Mexican Flag flies over US Flag

[bruto]

I'm really not confusing the two here...really. I know that it's stealing, but the civil rights movement began when people stopped following the rules, and committed crimes in order to build awareness freely accepting the consequences of their action to do so. I know that there's an impossibly wide scope between refusing to sit at the back of the bus and knocking off a Brinks truck, but why is this act so darned despicable, while Monks hurling molotov cocktails in Myanmar is acceptable?

Well, if you really can't tell the difference or realize that it is a substantive one in addition to a matter of degree, I'm not sure anything I say can change that, but to begin with, it's not just a matter of "following the rules." The civil rights demonstrators and the Myanmar monks were both opposing government policies that deprived people of rights they considered fundamental. Not that I'm all that much in favor of monks or anyone else flinging molotov cocktails, either. I don't know why that comes into the argument at all. The civil rights activists accepted arrest, acknowledging that they were purposely breaking laws that were unjust, and challenging the laws themselves, on the ground not only that the laws themselves were unjust but that to abide by them was inherently unjust, and that conscience required them to reject complicity with them. The guy who tore down the flag was protesting just what, and against whom? He committed an offense against an individual, not a government, in response to a perceived offense to his own patriotic sensibilities: a breach of etiquette. That really is all. He certainly cannot have been contending that laws protecting private property are themselves are criminal. I do not believe that any reasonable person could stretch the idea of civil disobedience to cover that.

Aside from all that, in the original post of yours to which I replied, you brought up the issue of "equal rights to protest," with the example of burning a flag in violation of fire ordinances being seen as protected free speech. I have no idea whether that has or has not occurred. I would assume, though, that the burning of a flag or anything else in violation of fire ordinances would be a violation of the fire ordinances. Of course, if these ordinances are specific to flags, or enforced only with regard to flags, then they are not fire ordinances, they're flag ordinances, something different. The question of free speech has always, as far as I know, been a matter of whether the flag itself is in some way sacred and whether that cachet makes otherwise lawful actions unlawful, so I'd concur that invoking the flag to justify other crimes is wrong, whether it be to burn it or to rescue it.

Anyway, I go along with old Norman Thomas (I think he was the one who said it, anyway....): If you want a really meaningful gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it.

 

[Mephisto]

Knives are tools used to cut things. The vet did not brandish or threaten anyone with the knife any more than you threaten other diners when you cut your steak. I bet if we opened your cutlery drawer we'd find a whole friggin' arsenal wouldn't we? Who are you plotting to assassinate?

Here's the video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nal3RP9il3A

Knives are also one of the most primitive weapons available to man, you can't deny that. As a matter of fact he DID brandish the weapon (look at the video around time mark 1:11 - 1:30) and even made it a point to make it an US versus THEM issue (around that time also). He CLEARLY was looking for a confrontation otherwise he could have brought a pair of scissors to "rescue" the flag.

He also mentions being an Army veteran, but also states that his knife "was from the United States Army." Well the K-Bar knife (the kind the guy was brandishing) is specific to the Marine Corps and better yet, the knife the guy was waving is a commemorative version and NOT government issue!

Also, for your information:

brandish

noun
1. the act of waving [syn: flourish]

verb
1. move or swing back and forth; "She waved her gun"
2. exhibit aggressively; "brandish a sword"
3. To display ostentatiously.

Nice...well it seems you're quick to pick up weapons yourself. That's what we call hypocrisy.

Ha! You're a real joke! You get upset because I said I would return the favor if you spit on me! You know what I would REALLY enjoy? You pulling a knife on me and threatening me aggressively. We could solve this discussion mano a mano (that means hand to hand to all you "English should be the official language" xenophobes!). I'd give anything to hear you explain to the ER doctor how your knife got where it was

 

[brodski]

Can we all calm down a little please.

 

[Mephisto]

Can we all calm down a little please.

Sure, it's okay by me.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How does advocating a common language denote xenophobia?

Name-calling is the last refuge of a failed argument. I am not saying your argument is this case has failed; but that is the appearance when you name-call.

Next may be: immigration "denier".

 

[Mephisto]

How does advocating a common language denote xenophobia?

Name-calling is the last refuge of a failed argument. I am not saying your argument is this case has failed; but that is the appearance when you name-call.

Next may be: immigration "denier".

Because the common language you denote may not be the predominate language in the area. It also renders the once prideful notion of America as a "melting pot" useless. There are pockets of various cultures and ethnic groups all through the U.S. where they feel free to use their native language and customs and many of their stores and markets openly advertise in their native tongue. Advocating an "official language" is asking the government to step in and stifle the culture and ethnicity that makes every Chinatown or Koreatown or Little Italy a pleasure to visit.

