German Chancellor declares Germany is only for Christian Germans

• cbus4life

  BGFalcons82;524010 wrote:Hhhmmm...you've swerved into something. Let me ask a few questions that look lots like yours...
  
  1. Why should the government tell me I am mandated to buy health insurance or face a penalty, including potential jail time?
  2. Why should the government tell me I have to provide funding for abortions when I am against them?
  3. Why should the government tell me what type light bulbs I should buy?
  4. Why should the government tell me I can't buy sugary drinks (this is just in one state, but it's still the government)?
  5. Why should the government confiscate private property through eminent domain in order to increase its tax base by building a shopping mall (which was never built, BTW)?
  6. Why should the government tell me I must wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle?
  
  I could go on, but you get the point. The government has made intrusions into our personal lives already...why not mandate a language while they are in the mood to mandate everything else?

  
  I'm almost positive you're opposed to all those, so i'm assuming you're opposed to English being our national language as well? Or are you implying something different?
• BGFalcons82

  

  FatHobbit and ptown - I was struck by ptown's assertion that the government shouldn't mandate the official language. I also got the impression it pissed off Mr. Ptown. :mad:!!
  
  I just started jotting down other things the government mandates that we've all had to take without exception. BTW - there are some on the OC would be very happy they are mandated. I picked the ones that I disagree with, yet we are mandated just the same. Language is ptown's hot button, but it shows how passionate he is about it. My point is that the government is growing in power and control over our daily lives, and sometimes when it hits close to home, it becomes very clear that they have become so intrusive.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  ^^^^^
  Care to share your list? I'm interested.
• BGFalcons82

  

  ^^^ I did a few posts ago.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  BGFalcons82;524097 wrote:^^^ I did a few posts ago.

  
  LOL, oops. Didn't realize that was your post.
• FatHobbit

  

  BGFalcons82;524090 wrote:FatHobbit and ptown - I was struck by ptown's assertion that the government shouldn't mandate the official language.

  Gotcha.
  

  BGFalcons82;524090 wrote:I just started jotting down other things the government mandates that we've all had to take without exception. BTW - there are some on the OC would be very happy they are mandated. I picked the ones that I disagree with, yet we are mandated just the same.

  
  
  I would be willing to bet most (not all) here would be for english as the official language and opposed to government health care.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  FatHobbit;524106 wrote: I would be willing to bet most (not all) here would be for english as the official language and opposed to government health care.

  
  I don't see the need to mandate the language, nor health care.
• FatHobbit

  

  ernest_t_bass;524123 wrote:I don't see the need to mandate the language, nor health care.

  
  You must be in the 'not all' group.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;524090 wrote:FatHobbit and ptown - I was struck by ptown's assertion that the government shouldn't mandate the official language. I also got the impression it pissed off Mr. Ptown. :mad:!!
  
  I just started jotting down other things the government mandates that we've all had to take without exception. BTW - there are some on the OC would be very happy they are mandated. I picked the ones that I disagree with, yet we are mandated just the same. Language is ptown's hot button, but it shows how passionate he is about it. My point is that the government is growing in power and control over our daily lives, and sometimes when it hits close to home, it becomes very clear that they have become so intrusive.

  
  Language a hot button? Ehh, not so much. Other issues really "press my buttons" lol. If it seemed like it sent me off, that wasn't my goal. I just don't see the need and I'm surprisingly against most government creeping into our lives. (Shocking I know).
  
  I get your point that government is growing and I'm against that as well. As a moderate, I don't fit in a nice box, and I guess shock some people.
• majorspark

  

  FatHobbit;524106 wrote:I would be willing to bet most (not all) here would be for english as the official language and opposed to government health care.

  The official language of the federal government, official language of business and commerce within the Union, Legal transaction; yes. Forcing people to speak the official language; no.
  
  Also I would not want my federal tax dollars to provide dual documentation, tax forms, SS, Medicare, etc.. for those who chose not to learn the official language of the government.
• I Wear Pants

  Why does it have to be the official language of the government or commerce? When has anyone not been able to get some government form or done business in English in the United States? Some people getting their forms in Spanish or whatever doesn't hurt anyone. If it's a cost issue then charge some nominal fee for forms in non-English languages or something.
  
