Ban Non-English Media in America

[Syriusly]

Once again protectionist wants to violate the rights of Americans and proposes pissing on the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Telling an American that they cannot speak in German or print a newspaper in Spanish would be abridging freedom of speech and the press.

To anyone but a Constitution hating xenophobe.

FALSE! Establishing English as the national language and banning non-English, has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment (this is a common liberal tactic; as is use of the silly "xenophobe" card - )

The 1st amendment has only to do with speech CONTENT, not speech FORM.
g

The language of the Constitution is very clear- you just want to pretend it doesn't apply- as you always do when it comes to the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Telling an American that they cannot speak in German or print a newspaper in Spanish would be abridging freedom of speech and the press.

To anyone but a Constitution hating xenophobe

 

[protectionist]

The Freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights- that you want to piss on.

FALSE! Definition of nation has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. (and even if it did, as with many other laws, as I just cited, the freedom of speech is superceded by US law)

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- once again- no. God you are ignorant.

Now it is quite common for the majority in a nation to impose a national language- after the fact- and require everyone to learn the national language.

For example- France- France originally had a myriad of languages- most of them descended from Latin- long after the country of France was established, the uniform French language was forced upon all French citizens.

China is another example- China likes to say that Cantonese is a dialect of Mandarin- but a Cantonese speaker cannot understand Mandarin. Mandarin was imposed as a national language by the Communist Chinese. There are several major language groups in China and many more smaller groups.

Meanwhile- Switzerland has had 4 official languages for several hundred years.

Ignorance- thy name is protectionist.

You would have flunked my Geography class.
Just because that a political organization exists that way while having more than one language, doesn't mean it is a NATION.

You simply don't know what A NATION is. The point of reference is the DISTINCTIVE LANGUAGE/CULTURE, not the political organization. When that DISTINCTIVE LANGUAGE/CULTURE is present, THEN you have a nation. Any group of people can call themselves a nation. That doesn't make them be one.

Canada is not a NATION, nor is the USA nowadays, with so many things printed in Spanish, telephone recordings, Spanish TV and radio, billboards, etc. When I was a kid, the USA was a nation. Democrats have ruined that, and turned us into a multicultural mess.

The idea of that you were ever in charge of teaching anyone anything is a frightening prospect.

You think that you- Protectionist- gets to define what is- and what is not- a nation- just as you think you get to define what is and what is not a religion.

You being pissed off because you end up accidentally hearing Spanish being spoken on TV doesn't mean you get to decide the United States is not a nation now.

The Constitution is what binds us into a nation- and you just want to piss on the Constitution.

 

[protectionist]

Everything you post are the voices in your head. You just look for links to crap that you think supports what your voices are telling you.

You are in ridiculous DENIAL. NOT MY PROBLEM.

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2015

 

[Syriusly]

A veteran of foreign ancestry comes home from the war after serving in the US military and decides to publish a paper targeted to other veterans and their families about serving in the US Military and how important it is to understand the importance of serving. Knowing that many in that community, he or she decides to publish the paper or magazine in his or hers native tongue and to target an audience of others who may be able to speak English, but are not fluent or expert at reading it. The OP is suggesting that the veteran does not or should not have a 1st Amendendment right to free speech.

PS - the amendment of free speech is the weakest part of the Constitution. It has numerous exceptions (Example: slander, libel, perjury, threats, inciting riot, fraud, obscenity laws, noise ordinances, etc.

I love this concept you have that some parts of the Bill of Rights are 'weaker' than others.
All of our freedoms have 'exceptions'- you of course piss on the First Amendment because you don't think Americans should have freedom of speech, or freedom of press or freedom of religion.

 

[protectionist]

There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that designates free speech only applies when it is spoken or written in English. The same restrictions you mention would apply if the speech was in Russian or Arabic, Spanish or Chinese.

I didn't say there WAS anything in the Constitution that designates free speech only applies when it is spoken or written in English. As I've said, the Constitution has nothing to do with this. It is merely a law to be passed by the govt. Something doesn't have to be in the Constitution, for a law to be passed about it.