Please explain to me why Americans of Chinese, Japanese or Hebrew descent are wrong for conversing in their native tongue. Is it because you don't understand them? Is it because you're afraid they might be talking about you?

Does the push for English as an official language cover everyone equally, or only those who speak Spanish (be honest now)? Either way I think the push for an official American language stems from xenophobia, and I think the definition makes that clear:

xen·o·pho·bi·a

–noun
an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

xen·o·phobe

n. A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

xenophobia

An unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.

dictionary.com

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution dictates that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . ." What if I want to exercise my freedom of speech in Apache, Japanese, Yiddish or Spanish? Do you honestly believe you have the legal right to prevent me from doing so by the establishment of an official language?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because the common language you denote may not be the predominate language in the area. It also renders the once prideful notion of America as a "melting pot" useless. There are pockets of various cultures and ethnic groups all through the U.S. where they feel free to use their native language and customs and many of their stores and markets openly advertise in their native tongue. Advocating an "official language" is asking the government to step in and stifle the culture and ethnicity that makes every Chinatown or Koreatown or Little Italy a pleasure to visit.

Please explain to me why Americans of Chinese, Japanese or Hebrew descent are wrong for conversing in their native tongue. Is it because you don't understand them? Is it because you're afraid they might be talking about you?

Does the push for English as an official language cover everyone equally, or only those who speak Spanish (be honest now)? Either way I think the push for an official American language stems from xenophobia, and I think the definition makes that clear:


The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution dictates that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . ." What if I want to exercise my freedom of speech in Apache, Japanese, Yiddish or Spanish? Do you honestly believe you have the legal right to prevent me from doing so by the establishment of an official language?

You have confusion over a number of thing here.

1. Melting pot means that all "melted" together in a common language and culture.

2. Advocating the use of a common language does not mean the banning of all other languages.

3. I have many friends that came to America speaking various languages. Such as Portuguese, Spanish, and Korean for example. They all made the choice to learn and use English because they wanted to "melt" into America.

4. America has always welcomed migrations from non-English speaking nations. When did America suddenly become xenophobic?

5. Thanks for the definition, but unfortunately for your point the definition does not say anything about language.

6. Who is advocating the banning of all language outside of English?

Do you not realize that immigrants that do not learn English are placing themselves at a disadvantage?

By advocating against a common tongue you are setting the ground for tribal strife. Do we not have enough tribal strife currently for your tastes?

 

[Mephisto]

You have confusion over a number of thing here.

Perhaps the confusion isn't mine alone:

1. Melting pot means that all "melted" together in a common language and culture.

Funny, all this time I took it to mean that everyone was accepted as they were instead of imposing prerequisites upon them. Certainly having prospective immigrants learn U.S. history is a worthwhile prerequisite for citizenship, but forcing them to learn English isn't altogether necessary. What precisely IS the "American culture, hamburgers & SUVs?"

2. Advocating the use of a common language does not mean the banning of all other languages.

Then what is the purpose of choosing an "official" language? Most people I've spoken to who advocate adopting English as the "official language" insist that one benefit would be not having to print government or business forms in Spanish. Others insist that street signs and advertisements should be in English only, why should that be necessary if the intended audience speaks predominantly Spanish? Look at the reaction to one businessman's advertisement and tell me this ISN'T xenophobia:

http://www.wesh.com/money/14298161/detail.html

3. I have many friends that came to America speaking various languages. Such as Portuguese, Spanish, and Korean for example. They all made the choice to learn and use English because they wanted to "melt" into America.

That's their right as Americans, isn't it? If any of your friends had brought grandparents with them who didn't learn English, but were satisfied conversing with other immigrants who spoke their language, do you think it would be justifiable printing building fire escape plans in their cultural enclave in English only?

4. America has always welcomed migrations from non-English speaking nations. When did America suddenly become xenophobic?

When in the past did America adopt English as the official language?

5. Thanks for the definition, but unfortunately for your point the definition does not say anything about language.

No, but it does point to a likely reason for adopting English as an official language. What does it matter to anyone if people use languages other than English in their business or in their daily dealings with others? What exactly are we espousing when we say, "this is our official language?" Europe exist comfortably with a myriad of languages in use at any given time and often in any given country. What do we propose to "do" if English becomes the official language? I'm sure I'm not alone when I suspect it stems from a fear or mistrust of those who speak a language some cannot understand.

