Posted on 12/09/2007 8:37:28 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Who is suing the forum? That is news to me.
I look forward to your comments when you have read the transcript. Romney makes good points; so does Thompson.
If they are American citizens and can vote, they should know English. Why should the candidates depend on translators to communicate their message?
But that's not the issue here. It's a free country, and even if English was to become the official language, there is nothing to stop millions of Hispanic voters from preferring Spanish as their language of choice.
So the last thing a politician or party wants to do is alienate an increasingly powerful bloc of votes by telling them that unless you only use English in the electoral process (debates, polling, voting, etc) then we're not interested in your support.
Voters are consumers too, and if Republican politicians refuse to sell themselves to the Hispanic voters, then they should not be surprised if the voters don't buy from them. Holding a Spanish language debate is simply a good marketing tactic, nothing more.
It is active, all right! Ron Paul supporters have been voting over and over and over and over. Great job, by the Ron Paul supporters!
The Paul people have quite the spamming system don’t they?
That's the problem. As the noted Harvard historian, Samuel P. Huntington, observed, "The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves—from Los Angeles to Miami—and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril.
So the last thing a politician or party wants to do is alienate an increasingly powerful bloc of votes by telling them that unless you only use English in the electoral process (debates, polling, voting, etc) then we're not interested in your support.
You are making my point. Why would this "powerful bloc of voters" object to the sole use of English in the electoral process?
Voters are consumers too, and if Republican politicians refuse to sell themselves to the Hispanic voters, then they should not be surprised if the voters don't buy from them. Holding a Spanish language debate is simply a good marketing tactic, nothing more.
It goes deeper than just marketing. It changes the very nature of this country. I assume that you would prefer than all politicians become fluent in Spanish and the American public for that matter so they can fully communicate with this growing segment of the population. Do you have any objection to Spanish joining English as the official languages of this country?
Now that is truly an amazing statement. It validates my impression that you only see things from a northeastern perspective.
The county of Los Angeles has something over 2 million illegals. One county. And that's probably a low number. No one would dispute it, either. In fact, to Mexico, it's seen as a source of pride - they have taken over, and they know it. The Gringo can do nothing now. They smirk and laugh -- do you recall that from that "inconsequential" demonstration you saw last year? That was 500,000 people.
In California altogether it's on the order of 4 million or more. The mayor of Los Angeles is this terrorist (and I do mean that word in its literal sense): Bruin Alumni Association on Antonio Villaraigosa . How do you think he got to be Mayor of the Second Largest City in the United States? White liberals?
You minimise this? Say that you don't see many Mexican illegals? Where have you been - Norway? California and Texas will be majority Mexican within a decade - up from 4% in 1970. And for the previous 140 years. Have you ever been here, for more than a day or two?
The illegals in my area of the country are more likely from the former Soviet states, or Ireland
And is your area slated to become majority Russian soon? Вы говорите по-русски? No? Then you have no idea what is happening here.
Look up the demographics of the Los Angeles Unified School District. It's online. "Non-hispanic white" is now so small, it's in the "other" category. Seriously. The Americans are gone. You can talk all you want about "well those kids are American now too" but what does it mean to transfer a label like that to people who are simply the nationals of another country? I mean, we could go to Ecuador and label everyone "Americans" but that wouldn't make it true. And Mexico is actually even further away, because it is hostile to America, something Ecuador probably isn't.
It's over here. One of the most beautiful parts of America - Southern California - is now occupied and ruled by the citizens of another country. The remaining Americans are literally just treading water or leaving - they know what's coming. Tax hikes, language isolation (try getting a job with LAUSD or LA city / county without speaking Spanish), ethnic intimidation and preferences for their friends: they know how to do it. They've been planning it for years. The immivasion is part of that plan: get a critical mass here, make them voters any way they can (laws? we don't need no stinking laws..they can vota!)...and seize power. And wealth. They have no intention of assimilating - that's referred to as being a vendido -- literally, a sell-out.
