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

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by ajbera
Sloww. I think I'll send this to my liberal pals.

I even agree with X, though I would rephrase it:

X: English is the dominant language of this country, and you should make every effort to learn it to facilitate your ability to live here more easily. You have the right not to learn English, but you do not have the right to demand the rest of the English-speaking nation understand you, hire you even if you can't communicate with anyone, or take the time and effort to comprehend what it is you're trying to say.

Communication is the cornerstone of civilization; the clearer and more direct the communication, the better the function of civilization.

Let me get this straight.
I think they should understand "Learn the ****ing language!", and you want to lay this intricate piece of work on them instead?
To the one's who can't speak the language?

Well, all righty then.

[ajbera]

I'm curious what points people disagree on (aside from Article X). Let's (try to) open this to a reasonable, rational, polite discussion about philosophical/ideological differences, and see if we can find some common ground.

This will either a) bring us closer together, or b) drive us farther apart. I will feel good about the world if we accomplish a), and I'll have a good laugh if we accomplish b).

Give me unity, or give me chaos.

[Main_Brain]

In Times like these I remember U.S. never had an Age of Enlightment...

[ajbera]

How about this:

Article X: (In a loud, slow voice) YOU SPEAKEE ENGLISH, OR YOU (insert alternative here)!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy by telling them they didn't warn you not to stick the screwdriver in your eye.

I generally tend to agree, and I think the US should really stop with all the crappy trials and crappy disclaimers which are only a waste of time. However, the legitimate willingness to get rid of stupid trials shouldn't lead to the opposite excess, which is to say "your loss, sucker" everytime someone suffers. For instance, I think the trials against the tobacco companies about the period before the 70's, when they actively hid the health hazards despite knowing about them, these trials are perfectly legitimate.
The responsibility of the producer sometimes exists, and often doesn't. This article should only deal with the latter.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

I don't adhere to the "you're poor, it's your fault" crap. Some people sure abuse from welfare system, but it is no reason to let all the others starve to death

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we should be wary of public health care or public anything.

I wonder why Canada has an HDI and a life expectancy so much higher to the US despite the harsh weather conditions...
Rejecting the very idea public intervention simply because some public interventions do suck is extremely stupid and dangerous.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair (yes, capital punishment).

I am against Death Penalty. Barbaric practice which isn't even an efficient deterrent

ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness-- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights

Again, one of those stupid "Get it yourself or don't have it" articles. It doesn't take into account one second those who simply can't.

ARTICLE X:
This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from. We welcome you here. English is our language and like the one you left behind, we also have a culture. Learn it or go back to the country and the living conditions you were fleeing."

I have no real problem with the article. Except that it is only valid if there are plenty of good, available, and cheap/free English courses for potentially illterate foreigners. Otherwise it's just anothe "You're deep in the mud ? Stay there !" article.

[Maniac]

I disagree with IV, V and X: Spanish should be an official language in the USA!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is
based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just
you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different
opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always
will be ... and like the rest of us you need to simply deal with it.

Think about this for a minute. If enacted it would allow Klansmen to burn crosses next door to a black person's house, or a Nazi to paint a swastika on his house which happens to be across from a synagogue.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are
the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone
in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation
after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing
more than the creation of another generation of professional couch
potatoes.

I sure hope they never close the place you've worked at for the past thirty years while you're living in a part of the country that hasn't seen a new job in the past twenty, and you without as spare cent to your name because you used your last one to buy little Bobby chemotherpay for his leukemia after the company cut out your insurance beneifts the year before they moved to China.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice,
but from the looks of public housing, we should be wary of public
health care or public anything.

I sure hope you're never get old only to discover that your pension fund got used to pay for the legal defense of the guy who embezzled your pension fund.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you
kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be
surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric
chair (yes, capital punishment).

Can we add something to this to the effect that if the prosecution suppresses important evidence, like for instance that the lab tech that processed the DNA evidence used against you has recently been convicted for faking evidence in ten other cases the prosecution should share your fate?

[DAVOUT]

At last a Constitution saying what is really important.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I sure hope you're never get old only to discover that your pension fund got used to pay for the legal defense of the guy who embezzled your pension fund.

Wow, did you have a client in THIS situation ?

[oedo]

You do not have the right...

anyone else noticed that almost each article starts out this way?
a funny read nonetheless.

[Kidicious]

That's because it's fascist crap. No chance.

[ajbera]

What's fascist about it? Tough, yes. (Rightfully) dismissive of the notion that every person, simply by virtue of being alive, deserves to automatically be coddled and fulfilled from cradle to grave by the State, yes. Fascist, not at all.