6. Who is advocating the banning of all language outside of English?

What then is the purpose of "an official language?"

Do you not realize that immigrants that do not learn English are placing themselves at a disadvantage?

Certainly I do, I have a B.A. in English, but my grandmother on one side spoke nothing but Spanish and my grandmother on the other side preferred Apache or Spanish (she also knew decent English, but didn't use it unless she had to). Are you going to tell me that by learning English a whole new world of opportunity will open to the immigrant? I know it's not true.

By advocating against a common tongue you are setting the ground for tribal strife. Do we not have enough tribal strife currently for your tastes?

And by advocating a common tongue (your tongue) YOU are setting the ground for tribal strife by insinuating that my culture and heritage has no value and I must adapt to YOUR WAYS in order to live in a country that my ancestors inhabited even before your ancestors became the illegal immigrants! And don't try to turn the table on me by suggesting that I'm the one who enjoys the strife. As I've often said, a little empathy goes a long way towards understanding another's viewpoint - what if there were a big push to make Spanish the official language? Would you be resistant (btw, I'm not asking you to rationalize why Spanish shouldn't be the official language)?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, but it does point to a likely reason for adopting English as an official language. What does it matter to anyone if people use languages other than English in their business or in their daily dealings with others? What exactly are we espousing when we say, "this is our official language?" Europe exist comfortably with a myriad of languages in use at any given time and often in any given country. What do we propose to "do" if English becomes the official language? I'm sure I'm not alone when I suspect it stems from a fear or mistrust of those who speak a language some cannot understand.

In your world the advocating of a common tongue for a country means one has a clinical physiological disorder?

What then is the purpose of "an official language?"

This questions is only relevant today because governmnet has recently encouraged immigrants to not learn English and therefore closing doors of opportunity thus making them dependent on governmnet. Not learning English relegates the immigrant to the class of slave.

And by advocating a common tongue (your tongue) YOU are setting the ground for tribal strife by insinuating that my culture and heritage has no value and I must adapt to YOUR WAYS in order to live in a country that my ancestors inhabited even before your ancestors became the illegal immigrants! And don't try to turn the table on me by suggesting that I'm the one who enjoys the strife. As I've often said, a little empathy goes a long way towards understanding another's viewpoint - what if there were a big push to make Spanish the official language? Would you be resistant (btw, I'm not asking you to rationalize why Spanish shouldn't be the official language)?

You have made many assumption about me. Most of them incorrect.

The Native American tribal structure failed to defend against the European invasion in large part because they did not have a common language and culture.

The Native Americans; had they had common language and culture, may have well defeated the European invasion.

Why do you now advocate a fracturing of language and culture in America?

 

[tsg]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AIB_XGRm6UQ

That's the last time I'm doing your google search for you.

It's not his or anyone else's job to support your argument. If you make the assertion it's up to you to support it. If you don't we are all free to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's not his or anyone else's job to support your argument. If you make the assertion it's up to you to support it. If you don't we are all free to dismiss it out of hand.

The funny thing is I was told that Lou Dobbs was xenophobic.

Therefore anything he says does not count.

This is how the game works.

By the way his wife is from Mexico.

 

[Mephisto]

In your world the advocating of a common tongue for a country means one has a clinical physiological disorder?

That's a preposterous assertion - xenophobia has absolutely nothing to do with physiology, but more to do with the tendency to mistrust anyone "different" than yourself, whether it's because of language, customs, cuisine or nationality!

This questions is only relevant today because governmnet has recently encouraged immigrants to not learn English and therefore closing doors of opportunity thus making them dependent on governmnet. Not learning English relegates the immigrant to the class of slave.

Care to provide a link that proves this is indeed happening, or are you expecting me to simply buy the notion that those pushing English as our official language have my best interest at heart?

The Native American tribal structure failed to defend against the European invasion in large part because they did not have a common language and culture.

Of course superior firepower and numbers had nothing to do with it! Of course the willingness of various Native American tribes to believe all the numerous treaties that were eventually broken had nothing to do with it nor did all the numerous diseases and plagues that early illegal immigrants brought . . .

The Native Americans; had they had common language and culture, may have well defeated the European invasion.

They also could have slowed the invasion had they NOT been empathic enough to feed those legendary colonists on the first Thanksgiving! How were they repaid for their concern for fellow human beings?

Why do you now advocate a fracturing of language and culture in America?

Yet ANOTHER preposterous assertion! I'm not advocating the fracturing of anything! I'm saying that people's culture, heritage and language should be RESPECTED and left alone by those who insist on their assimilation, as long as it's not in their neighborhood (which is the original reason that Chinatown, Little Italy, Indian Reservations and various Latino barrios came about in the first place)!