This is what it has come to here. And you say you don't see many illegals from Mexico? Lady, that's all we see -- everywhere around us! MILLIONS, literally.
They plan to take what the Americans built. It's what they and their Spaniard ancestors do. They aren't Americans and they have no intention of being them. They'd laugh at you if you said that. Or grin, and smirk to themselves, because they just ran into another wide eyed sucker who bought the line.
You just made the supreme mistake of the Baby Boomers.
"It's a free country" -- does not mean that anyone can do anything without limit. It simply means that we have no King, we have no monarchy, we rule ourselves and make our own laws.
And the people who did that spoke English, and their nation was formed around a Constitution - an agreement - written in that language, and the people who spoke it.
Invasion is not a civil right. There is no right for the Chinese people to land in Los Angeles, set up the New Middle Kingdom, and declare Mandarin the official language of government and commerce.
That's treason against the Americans. And war.
And the same rules apply to the citizens of Mexico.
There is no right to colonize and invade the United States. That is not what freedom means.
"Among other things, prospective citizens must take 650 hours of language instruction as well as demonstrate knowledge of the German constitution... More importantly, in order for Turks to naturalize they must demonstrate that they have renounced their Turkish citizenship, and since 2000 they must sign a document stating that they will not acquire a second citizenship. If they do acquire a second citizenship, they immediately lose their German one. Before 2000, many Turks, when they renounced their Turkish citizenship, were told by the Turkish embassy that they could reacquire Turkish citizenship after they obtained their German citizenship."
"The German government, in the context of highly politicized elections, however, has begun to enforce the denaturalization of those Turks who reacquired Turkish citizenship, and it is estimated that approximately 50,000 Turks have lost their German citizenship."
Even these requirements are considered liberal for them.
There's nothing more permanent then temporary workers.
And you know how the Swiss recently voted.
I lived four years in Berlin and my wife is German. I am very familiar with the problem. We should learn from it.
As I said, you are seeing it from YOUR perspective, which is skewed to your geographic location. Again, you have all the Reconquista radicals bloviating in your area. Do you truly think that ALL immigrants from Mexico agree with them? All black folks certainly didn't agree with the Black Power folks in the 70's. I equate the two because their methods are exactly the same.
Immigrants in the United States, 2007 A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population
100 Million More Projecting the Impact of Immigration On the U.S. Population, 2007 to 2060
I had a feeling they would spend a lot more time on immigration. Legal Hispanic citizens that have worked with the system, do not want their citizenship cheapened by a continued flood of illegals. This is a point Republicans never seemed to have grasped.
I don’t think there were any suprises from the candidates. I thought Romney and Thompson both did well also.
There are more places than just the Northeast that are not experiencing the influx of Mexican illegals. I'm sure folks along the Mexican border have trouble with illegals; it's been happening for years. Your comment could be turned around to claim that your observations of what your area is experiencing isn't reflective of what is going on in the rest of the country. My point is that the activists make a lot of noise, and get a lot of press. It has always been so, but it doesn't mean that we are being 'invaded' as some want to claim.
There is a rational debate to be had over the merits of having all American citizens speaking a common language, English. Hysteria over some mythological Latino invasion and takeover does nothing to inform that debate, and will simply hasten the day when no Spanish-speaking American will want to vote for the Republican party.
You need to access the links I provided to you, especially the first two. It has nothing to do with my personal observations. Look at the data and then let's talk.
My point is that the activists make a lot of noise, and get a lot of press. It has always been so, but it doesn't mean that we are being 'invaded' as some want to claim.
You live in a dream world. The BP apprehends over a million people a year coming across our border. There is an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 that get through annually. If that can't be termed an invasion, what can?
Exactly.
Fred has always thought that the FEDERAL government should not be involved in the abortion decision, but he personally believes that the unborn child is a human being, and has been saying just that.
***He “personally” believes it, and yet he says on abortion: “Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women...”
He has seen what has happened because of the Supreme Court decision, which took any semblance of voter involvement out of the issue. What we have today is polarization because people believe, quite rightly, that their opinions are not being heard and that their efforts to reduce abortion are being blocked because of the Roe v Wade roadblock.