  I still don't see the need to say that English is the language of the land. Because it is without saying so.
• BGFalcons82

  

  majorspark;524154 wrote:The official language of the federal government, official language of business and commerce within the Union, Legal transaction; yes. Forcing people to speak the official language; no.
  
  Also I would not want my federal tax dollars to provide dual documentation, tax forms, SS, Medicare, etc.. for those who chose not to learn the official language of the government.

  
  Once again, I am in your corner on another issue.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;524178 wrote:Why does it have to be the official language of the government or commerce? When has anyone not been able to get some government form or done business in English in the United States? Some people getting their forms in Spanish or whatever doesn't hurt anyone. If it's a cost issue then charge some nominal fee for forms in non-English languages or something.
  
  I still don't see the need to say that English is the language of the land. Because it is without saying so.

  Because standards make things easier to do business and communicate. We have them all over the place in business and government. Road signs, construction standards, etc. Yeah the people in the southwest could use both 2 x 4's that acutally measure 2" x 4" and the ones used today measure 1 1/2" x 3 1/2". Sure they would be able to find ways around it and get things done, but it is going to cost more and take more time all they way around. It just makes good sense
  
  I can't understand why some of you think this is such a big deal when the federal government forces all of us to get a official identification number, that if we as citizens do not have cannot legally commerce or do any major kind of business within the Union.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;524178 wrote:I still don't see the need to say that English is the language of the land. Because it is without saying so.

  If it goes with out saying so why have any laws or standards?
• I Wear Pants

  Because everything doesn't go without saying so. But that English is the language spoken in the United States does.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;524233 wrote:Because everything doesn't go without saying so. But that English is the language spoken in the United States does.

  
  Have you ever been to certain areas of the country where there are larger numbers of those living, working, and engaging in commerce that can't speak any or understandable English? My brother was a contractor in South Central Florida. A contractor may have to deal with a sub-contractors workers who can't communicate in English. Usually there is another worker on the job site that is bilingual but that worker has to stop what he is doing and translate what needs to be done. Much can be lost between the two languages. Sometimes there are misunderstandings and the work is screwed up and has to be redone. Yes they find ways to get the work done right, but not without wasted cost.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  majorspark;524301 wrote:Have you ever been to certain areas of the country where there are larger numbers of those living, working, and engaging in commerce that can't speak any or understandable English? My brother was a contractor in South Central Florida. A contractor may have to deal with a sub-contractors workers who can't communicate in English. Usually there is another worker on the job site that is bilingual but that worker has to stop what he is doing and translate what needs to be done. Much can be lost between the two languages. Sometimes there are misunderstandings and the work is screwed up and has to be redone. Yes they find ways to get the work done right, but not without wasted cost.

  
  And this requires a national law?
  
  International commerce is done in English and other languages as well. Why cannot it not be adapted domestically in the U.S.?
  
  I'll broaden the discussion and link it to education and globalization.
  Americans largely only know English. That is a huge problem in a world where most of the educated (who compete with Americans for jobs) know 2 or 3 different languages.
  If you think of Brits, they know French, German and maybe Italian or Russian.
  Making English the national language means to me deemphasizing the ability to learn 2 or 3 languages for Americans. Immediately, it won;t be a big deal, but 2 or 3 generations, it would severely hurt the U.S.
  In a globalized world, the U.S. would be hurt by still focusing largely on English and not other languages. English will be the top language, but knowing a 2nd and 3rd language helps in other analytical areas which can really help the U.S. in the future. Making English the national language, to me, blocks the emphasis on learning more languages.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1;524342 wrote:And this requires a national law?

  Too this point I would not say it has not progressed to the point that it is absolutely necessary. But I have no problem supporting such a law. I believe if it is in the context of standardizing federal communications or interstate commerce within the Union it is definitely a power granted the federal government. Now any federal law forcing state, local government, or the people themselves to adopt an official language would go too far. For instance if a state on the southwest border wants to teach English and Spanish equally, that is great and should not ever be interfered with by the feds.
  
