Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

02-02-2012 , 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
If we had "official language" laws, would this change? I can't imagine that say some random tourist witnesses a murder, but he goes to testify and cannot testify in French or Swahili with a translator. I'd imagine all of the court records for his testimony are in the translated English versions.

I am curious, what does it actually mean if you make English an official language. What would actually change? Do we stop printing 1040's in Spanish?
Well, to put it another way, if nothing would change then why even pass a law to make English the official language?

Do you think Ron Paul wrote a bill that would do nothing? I think even his biggest detractors dont believe he would author pointless bills like that recent one that reaffirmed "in god we trust" as the official motto.
02-02-2012 , 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundTripper
is his lack of support caused by the biased media? i mean why wouldnt everyday americans want him in office?
Man, I thought you were genuine and you make me look stupid for giving you a considered response to your original question. Back to Daily Paul with you.
02-02-2012 , 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Well, to put it another way, if nothing would change then why even pass a law to make English the official language?

Do you think Ron Paul wrote a bill that would do nothing? I think even his biggest detractors dont believe he would author pointless bills like that recent one that reaffirmed "in god we trust" as the official motto.
It whips up his base and will allow him to make a ton of money in the newsletter business when he leaves congress.
02-02-2012 , 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins

Does this make sense? Re: Sports example
It makes sense....but it basically comes down to whether that is a fair comparison. Useless without pics....er examples.
02-02-2012 , 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundTripper
is his lack of support caused by the biased media? i mean why wouldnt everyday americans want him in office?
Ask the people who boo him during the debates...
02-02-2012 , 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
wat? You are aware what I listed is what the laws would be if that passed right and not what currently is in effect right?
You are saying they wouldn't be able to vote, wouldn't be able to get aid, etc... unless they were proficient. These things are false.
02-02-2012 , 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Well, to put it another way, if nothing would change then why even pass a law to make English the official language?

Do you think Ron Paul wrote a bill that would do nothing? I think even his biggest detractors dont believe he would author pointless bills like that recent one that reaffirmed "in god we trust" as the official motto.
It would clearly have some effect. It could be as simple and useless as "saving the government money" by not having to have multiple copies of forms, or having to hire translators. I agree that it should not be a high priority and is pretty silly to put any kind of attention on it, other than appealing to idiots who like that stuff.
02-02-2012 , 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
If we had "official language" laws, would this change? I can't imagine that say some random tourist witnesses a murder, but he goes to testify and cannot testify in French or Swahili with a translator. I'd imagine all of the court records for his testimony are in the translated English versions.

I am curious, what does it actually mean if you make English an official language. What would actually change? Do we stop printing 1040's in Spanish?
I have the same questions....which makes me more inclined to assign sinister motives to Paul.
02-02-2012 , 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Uh, you're still forgetting that same class of people. There are people, see, who came to the US legally, but who are not (or perhaps not yet) citizens. They can't immediately become citizens for a while (5 years?). They may know some English, but they may not have enough practice to pass the citizenship exam. Let's try to make their lives as difficult and miserable as possible!
well all you had to do was clarify, so thank you. But the question then is are you sure they need not know english to even come here legally before working towards citizenship?

Like what type of visa or work permit or living status can you legally get that will lead to citizenship but does not require knowing english from the get go?

(fwiw, im not saying one doesn't exist, but its existence, and a large amount of people being in this situation is obviously crucial to this question

another point thats somewhat interesting is that for Paul at least this question isn't as important as for others. Pauls goal is to basically irradicate much of hte federal governments role in the individuals lives of everyone living in this country. in that scenario the officially language aint so important. at least compared to others versions of government

Last edited by Zygote; 02-02-2012 at 10:01 PM.
02-02-2012 , 09:56 PM
If you were not allowed to use a translator that would be pretty awful.

I still don't get why people call Ron Paul a political conspiracist... Which of his policies?
02-02-2012 , 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker
I have the same questions....which makes me more inclined to assign sinister motives to Paul.
The non-racist reasoning behind it is that having scisms in American culture is bad, if people cannot communicate with each other, it keeps people separate and into separate blocs and not individuals. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument, but at least see how there could potentially be some value in having certain values that "unify" Americans. The goal is not to screw over Spanish Speakers, but to "encourage" them to learn English by "nudging" them by making it harder to be a non-English speaker.

I don't agree with the above logic, but that's at least how it works. I don't think there's a huge incentive to not speak English (most immigrants would like to speak English), and even if they don't, their kids almost always speak English, and their grandkids speak English almost exclusively on average. This "problem" has existed since the time when immigration from non-English speaking nations became the largest area of immigrants. A lot of people have a "good ole days" mentality, thinking that immigrants back in the 1920s always learned English right away, and there wasn't any Little Italys, Chinatowns, etc... This has happened for a long time, the "problem" solves itself over time naturally, and life goes on.

I also find it anti-libertarian, but I do see it being valuable to be able to speak to almost anyone in my country in a single language. If anything, we should be making it easier for immigrants to learn English and encourage that process, rather than make their lives harder. I'm fine with English as a citizenship requirement.

That also brings up the voting request- if naturalized citizens need to speak English today, they are fine for voting. There are not that many natural born citizens who don't speak English either. Voting is not a huge issue. Only benefits that non-citizen immigrants would be eligible for would be the issue.
02-02-2012 , 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zygote
well all you had to do was clarify, so thank you. But the question then is are you sure they need not know english to even come here legally before working towards citizenship?

Like what type of visa or work permit or living status can you legally get that will lead to citizenship but does not require knowing english from the get go?