 

[Mephisto]

It's not his or anyone else's job to support your argument. If you make the assertion it's up to you to support it. If you don't we are all free to dismiss it out of hand.

Thanks! It's the old tactic used by X-tians - If you can't prove that God doesn't exist, then he must exist!

 

[Complexity]

The only flag I fly is the rainbow flag.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Perhaps the confusion isn't mine alone:

And by advocating a common tongue (your tongue) YOU are setting the ground for tribal strife by insinuating that my culture and heritage has no value and I must adapt to YOUR WAYS in order to live in a country that my ancestors inhabited even before your ancestors became the illegal immigrants! And don't try to turn the table on me by suggesting that I'm the one who enjoys the strife. As I've often said, a little empathy goes a long way towards understanding another's viewpoint - what if there were a big push to make Spanish the official language? Would you be resistant (btw, I'm not asking you to rationalize why Spanish shouldn't be the official language)?

I always love this ridiculous argument...but why stop there? Didn't Spanish replace (conquer) other languages in the New World, or was Spanish the native language of the Maya, Aztec, Dine, etc.? So shouldn't we send the interlopers, the rapers of the land, those who speak the Devil Tongue, Spanish, packing? And once they get back to Spain, what of the native people they displaced there? The people who lived there BEFORE the Spanish, going all the way back to the Neaderthals? Shouldn't the Spanish be forced to give Spain back to its rightful owners?

Tokie

 

[JoeEllison]

So, when Hispanics become the largest group of Americans sometime around 2025, we should make Spanish the official language, right? Yes?

 

[Tokenconservative]

The funny thing is I was told that Lou Dobbs was xenophobic.

Therefore anything he says does not count.

This is how the game works.

By the way his wife is from Mexico.

Of course.

If someone can, however falsely, identify their opponent as "racist," "sexist," "xeno- or homo'phobic;" etc., etc., etc., then they are automatically dismissed from any other consideration.

Clearly, in these PC times, the arguments one makes are always trumped by the howling shrieks of "RAAACCIIIISTTTTTT!!!!" and "XENOPHOOOOOBBBEEEEEEE!!!!"

These are clearly much stronger arguments than pointing up as how every society in history that has not had a common language has quickly destroyed itself.

And while were at it, shrieking "RAAAAACCIIISTTTTT!!!!" let's forget the fact that in "Hispanic" areas of LA (illegal colonies) it is now considered by the LA cops to be dangerous to be African American; "Hispanics" (illegals) are routinely murdering African AMERICANs simply because they are of African heritage.

For some reason, this does not lead the news; even FOX is ignoring it.

To their credit, the left-advocacy "news" mag, Newsweek had this as it's cover last week...it was roundly ignored.

We know that Latin culture is inherently racist, sexist and xenophobic, that's a given. What's curious about this, is that while "Hispanics" (illegals) have declared open war on African AMERICANs in LA as they attempt the reconquista via race war, people like the rights Revs Al and Jesse are...ignoring it.

Can you imagine the righteous outrage if some group of crackers Declared parts of Atlanta "off limits" to N###ers as "Hispanics" (illegals) have declared large parts of LA off limits to African AMERICANs?

Tokie
Tokie

 

[JoeEllison]

Are there rules against being racist on this website? Just curious.

BTW, complaining that everyone calls you a racist might seem to be a defense against that charge... but it seems more than possible that all those people are seeing something you don't want to admit about yourself.

 

[volatile]

And while were at it, shrieking "RAAAAACCIIISTTTTT!!!!" let's forget the fact that in "Hispanic" areas of LA (illegal colonies) it is now considered by the LA cops to be dangerous to be African American; "Hispanics" (illegals) are routinely murdering African AMERICANs simply because they are of African heritage.

Do you even need to guess the response to this?

What the hell, you need to be asked again anyway:

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS OUTRAGEOUS, ABSURD CLAIM, OR DID YOU MAKE IT UP, LIKE YOU MAKE UP EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAY?

 

[Tokenconservative]

Are there rules against being racist on this website? Just curious.

BTW, complaining that everyone calls you a racist might seem to be a defense against that charge... but it seems more than possible that all those people are seeing something you don't want to admit about yourself.

My understanding is that yes, there are rules against being racist here.

I'm still here.

Now, what the problem generally is with hysterical PCers like you, is that anyone who admits the truth is a RAAAAAACCIIISTTTTTTTTT!!!!

Tokie