Texas Smackdown

There was a Texas Smackdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Liberal helpings of style and gravy were served, with little substantive beef required.

Actually, there were discussions of how the issues should be discussed if they were to actually be discussed.

I initially thought the debate was on the Playboy Channel instead of CNN, only because if ever there was an anchor that should be modeling lingerie, it is Campbell Brown. Fine, I am a sexist because I have the nerve to find a gorgeous woman gorgeous. Only Lisa Guerrero as a moderator would have been an improvement over Captivating Campbell.

Less captivating was Jorge Ramos of Univision. Can we go through one democratic debate without kowtowing to every politically correct minority on Earth? I have worked with Turks, Persians and Armenians over the course of my lifetime. They all kept their cultural heritage while speaking perfect English. Asking questions in English and Spanish was a perfect way to kiss minority rumpus. Enough already. If people cannot read a ballot in English, they should not be allowed to vote.

Since both of the candidates are Senators, the debate format adhered to Senate traditions by beginning with filibusters, or as they are known in debates, opening statements.

In their opening statements, the candidates came across as rock stars that shout out the name of the City or somebody in the city so that the crowd would go crazy just hearing where they live. Many candidates do this, but it is still tiresome.

Hillary sucked up the crowd by mentioning the late former Governor Ann Richards, and the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. She then mouthed stuff that somebody, somewhere, found consequential.

Obama started out by lying, insisting that he and Hillary were friends who would remain that way after the campaign. Then he morphed into John Edwards, lamenting over random human sob stories. He then stated that there is not a lack of good ideas, but that “Washington is where good ideas go to die.” He then also quoted Barbara Jordan, who once said that “America is only as good as its promise.”

The first question, asked in English and Spanish, was an intelligent question. The candidates were asked if they would be willing to unconditionally meet as President with new Cuban President and Murderous Thug Dictator for Life Raoul Castro, the brother of the ex-President, Murderous Thug Dictator For Life Fidel Castro. This question allowed for a clear contrast.

Hillary at first ducked the question, mainly because she is Hillary. She announced that she wanted to see political prisoners in Cuba released, followed by an opening up of the Cuban economy. She wants to bring the region together, and work with our European Allies. SHe wanted to see evidence of real change in Cuba first. When pressed further, she stated that she would not meet with Raoul Castro until she saw real change first.

Obama may be completely wrong on issues, but at least he is unequivocally wrong. To his credit, he answered “Yes.” He stated that the starting point was the liberty of the Cuban people. He would meet Raoul Castro without preconditions, but human rights must be on the agenda for any meeting. He stated that we must talk to our enemies. America should currently loosen the rules regarding remittances and travel restrictions. There should be progress in Cuba before normalization of relations is achieved, but that the goal has to be normalization. He then quoted JFK because democrats worship him.

Hillary stated that she wanted democracy with all, including Iran, but that they differ on a Presidential meeting. She then quoted JFK as well before bashing President Bush, because democrats do that when they are out of ideas. After castigating the President, she stated that she wants a “very vigorous and bipartisan diplomacy.” There should be no more “unilateral arrogance” of the Bush Administration.

So to sum up, Bush is terrible, let’s be bipartisan, and Bush is terrible. Yes, this woman really believes in reaching out. She just does it swinging a baseball bat at those she despises, which is confined emrely to those who disagree with her, or agree with her but stand in her way.

Obama then meekly offered a “me too” anti-Bush sop to the crowd, but his heart did not seem in it. He disagrees with the President, but cannot bring himself to hate the guy. He also stated that what would really be arrogant would be to withhold a Presidential meeting.

The candidates were then asked about how they differ on the economy. They both gave their plans on how they would destroy the economy, although they used different words.

Obama stated that the economy has been bad for four years, and for some it has been bad for decades. Despite the fact that most people that have taken Economics 101 in college would disagree, they are all wrong. Obama said so, so it must be so. He then offered his plan to wreck the economy, which consisted of repealing the Bush tax cuts, most likely because Bush passed them. He would also offer strong labor, environmental and safety standards. He would create a “green economy.” Apparently he believes that trees are more important than money, because to me a green economy means promoting financial wealth.

He did make a good point that while democrats agree the issue was how to get it done. A working majority was needed, which was a thinly veiled swipe at Hillary.

Hillary’s plan to ruin the USA came in the form of obliterating the sanity in the tax code, which she referred to as altering. The wealthy had a President for 7 years, and she would change that. There would be a “trade timeout,” which apparently means that nations would be forced to sit in the corner until she was ready to have them speak. She would have a “trade prosecutor” to enforce trade deals. I am sure this will be as effective as other “Czars” that are given fancy titles to spectacularly fail at things.

