 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
If saving money is more important than giving American citizens the right to vote, even if they are in the midst of learning English, let's save even more money by eliminating everyone's right to vote.
By eliminating everyone's right to vote, we save tons more money compared to what you're advocating. |
don't be silly. that's not what i'm advocating, and you know it.
i think exercising the vote is one of the most critical rights that one can have in a democratic republic-- one should have the right to exercise it, given two things-- 1) one fulfills all the qualifications, which means one must be a citizen and one must not have committed a felony, and 2) one understands whom one is voting for, and understands how to vote.
the way i see it, even though people who can't read have the right to vote, i honestly feel they should learn to read before choosing to exercise it-- with the right to vote comes the responsibility of learning how to vote properly, by learning and understanding the candidate's positions and such.
people who can't speak english also should have the right to vote, but should also have the decency not to exercise it, not until they learn english to an appreciable degree-- then again, most immigrants who don't learn english also aren't citizens, which means they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
it's the same with most other government documents. why should someone who speaks little or no english get a drivers' license or any other license for that matter? they must be able to communicate without need of a translator with other people who don't speak their language. english just happens to be the lingua fraca in the world, and just happens to be the primary language of the united states-- and thus, english should be the language that all things are written in here. not only is it cheaper, but you also have the simple fact that you're unifying the people all under one language banner.
there's a difference between having a right, and using a right. just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. or should.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
don't be silly. that's not what i'm advocating, and you know it.
|
So then you know how I feel, when some conservatives exaggerate or distort the position of liberals these past few days? 
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
i think exercising the vote is one of the most critical rights that one can have in a democratic republic-- one should have the right to exercise it, given two things-- 1) one fulfills all the qualifications, which means one must be a citizen and one must not have committed a felony, and 2) one understands whom one is voting for, and understands how to vote.
the way i see it, even though people who can't read have the right to vote, i honestly feel they should learn to read before choosing to exercise it-- with the right to vote comes the responsibility of learning how to vote properly, by learning and understanding the candidate's positions and such.
people who can't speak english also should have the right to vote, but should also have the decency not to exercise it, not until they learn english to an appreciable degree-- then again, most immigrants who don't learn english also aren't citizens, which means they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
it's the same with most other government documents. why should someone who speaks little or no english get a drivers' license or any other license for that matter? they must be able to communicate without need of a translator with other people who don't speak their language. english just happens to be the lingua fraca in the world, and just happens to be the primary language of the united states-- and thus, english should be the language that all things are written in here. not only is it cheaper, but you also have the simple fact that you're unifying the people all under one language banner.
there's a difference between having a right, and using a right. just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. or should. |
Your proposal for more stringent literary requirement would mean that homeless people who are not literate, should not have the right to vote.
Your proposal for more stringent literary requirement would mean that immigrants who wish to engage in their civic rights and duties as citizens while learning English, are to be denied such rights.
And what is this "uniting under one language banner" crap? 
Sounds like idealistic rambling, to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
So then you know how I feel, when some conservatives exaggerate or distort the position of liberals these past few days? |
wtf? i had nothing to do with that.
besides, it's always been a well known fact that anyone who isn't a moderate tends to exaggerate and distort the position of everyone else simply because they see everything through twisted and blackened lenses.
quote:
Your proposal for more stringent literary requirement would mean that homeless people who are not literate, should not have the right to vote. |
wrong. i didn't say they should be denied the right. i simply said that they themselves should have the decency to understand that they need to learn how to read before they exercise it. nowhere did i say that the government should enforce such a rule; nowhere did i say that the government should remove that right.
there's a difference between having a right and using it irresponsibly, as the case might be, and having a right and using it with responsibility, which most americans still don't-- otherwise, the party system as we know it would have died a long time ago.
quote:
Your proposal for more stringent literary requirement would mean that immigrants who wish to engage in their civic rights and duties as citizens while learning English, are to be denied such rights. |
see my post above. you're not reading it, are you? not at all?
it comes down to the case of what citizens, not the government should do. it's called personal responsibility. it's called knowing what you're talking about instead of shooting stuff out of your always-running arse.
most kneejerk republicans and kneejerk democrats i wish wouldn't exercise their right to vote, because they don't think about it at all, but i don't think they should be denied that right.
quote:
And what is this "uniting under one language banner" crap?
Sounds like idealistic rambling, to me. |
might be idealistic. but it's just common decency to learn the a little bit of the language of the place in which you live. if you want to function here with society at large, you should learn english. plain and simple. government workers and the common citizen shouldn't have to learn spanish or portuguese or japanese or korean or vietnamese or what have you just to try and tell you how to drive, or where to vote, or whatever.
even other nations with multiple "national languages" often have people who can speak more than one-- in india, for instance, most can speak at least a smidgen of english. in switzerland, most, if not all, can speak 2/3 languages or all three. and that's how it should be.
in america, we don't have an official language. but our traditional tongue has always been english-- all our historical documents are written in it, all our great texts were written in it-- and i refuse to let another language displace it as the lingua fraca.
simple as that.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-08-2002 14:32
! yes! 
I just will be american to vote with it.
if it's OHS or OE, tough cookies. it's your own damn fault for not using common sense.
|