(fwiw, im not saying one doesn't exist, but its existence, and a large amount of people being in this situation is obviously crucial to this question)
I'm almost certain that the green cards for spouses would have zero requirements for English. I think that's the same program as family members (you are a citizen of the US, but your elderly mother lives in France and wants to move to the US). Pretty sure that there is no requirement for either of these programs. I'm not aware of any that you *are* required to know English.
02-02-2012 , 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
The non-racist reasoning behind it is that having scisms in American culture is bad, if people cannot communicate with each other, it keeps people separate and into separate blocs and not individuals.
I have a tough time believing states rights advocates would make this argument.
02-02-2012 , 10:08 PM
(phill) i just went to the first page of this thread randomly and you were already hating on ron paul. have you honestly been this dedicated to hating ron paul for the past 1000 pages. listen hes not going to win so you can stop worrying. might want to get a life as well
02-02-2012 , 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker
I have a tough time believing states rights advocates would make this argument.
I believe he would still allow states to set their own official languages if they so chose. But if he didn't, that would be surprising.

This is also interesting on the elections business, since AFAIK, there are no federal elections. Every election is done at (most) at the state level. So it seems that an individual's states policies would override the federal (California could make Spanish ballots if they wanted), unless the law specifically forbid that, which I would be surprised if it did.
02-02-2012 , 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by plzd0nate
(phill) i just went to the first page of this thread randomly and you were already hating on ron paul. have you honestly been this dedicated to hating ron paul for the past 1000 pages. listen hes not going to win so you can stop worrying. might want to get a life as well
He's not even American which is even funnier.
02-02-2012 , 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinker
Ron Paul has mostly crazy policies and conspiracy theories.

1. Also, all the evidence makes Ron Paul look like a virulent racist.

2. Some people don't really care about Paul's apparent racism, but I remember what happened when a racist scumbag came to power in Germany a while back.

3. Then again, some people really think that the guy in Germany was a sweet, old man and he just did what needed to be done. I disagree with those people.
1. Racist letters he said he did not write. Some pictures of racists taken why Paul is walking away.

2. Even if Paul came into power, he would follow the constitution, thus what Hitler did would never occur. It would not be possible, as Paul would never take anyone's rights away. He would not do military action unless approved by congress.

3. Hitler was about 42 when he came to power and ran the WWII and died in his 50s. Bush and Obama can be compared to Hitler more than Paul.

McCain is a proven racist as he did not implement MLK birthday after it was enacted into law. There is no proof that RP is a racist.

I have a feeling if you look into your background you will find a public sector worker and a union.
02-02-2012 , 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
You are saying they wouldn't be able to vote, wouldn't be able to get aid, etc... unless they were proficient. These things are false.
Citation needed.
02-02-2012 , 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
Citation needed.
Here's a citation:

You find someone to fill the documents out for you in English. No proficiency needed.
02-02-2012 , 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I kept looking for "did you even look for a job today?", which I thought was the key catchphrase. This led to a bunch of ppl discussing the PSA but unable to find it. Also I figured it would show up on youtube on the right of the "I learned it by watching you!" PSA, and related ones.

Oh yeah PM me your paypal if you want the $20.
i didn't do it for the money. go ahead and donate it to Gary Johnson if you want to make me smile. or mail me a joint.
02-02-2012 , 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannenj
if the government got out of the banking business, banks would be dramatically more incentivized to maintain strong reputations. that is simply a fact that's deducible via cause and effect, it's really pretty simple. obviously, there would still be some banks that would be unreliable, but it should be up to consumers to research things before doing them, not the government to fix every mistake every person makes by taxing unconnected individuals.
LOL. Dude, does it bother you at all that your little "deducible via cause and effect" theory there is flatly contradicted by history, where there were lots of bank failures? Maybe you need to spent more than 30 seconds thinking about it?
02-02-2012 , 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
Strong favorite against all of them in being able to explain basic economics concepts. Might be a dog in straight memorization of terminology and equations and the like, but not significantly. What I'm talking about is being able to explain a concept and why it might exist rather than just straight memorization (what is the equation for GDP, for example, vs. "what does GDP represent").
You wanna take a shot at explaining what obvious errors tannenj, etc. are making in their discussion of fractional reserve banking?
02-02-2012 , 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
i didn't do it for the money. go ahead and donate it to Gary Johnson if you want to make me smile. or mail me a joint.
02-02-2012 , 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
You wanna take a shot at explaining what obvious errors tannenj, etc. are making in their discussion of fractional reserve banking?
Before I begin, I'm assuming you mean this statement?

Quote:
if the government got out of the banking business, banks would be dramatically more incentivized to maintain strong reputations. that is simply a fact that's deducible via cause and effect, it's really pretty simple. obviously, there would still be some banks that would be unreliable, but it should be up to consumers to research things before doing them, not the government to fix every mistake every person makes by taxing unconnected individuals.
If it's something else, plz quote, I'll take a look. I can PM you when I find it, and we can see if Max or suzzer or anyone else want to send to you also.

BTW, I'm pretty sure I found it. It's roughly correct but there is a nitty detail that is definitely wrong.
02-02-2012 , 10:35 PM
it's not "flatly contradicted by history." that there have been "lots of bank failures" in the past doesn't weaken my point. in fact, i acknowledge that some banks would fail under a libertarian system in the post you quoted (blind much?):

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
obviously, there would still be some banks that would be unreliable
every type of business is going to experience "failures." some companies are going to be better than others. competition and failure are necessary things.

if there are bailouts to be had, banks are incentivized to take more risks. period.

      
m