There's nothing in here that says the poor must starve; it merely says that you have no right to expect the State to feed you. Individuals are, by and large, charitable, and nine people out of ten would voluntarily give the poor what they need to survive, and help them try to do better for themselves. But, even individuals are not obligated to help; they just will, out of decency. the problem is people thinking that somehow they have the right to expect the world to take complete care of them, and it just ain't true.

An irrelevant aside - William F. Buckley Jr. is on MSNBC's Hardball right now, and he acts a lot like Hannibal Lecter (as portrayed by Hopkins). Kinda amusing (particularly since I really like Lecter.)

[MrFun]

Serious discussion?

Well, I disagree with X, for reasons others have mentioned.

I disagree with capital punishment system, since too often, it seems to be racially-biased.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by ajbera
What's fascist about it? Tough, yes. (Rightfully) dismissive of the notion that every person, simply by virtue of being alive, deserves to automatically be coddled and fulfilled from cradle to grave by the State, yes. Fascist, not at all.

There's nothing in here that says the poor must starve; it merely says that you have no right to expect the State to feed you. Individuals are, by and large, charitable, and nine people out of ten would voluntarily give the poor what they need to survive, and help them try to do better for themselves. But, even individuals are not obligated to help; they just will, out of decency. the problem is people thinking that somehow they have the right to expect the world to take complete care of them, and it just ain't true.

I don't want to be obligated to work. That means I'm not going to do it.

[Q Classic]

i disagree with only the last sentence of article X. everything else i have no problem with.

imho, if a chinese, kazakh, ugandan, or hungarian immigrant has to learn english to survive here and fully function in society, so should every mexican, columbian, honduran, and so on. sure, they're more than welcome to speak spanish in their own homes, and in their communities... i have no problem with privately-funded non-english language bulletins, newspapers, and magazines; i do have a problem, however, with having government papers translated into other languages simply because they refuse to learn english, which, although is not the legal official language, is the de facto official language.

it boils down to this: if my mom had to learn english when she came here, you ought to too.

[The Templar]

Ah, another conservative whining about the loss of his white male privilege. Boo Hoo.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are
the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone
in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation
after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing
more than the creation of another generation of professional couch
potatoes.

Great, so you'll let people starve in the streets? How about people who lose their jobs in the economic downturn and run out of savings and end up homeless? A few more politicians in office with your opinion and we'll be communist in no time!

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice,
but from the looks of public housing, we should be wary of public
health care or public anything.

Why not free health care? Don't doctors take an oath?

ARTICLE VIII:
You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a
job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you
to take advantage of the opportunities of part time jobs, education
and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

So what your saying is that there is no free ride - everybody has to work, but only if work is not available too bad - just starve.

ARTICLE X:
This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are
from. We welcome you here. English is our language and like the one
you left behind, we also have a culture. Learn it or go back to the
country and the living conditions you were fleeing."

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

Sloww, go back to your little shack in the woods and type your manifestos on a typewriter.

[DinoDoc]

Someday, latin descent people will outnumber english-speaking descent people in this country.

Racist.

[ajbera]

For those who disagree with Article X: What's the alternative, then? Should all Americans be forced to learn a dozen other languages so that they will be able to understand any given non-English speaking immigrant in any given situation? Should I have to learn a handful of languages I may never ever have to use or understand?

Don't get me wrong - I heartily endorse lifelong education, including the learning of multiple languages, but for self-improvement reasons, not so as to make life easier for immigrants. And I believe resources should be available to teach immigrants our Mother Tongue, but those resources should exhaust volunteers before even thinking about State funding. But it's perfectly reasonable to expect a person to learn the language of a country where they expect to live and work. If I were Chinese, I would definitely learn German if I was moving to Germany; it would be wrong of me to expect Germans to know Chinese to make things easier for me. The Germans would be doing me a favor by letting me live and work there, and I'm sure they could get by without me just fine.

As for capital punishment, I definitely think it needs revision. It does seem racist, and I personally am against the execution of children and the mentally ill or disabled. Furthermore, I would not apply it to crimes of passion (killing your wife in a drunken rage) or accidents. But, I do definitely think there are some persons who know exactly what they are doing and commit murder and torture deliberately and with full intent. There are killers who are escape risks who can (and have) escaped to kill again. Hell, there are killers who have been paroled to kill again. There are just some people out there who, for want of a better or more technical term, are just evil pieces of **** who will never do anything productive or beneficial to the world, and who will hurt and manipulate anyone under any circumstance. They are few, and they are far between, but if they commit cold-blooded murder and there is every reason to believe they would do so again if given the opportunity, they should be put into a situation where they can never hurt anyone again, and the only situation where this can be guaranteed is if they are dead.