  My main point was that just because a nation has a national official language, that by no means makes them discriminatory bigots. A nation can have such an official language in a manner that promotes the common good and efficiency of commerce within its borders and not be discriminatory at all.
  
  The other point was that those who were insinuating that if you were for a federal power in the case of a federal official language (which if written correctly would be constitutional under the commerce clause) and were against another power the federal government one believes to be outside of constitutional authority. Just refuting the thought that is hypocritical or intellectually dishonest.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;524342 wrote:International commerce is done in English and other languages as well. Why cannot it not be adapted domestically in the U.S.?

  Yes it is. But not without cost. Language translation and differing standards have its cost. If I am going to have my widgets made in China, I will meet with a Chinese engineer that is fluent in English. I will communicate my design specs in English to him. He will then exercise hours and added cost translating those design specs into the language and standards that the average Chinese worker can read and comprehend. It costs more money on the front end any way you slice it. The vast differential in labor costs are what makes it acceptable on the bottom line. I edited this to clarify my point.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;524342 wrote:I'll broaden the discussion and link it to education and globalization.
  Americans largely only know English. That is a huge problem in a world where most of the educated (who compete with Americans for jobs) know 2 or 3 different languages.
  If you think of Brits, they know French, German and maybe Italian or Russian.
  Making English the national language means to me deemphasizing the ability to learn 2 or 3 languages for Americans. Immediately, it won;t be a big deal, but 2 or 3 generations, it would severely hurt the U.S.
  In a globalized world, the U.S. would be hurt by still focusing largely on English and not other languages. English will be the top language, but knowing a 2nd and 3rd language helps in other analytical areas which can really help the U.S. in the future. Making English the national language, to me, blocks the emphasis on learning more languages.

  I think it is great to be more educated and be multilingual. I myself have studied both Spanish and German. My communication skills are basic but usable. It would be great if everyone could be fluent in several languages. The thing is this takes time. Time not everyone has. Why should a local contractor that is providing a service in a local service and will never provide his service outside the borders of the US have to invest time in becoming multilingual. The bottom line is our government has no power to standardize and make things more efficient outside our borders. But that does not mean where our government does have power we should not assure the best climate of standardization an efficiency are met.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;524301 wrote:Have you ever been to certain areas of the country where there are larger numbers of those living, working, and engaging in commerce that can't speak any or understandable English? My brother was a contractor in South Central Florida. A contractor may have to deal with a sub-contractors workers who can't communicate in English. Usually there is another worker on the job site that is bilingual but that worker has to stop what he is doing and translate what needs to be done. Much can be lost between the two languages. Sometimes there are misunderstandings and the work is screwed up and has to be redone. Yes they find ways to get the work done right, but not without wasted cost.

  Don't hire those people then if you don't want to deal with it. I still fail to see why it needs a law.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;524465 wrote:Don't hire those people then if you don't want to deal with it. I still fail to see why it needs a law.

  I would agree. As I said above I don't think a law is an absolute necessity at this time. But find no problem with such a law constitutionally or practically. I had a greater point and I made it.
  
  But there is also the lingering fear of lawsuits. Which right or wrong can cost a business dearly. Try taking higher bid contracts with mostly "English" speaking workers over those who can speak little or none. You open yourself up to potential liability. Try arguing that in court. Yeah I took the higher bid contract because the language barrier cost me more money. With all the racial profiling BS being thrown about I would not put my life work at potential legal jeopardy over this. Businesses tend to ere on the side of caution. In today's day and age one could be labeled a racist profiler for such a thing. Potentially not good for the bottom line.
  
  I am not naive and know full well some of these contractors were willingly taking the burden because in the end many of these English illiterate workers are performing a service for lower wages. Some contractors believed they were adding to their profits and in some cases may have been successful. But others that found that they were not profitable, were most definitely fearful of potential legal ramifications.
  