 

[Syriusly]

Ban Non-English Media in America

WHY? Sometimes watching / reading certain foreign media is the only way I can get what's REALLY going on in this country because of the massive biased media in this country. As Wikileaks has demonstrated, there are a LOT of media outlets and reporters 'in the tank' for Hillary this election, and just about every media site, newspaper, etc is biased one way or the other.

Of course the media is heavily biased in favor of Hillary. One would have to be living in a closet for the past 6 months to not know that. But that is beside the point that a distinctive language/culture is what makes a nation a nation.

When you have more than one language, with people running around unable to understand each other, you have chaos.

Example: Recently, a landscaper in my apartment complex parked his truck blocking my car from getting out. I tracked the guy down, about 100 yards away and asked him to move his truck, which he promptly did.

Lucky for me, I'm Hispanic and I speak Spanish fluently, since this guy spoke only Spanish (no English)

And for those of you in this thread, not fluent in Spanish, would you like to explain how you would have handled this predicament ? (at 10:30 AM on a weekday and no one else around to help you)

I would have written my request on my phone- used Google Translate and showed the driver. I have used this technique multiple times traveling the world.

mover su camión por favor

 

[Syriusly]

The Freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights- that you want to piss on.

FALSE! Definition of nation has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. (and even if it did, as with many other laws, as I just cited, the freedom of speech is superceded by US law)

Americans have the Freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights- and you want to piss on those rights- because to you the Constitution is just something to piss on.

 

[Syriusly]

There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that designates free speech only applies when it is spoken or written in English. The same restrictions you mention would apply if the speech was in Russian or Arabic, Spanish or Chinese.

I din't say there WAS anything in the Constitution that designates free speech only applies when it is spoken or written in English. As I've said, the Constitution has nothing to do with this. It is merely a law to be passed by the govt. Something doesn't have to be in the Constitution, for a law to be passed about it.

A law prohibiting publishing in Spanish would be as unconstitutional as a law prohibiting the sale of shotguns.

 

[protectionist]

I love this concept you have that some parts of the Bill of Rights are 'weaker' than others.
All of our freedoms have 'exceptions'- you of course piss on the First Amendment because you don't think Americans should have freedom of speech, or freedom of press or freedom of religion.

FALSE! I cherish freedom of speech and am exercised it right now. But banning non-English has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and even if it did, that still wouldn't prevent the govy from passing this law (as it hasn't stopped the govt from banning various types of speech (ex. perjury, libel, threats, inciting riot, etc)

And some parts of the Constitution being weaker than others, is not a "concept" of mine or anyone else. It is an obvious FACT (to a kid in the 4th grade). Seek help.

 

[Syriusly]

Everything you post are the voices in your head. You just look for links to crap that you think supports what your voices are telling you.

You are in ridiculous DENIAL. NOT MY PROBLEM.
/QUOTE]

You are proposing violating the United States Constitution.

You are in denial.

 

[Syriusly]

A veteran of foreign ancestry comes home from the war after serving in the US military and decides to publish a paper targeted to other veterans and their families about serving in the US Military and how important it is to understand the importance of serving. Knowing that many in that community, he or she decides to publish the paper or magazine in his or hers native tongue and to target an audience of others who may be able to speak English, but are not fluent or expert at reading it. The OP is suggesting that the veteran does not or should not have a 1st Amendendment right to free speech.

PS - the amendment of free speech is the weakest part of the Constitution. It has numerous exceptions (Example: slander, libel, perjury, threats, inciting riot, fraud, obscenity laws, noise ordinances, etc.

I love this concept you have that some parts of the Bill of Rights are 'weaker' than others.
All of our freedoms have 'exceptions'- you of course piss on the First Amendment because you don't think Americans should have freedom of speech, or freedom of press or freedom of religion.

FALSE! I cherish freedom of speech and am exercised it right now.