But in many ways, this is irrelevant, as the actual article reads:
ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair (yes, capital punishment).

Read it again, and tell me you disagree with it. It doesn't say you don't have the right for us not to kill you, just that you don't have the right to physically harm another person.

And, personally, I don't think this applies for self-defense. If you're coming at me with a knife, you're effectively declaring your intent, and I will respond with lethal force if I feel it's necessary to save my life.

[Q Classic]

actually, people decended from non-english speaking people already outnumber those decended from english-speaking people.

someday, yes. and perhaps at that time, we might reconsider. but as it stands, since every other foreign national who chooses to reside in the united states is virtually forced to learn english to survive and function, it smacks to me of blatant favoritism towards one ethnic group to coddle their refusal or inability to learn english to function in this american society.

if it's inability, there are churches. many of them provide basic english classes.

if it's refusal, then they really shouldn't complain if some public and government documents are not written in their native language. money spent translating that red tape could go elsewhere--such as acutally making those damned services work.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
actually, people decended from non-english speaking people already outnumber those decended from english-speaking people.

Personally, I'm highly interested in Templar's theory on what if anything descent has to do with language ability.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't want to be obligated to work. That means I'm not going to do it.

And you don't have too. But think, what if half the population thought that? Everything would grind to a halt, with those people demanding welfare payments. It is fundamentally wrong for people who have no physical or mental impairments to get a free ride on welfare, just because they don't feel like working.

It is your right to decide whether you want to work or not, but you have to accept the consequences.

[alva]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't know why anyone finds "X" disturbing.

If I go to live in France, which I wouldn't, I would expect I'd need to learn French.
Maybe not, since English is the most commonly used language in the world; in which case, why the HELL would anyone find "X" disturbing?

Just a wild guess here, but never actually have been to France, have you?

Your approach will work in most of europe, alas, not in France. (probably not in Italy, Spain or the south of Belgium either though )

[Imran Siddiqui]

I find it immensely funny that all these people on the left find these things to be absolutes. Such as you don't have a right to free food meaning that you have to starve if you are poor. I don't see a provision saying you don't have a right to welfare checks. Just because the federal government doesn't come up to your door and drop off milk doesn't mean that it'll just say you are on your own when you lose your job. Welfare will be given, but what you want to do with it is your business.



This thread just proves to me that the left sees the world in black and white instead of shades of grey.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by alva
Your approach will work in most of europe, alas, not in France. (probably not in Italy, Spain or the south of Belgium either though )

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

[alva]

If you avoid Paris, hmmm, they might

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
And you don't have too. But think, what if half the population thought that? Everything would grind to a halt, with those people demanding welfare payments. It is fundamentally wrong for people who have no physical or mental impairments to get a free ride on welfare, just because they don't feel like working.

It is your right to decide whether you want to work or not, but you have to accept the consequences.

Exactly, I can't pay the consequences so I have to work, unlike some people.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I find it immensely funny that all these people on the left find these things to be absolutes.

Glad you were not referring to me, since I'm a moderate liberal, and do not see such humurous jabs as absolutes.

You're right -- it's using a fallicious argument by using such absolutes.

[Cyclotron]

I'm cool with pretty much everything here except the death penalty (which, IMO, is immoral), and prohibiting some free services, since government doesn't have to be bad neccessarily. Pretty good generally, though.

Originally posted by The Templar
Why not free health care? Don't doctors take an oath?

An oath to practice free health care? I think not.

So what your saying is that there is no free ride - everybody has to work, but only if work is not available too bad - just starve.

Work is always available. It's just that some people don't want to do work they consider "beneath them."

[Spiffor]

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

A Frenchman has 99% chances of being delighted if he sees an American trying to speak French, no matter how clumsy the American is (as a matter of fact, the clumsier is the cuter ), even a Parisian.

But don't expect any bureaucrat to soften a bit

[Berzerker]

Templar -

Ah, another conservative whining about the loss of his white male privilege. Boo Hoo.

I saw no mention of skin color, gender, or ideology in that list of non-rights.

Great, so you'll let people starve in the streets? How about people who lose their jobs in the economic downturn and run out of savings and end up homeless? A few more politicians in office with your opinion and we'll be communist in no time!

I saw no prohibition of charitable acts in that list either. How many homeless people have you invited to live in your home?

Why not free health care? Don't doctors take an oath?

I didn't know doctors took an oath to give you health care at no cost.

So what your saying is that there is no free ride - everybody has to work, but only if work is not available too bad - just starve.

Or do what most people do, ask family and friends for help.

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

Looks like the author was making a suggestion, not a demand backed up by government force.