoting disregard for the law.

By the law, she is ineligible to hold office.

Why spend money on her campaign, why put her on the ballet, if it is illegal for her to hold the office?

Where is the logic in this?

Unless you have an agenda. What is it?


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,869
  • Topics Per Day:  0.73
  • Content Count:  46,509
  • Content Per Day:  5.76
  • Reputation:   2,254
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

Posted

Is it this?

I do like your idea though Amor, the more I think about it, it should apply to every position in life. Therefore, I believe that the next moron that comes along we ought to promote to Professor at the College where you work. It's only fair. Every one should be given a chance and who are you to say whether they are qualified or not?:noidea::thumbsup:

Everyone has the right to apply for a job and then get assessed by those on the interview panel. Similarly all should have the right to stand for office and let the voters decide if they're suitable for the position.

Shiloh is correct. Human resources would pull the application before it even got to the interview panel.

What you are promoting is rebellion against the state law. You don't think the law should apply. You think "the will of the people" should overrule a law without having gone through the proper legal process.

Oh, right - that's like "the Arab Spring" and "Occupy Wall Street" montra.

Now it is clear why you are so keen on this. Gotcha!


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.78
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

You know if anything comes out of this, it should be a quantifiable standard for the English proficiency required to run for office.

At the moment you require proficiency but the law doesn't state how that is to be measured and where the cut off is.

The current mayor of that city is the person who started the law suit against her ticket... which is a little odd... but he engaged the use of linguists who determined her speaking, reading and comprehension skills did not meet proficiency... even though proficiency wasn't previously quantified.

So it sounds like she genuinely doesn't have enough grasp of the English language according to those linguists. But it's all rather odd that the linguists could determine that without some predefined cut off noidea.gif.

Guest shiloh357
Posted

Reallt I just think that American citizens should be allowed to run for public office.

Americans citizens are allowed, but not all of them. And it really doesn't matter what you think.

That should be the rule in a democratic society.

No, it shouldn't.

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

Do you see yourself as one of the superior Americans?

Not all American ctizens can run for president. If you are a naturalized American, you cannot run for office. You also cannot run for office if you are not 35 years old or older. Thre are limitations and for good reason.

There is no reason we should allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to run for office, particularly if they are not qualified.

By the way, we are a Republic, not a Democracy.

Guest shiloh357
Posted

Ugh!

I'm not saying that issue is not a real relevant issue, I'm bemoaning the conclusion reached with no research done. If the shoe were on the other foot and someone were criticising Bush I'm sure you'd all pipe up and say 'show me the evidence first'.

Stereotypes are often true but each person deserves consideration on their own merits.

I can't believe I actually have to spell this out noidea.gif.

She legally doesn't qualify to run for the office she wants to run for. Bush is not an adequate comparison, not by a long shot.

Nor is this a "stereotype." We are not saying that all hispanic politicians have an agenda that is latino first, American last.


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.78
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

Ugh!

I'm not saying that issue is not a real relevant issue, I'm bemoaning the conclusion reached with no research done. If the shoe were on the other foot and someone were criticising Bush I'm sure you'd all pipe up and say 'show me the evidence first'.

Stereotypes are often true but each person deserves consideration on their own merits.

I can't believe I actually have to spell this out noidea.gif.

She legally doesn't qualify to run for the office she wants to run for. Bush is not an adequate comparison, not by a long shot.

Nor is this a "stereotype." We are not saying that all hispanic politicians have an agenda that is latino first, American last.

Shiloh it really did come across as a stereotype true for all. If that is not the case then thank you for clarifying.

I'm not talking about Bush's right to run for office, just a general sense that we usually ask for evidence before making conclusions... but if you aren't suggesting a stereotype then I can agree there would be a perception out there she needs to fight.

But by the way, the Bush comparison is not trivial. Many of the liberals accused him of being illiterate. And literacy is part of the three fold measure by which the linguists in this case used to assess English proficiency.

Guest shiloh357
Posted
Shiloh it really did come across as a stereotype true for all. If that is not the case then thank you for clarifying.

If I had said "Hispanics who run for office only care about latino issues, that would have been stereotyping. But I was referring the recurring problems that they have in AZ with latinos running for office who simply want to exploit our freedoms and political systems for latinos. That is not stereotyping.

I'm not talking about Bush's right to run for office, just a general sense that we usually ask for evidence before making conclusions... but if you aren't suggesting a stereotype then I can agree there would be a perception out there she needs to fight.

When she learns the language and is fluent, then she can run for office.

But by the way, the Bush comparison is not trivial. Many of the liberals accused him of being illiterate.

But he wasn't illiterate. He got tounge-tied when he spoke. They are called "Bushisms." Even Obama gets tongue tied and says stupid things when he doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say.

The media painted him as illiterate because of his tounge-tied moments to belittle him but there was not a word of truth to it.


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  1,285
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  17,917
  • Content Per Day:  2.17
  • Reputation:   355
  • Days Won:  19
  • Joined:  10/01/2002
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

Shiloh it really did come across as a stereotype true for all. If that is not the case then thank you for clarifying.

If I had said "Hispanics who run for office only care about latino issues, that would have been stereotyping. But I was referring the recurring problems that they have in AZ with latinos running for office who simply want to exploit our freedoms and political systems for latinos. That is not stereotyping.

I'm not talking about Bush's right to run for office, just a general sense that we usually ask for evidence before making conclusions... but if you aren't suggesting a stereotype then I can agree there would be a perception out there she needs to fight.

When she learns the language and is fluent, then she can run for office.

But by the way, the Bush comparison is not trivial. Many of the liberals accused him of being illiterate.

But he wasn't illiterate. He got tounge-tied when he spoke. They are called "Bushisms." Even Obama gets tongue tied and says stupid things when he doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say.

The media painted him as illiterate because of his tounge-tied moments to belittle him but there was not a word of truth to it.

Yep, in fact his grades weren't the best but they weren't sub par either. However, we have yet to see Obama's grades or transcripts. It makes one wonder and it is also the height of hypocrisy for the Leftist media to remain silent over it.

:thumbsup:

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • Thanks
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 3 replies
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Oy Vey!
        • Praise God!
        • Thanks
        • Well Said!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 230 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
        • Well Said!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 20 replies
×
×
  • Create New...