  American businessmen will adapt and do their best to remain profitable. They just adjust their cost of doing business. No business is running a charity. In the end either it is lost jobs or the consumer pays. Yes the evil bottom line. How much better off would our nation be if they had to abide by it in day to day governance. Just like the average business. By day to day I am referring to the basic functions of government, not emergency unexpected necessary government expenditures (war, natural disasters, etc).
• ManO'War

  

  I feel that Germany has the right to do what it feels is best for its citizens...after all, it is their country.
  
  Why do we feel the need to force our beliefs onto every other country???
  
  If they want to be all German, then so be it.
  
  It's funny that only the anglo-saxon countries are held to this standard of accepting everyone, but other countries are not.
• FatHobbit

  

  ManO'War;527274 wrote:I feel that Germany has the right to do what it feels is best for its citizens...after all, it is their country.
  
  Why do we feel the need to force our beliefs onto every other country???
  
  If they want to be all German, then so be it.
  
  It's funny that only the anglo-saxon countries are held to this standard of accepting everyone, but other countries are not.

  
  Did anyone here say they had a problem with it?
• ManO'War

  

  Actually yea, the first handful of posts seemed to have a problem with it.
• sjmvsfscs08

  5. Why should the government confiscate private property through eminent domain in order to increase its tax base by building a shopping mall (which was never built, BTW)?

  I would assume you're one of those Libertarians who love the Constitution and Bill of Rights much they fail to see the Fifth Amendment clearly spelling out eminent domain to be used for "public use," which the Kelo vs. New London case in 2005 clarified to include economic growth. Naturally, since it was a 5-4 vote, it's a serious issue. I do not believe eminent domain should be enacted unless there is a signed contract and down payment from a developer and tenants. But it's ridiculous to assume we will live in an age, going forward, where eminent domain would be used more often to suit the public's use. Would I support a shopping mall? Fuck now; they are vile places and a horrible excuse for "economic growth." But what do I know, I'm just a City & Regional Planning major.
  
  Back to the topic at hand, I think the national language wouldn't force you to speak the language in private, just know it. Another poster hit the nail on the head, it's not forcing you to speak it in your home, nor is it outlawing other languages. It is, however, mandating that our schools and government will be English-only on official documents and whatnot. It's to prevent a large portion of, say, Texas, from becoming >50% Spanish speaking with no English comprehension. It happens when every immigrant wave comes in, but in this day and age they don't need to necessarily assimilate and they should. Forced assimilation? I'm a fucking communist.
• BGFalcons82

  

  sjmvsfscs08;528067 wrote:I would assume you're one of those Libertarians who love the Constitution and Bill of Rights much they fail to see the Fifth Amendment clearly spelling out eminent domain to be used for "public use," which the Kelo vs. New London case in 2005 clarified to include economic growth. Naturally, since it was a 5-4 vote, it's a serious issue. I do not believe eminent domain should be enacted unless there is a signed contract and down payment from a developer and tenants. But it's ridiculous to assume we will live in an age, going forward, where eminent domain would be used more often to suit the public's use. Would I support a shopping mall? Fuck now; they are vile places and a horrible excuse for "economic growth." But what do I know, I'm just a City & Regional Planning major.

  
  The Kelo case is a slippery slope case. In almost 100% of the time, a case can be made that a land developer can contribute more tax money to public coffers by building a business where a home once stood. Anywhere. In this case, it was perfectly fine to toss people out of their homes (with a generous payment...right?), uproot them, and then say they're going to build a freaking shopping mall because it will generate more tax revenue for the "people". To acquire this property, the developers only had to show that it was their INTENT to build it, that their studies PROVED it would work, and that they really wanted to build it for "the people". Fact of the matter is that they didn't have to actually do anything they said would happen in their prospectus or in their claims. There is no retribution. Where is the accountability? Where else could this happen where developers can come in, promise the world, promise more tax revenue, FAIL to deliver, and pay no penalty, eh?
  
  I've put "the people" in quotation marks because the right of eminent domain is there so that all the people will be better served by acquiring the land/property, not just those making hollow promises and GREEDY city officials that love more tax revenue anyway, anyhow and by any means necessary. This case was a form of tyranny to me and I don't want the government taking private property because they are so imminently smarter and more qualified to perceive "economic growth". Bullbutter.