Clearly you don't since you propose violating the freedom of speech of any American who wants to write in other languages.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

 

[protectionist]

A law prohibiting publishing in Spanish would be as unconstitutional as a law prohibiting the sale of shotguns.

A law prohibiting the sale of shotguns is nebulous as to constitutionality. A law prohibiting publishing in Spanish is not. It simply isn't related to the Constitution (which makes no reference to languages - which isn't the same thing as WHAT speech is spoken, as the Constitution refers to)

 

[protectionist]

Clearly you don't since you propose violating the freedom of speech of any American who wants to write in other languages.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Harassment (repeating same point over and over)

 

[Camp]

There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that designates free speech only applies when it is spoken or written in English. The same restrictions you mention would apply if the speech was in Russian or Arabic, Spanish or Chinese.

I didn't say there WAS anything in the Constitution that designates free speech only applies when it is spoken or written in English. As I've said, the Constitution has nothing to do with this. It is merely a law to be passed by the govt. Something doesn't have to be in the Constitution, for a law to be passed about it.

What a twisted concept you have. Laws that are judged to be unconstitutional are routinely challenged in the Supreme Court and judged to be constitutional or not. Just because the congress passes a law does not make it constitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly you don't since you propose violating the freedom of speech of any American who wants to write in other languages.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Harassment (repeating same point over and over)

So you think someone posting the First Amendment is harrassment?

Get used to it- as long as you keep suggesting pissing on the Constitution- I will keep reminding you that want to piss on the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

 

[Syriusly]

A law prohibiting publishing in Spanish would be as unconstitutional as a law prohibiting the sale of shotguns.

A law prohibiting the sale of shotguns is nebulous as to constitutionality. A law prohibiting publishing in Spanish is not. It simply isn't related to the Constitution (which makes no reference to languages - which isn't the same thing as WHAT speech is spoken, as the Constitution refers to)

Both would be equally unconstitutional.

But you know that.

 

[boilermaker55]

NOPE!

All media in America (radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, public songs, etc) that are not in the English language should be banned. The USA should establish it self as an English-speaking country, with English as the official national language, and all others banned from the public scene.

The rise of non-English media has been concurrent with rises in immigration from non-English speaking countries, including a large influx of illegal aliens. These illegals are counter to the interests of Americans in many ways. Yet, their presence here is being encouraged by having TV stations in Spanish and possibly other languages, numerous AM radio stations, and even PA systems in WalMart play unAmerican songs in Spanish.

All of this encourages people to come here illegally, and then not learn English once they're here.

There's no mystery to this. Democrats have been encouraging immigration (including illegal) for decades) and rely on the immigrants for votes. Instead, thus immigration should be DIScouraged, and what immigrants do come here (legally) should be encouraged to learn English and speak, as my mother's family did, when they arrived here in 1929.. They had no media for them in Danish. No voting ballots in Danish for them. My paternal grandparents likewise, learned English back in the 1890s. They had no Spanish newspapers or voting ballots in Spanish. They learned English. That is how it should be now too.

 

[Montrovant]

For those who might have missed it >>>

NATION - a stable, historically developed community of people, with a territory, economic life,distinctive culture and language in common. (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition)

No charge for the tutoring. Same goes for all the airheads mentioning facism, bigotry, or whatever other off topic, and unrelated things they're babbling about

A nation can have a common language without it being codified in law.

A nation does not need to ban all other languages to have one common language.

 

[Camp]

For those who might have missed it >>>

NATION - a stable, historically developed community of people, with a territory, economic life,distinctive culture and language in common. (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition)

No charge for the tutoring. Same goes for all the airheads mentioning facism, bigotry, or whatever other off topic, and unrelated things they're babbling about

A nation can have a common language without it being codified in law.

A nation does not need to ban all other languages to have one common language.

The OP used an alleged definition on "nation" from Merriam-Webster. I looked it up and it did not say what he claims. It said the opposite. Maybe he has a special addition.