***I agree with this.
I say that politicians claiming to support the HLA are pandering because they can talk until they are blue in the face, but they won’t get the Amendment passed, so they’re not saving one single baby with all their talking.
***This appears to be the crux of your argument. Today, there are several HLA amendments being introduced for voter approval through initiative processes in several states. And yet this is just “pandering”. NO, it is one of the ways that pro-life activists are seeking an end to this holocaust. The fact that it does not have the support of Fred but has the support of Hunter is very telling. Hunter is the better pro-life conservative.
We’ve already seen that having both the White House and Congress in Republican hands didn’t do anything to move that along.
***Fascinating. These observations are exactly the same that the rudytoots used in support of their candidate.
Why not look at other ways to solve the problem?
***I do. Pro-life activists do. But in your support of a candidate who has a reasonably good pro-life record you have twisted yourself into a pretzel because he doesn’t support some of these activities, and he has some notable pro-choice quotes as well as a previous pro-choice client.
What Fred has proposed is something that could be done within the next few years, as members of the Supreme court retire, or die, and need to be replaced.
***You do not address the contention that Fred simply wants this issue to go away.
He has already said that he would appoint strict constructionists to the Court who do not believe that is in the Court’s purview to legislate from the bench. This attitude would go beyond unlimited abortion to homosexual ‘marriage’ and other societal changes that liberals love to force on the populace through Court mandates, because they know that those things would likely never pass if the voters got the chance to weigh in on them.
***I would support this activity as well. I support pro-life activity wherever I see it.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, the major stumbling block to states in their efforts to severely restrict abortion will have been removed. This would result in thousands of babies being saved each year because women would no longer have that ‘back up birth control’, and would likely change their behavior because of it.
***Of course we should try to see Roe v Wade overturned. We should also seek alternatives that do not require the overturning of Roe V Wade such as the personhood-at-conception initiative that Hunter supports, the kind of thing that you call pandering.
It would also mean that every voter would have the chance to made a difference in his or her own state regarding abortion, and not feel like the issue is completely out of their hands. Yes, there will be some states that allow the practice, but even then, you will see that voters will be loathe to allow it for more than the hard cases like REPORTED rape or incest, or in the case of a direct threat to the LIFE of the mother.
***For those who see abortion as murder, federalizing this problem is not a very good solution. We don’t see the feds allowing states to have laws that say it’s okay to murder non-viable children, so why is federalizing the approach towards non-viable preborn humans considered superior? The age of viability used to be 6 years old in Common Law England, and it had shrunk to less than 1 year by the time the Supreme Court deliberated over this issue, relying considerably on the age of viability as a physical threshold. Of course it makes no sense to anyone that a 1 year old baby is truly “viable”, but they recognized that society has resources that it brings to bear upon this question. Well, the same is true now for premature babies and others which have society extending the resource of medical attention and even In Utero surgeries. The age of viability has shrunk to basically -3 months, but women still have the right to kill that baby. Fred’s approach is to find a way to get it out of his hair. Hunter’s approach is to find a way to save the most lives.
Kevmo: If the liberal evangelical Huckabee can take the lead from out of nowhere, so can Hunter the true conservative evangelical. .
Conservativegreatgrandma: But he needs the help of the MSM and he’s not going to get it.
***Hunter’s strategy could rely upon the MSM being itself rather than hoping for a leg up from them. Once the GOP decides upon a candidate, the MSM will turn on him in a very fierce manner. Only a true conservative would survive this refining fire process.
Here’s a couple of examples: Bill Sali in Idaho and Proposition 187 in California. Both had been excoriated by the MSM and polls showed both losing by wide margins up to the day of the election, and both won by wide margins. Reagan is in the same mold. The secret is to get the MSM into such an irrational, anti-conservative frenzy that they fall all overthemselves to criticize the candidate and what America notices is that the media is criticising someone like them. The backlash is what the media cannot see because they’re so blind to their own bias — like Dan Rather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.