She then spoke about a “foreclosure crisis,” stating that we need a “moratorium on foreclosures.” In the true spirit of the Age of Aquarius, she was true to her spirit in abandoning personal responsibility. She then offered sob stories about poor innocent victims and greedy lenders. She forgot to mention that she and her husband were predatory lenders during the Whitewater episode. She spoke of people who got hoodwinked, although she did not mention the people who suffered because of her. She wants to freeze interest rates for 5 years, which is because she is smarter than the free markets.

Her three part plan to save America from good government consisted of spending 5 billion dollars on clean, green jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, and end President Bush’s “War on Science.” The crowd clapped, proving that setting pictures of President Bush on Fire matter more than intelligent analysis to these liberal sheep. The sheep also like meaningless slogans, which is why they appreciated Hillary desiring America to become “Innovation Nation.”

The next question dealt with “undocumented workers, or as those who respect the rule of law call them, “criminal illegal aliens.” Those who argue that we should not stigmatize them should criticize them for violating the law to begin with. Yet despite the obvious slant from Univision, the specific question asked whether raids should ended.

Hillary was a complete pretzel on this issue. She would “consider” ending the raids, except in “egregious circumstances.” She also wants illegal immigrants to have a “path to legalization.”

Obama talked about how he helped get a bill out of the Senate, although it died in the House. This is an example of what he considers accomplishing something, because he did successfully shepherd a bill through one chamber, completing 33% of the process. Most people consider 33% a failing grade. It was not his fault the bill failed, but nevertheless, nothing was accomplished.

He then stated that we all need to “tone down the rhetoric.” There should be “no discrimination against those with Spanish surnames.” He wants to fix the legal immigration system, end the backlog, lower the fees and legal expenses associated with immigrating, have better relations with Mexico, and something about President Bush being bad on the issue. No, he did not actually answer the question about raids, but I am tired of people calling him an empty suit. He looks nice in it. Substance is overrated.

Also, rumor has it that Michelle Malkin had to be taken to the hospital when her head (and the heads of many sane people) exploded due to the many inane questions asked in Spanish and English. Luckily, fluff is now bilingual. She is allegedly resting comfortably, and is being given an IV drip of common sense to eliminate the toxins that may have killed her brain power. Idiotic debates are toxic, and I wish her and others who injured themselves from lockjaw or falling out of their chairs and breaking arms and legs a speedy recovery.


The next immigration question to be left unanswered in a gutless manner dealt with whether or not the border fence should be finished, or discontinued altogether. This required a one word answer, but substanceless Senators like to expand, offering everything but actual answers to what is asked.

Hillary blamed President Bush. She then showed the class and grace that makes her the sweet bundle of viciousness that she is. She said there was a “smart way and a dumb way” to do things. Yes, the people in the audience loved it. Hillary then stated that she was fighting with President Bush about Canada, because he is too strict on the northern border. She announced that President Bush has “gone off the deep end.”

Yes, this woman is truly ready to lead all Americans, if by all Americans she means hateful people that offer nothing positive. She then said we should listen to people living on the border. She finally almost answered the original question by stating that technology and “smart fencing” were preferable to a physical barrier. She then blamed President Bush for eminent domain actions, even though it was liberal Supreme Court Justices that created that entire mess. The conservatives despised the eminent domain ruling.

Obama also stated that President Bush is “not good at listening.” Fencing in “some areas may make sense.” Even by Obama standards this answer was gibberish. He then said America should “provide opportunities for 12 million undocumented aliens.” He implied that republicans want to round up all 12 million and deport them, which is a lie. He wants to pass the “Dream Act,” which allows kids raised in America to get access to higher education.

In continuing with fair questions that would remain unanswered without objection, the candidates were then asked if there was a downside to a bilingual education.

Hillary stated that it is important for all of us to learn a second language, although she never did. Yes, she is a hypocrite. “English unifies us.” However, she also said that, “English should not be the official language.” That discriminates.

Obama also stated that English binds us, and that every student should learn another language. He then attacked the “No Child Left Behind” law, and condemned the focus on standardized tests. This is because as a liberal, he jumps when the teachers unions tell him to do so. Additionally, liberals hate standards in general, unless those standards lower the quality of life in the United States. No Child Left Behind neglects foreign languages. Perhaps this is because the law focuses on reading and math, but facts are irrelevant.

The next issue dealt with Obama being an empty suit. He is. Hillary has said he is. Yet given a chance to answer whether Obama was “all hat and no cattle,” Hillary turned gutless.

She stated that “President Bush is.” As for Obama, she and her are “just different.” She has solutions, working to make a difference. She stated that she has a record of accomplishments, and snidely mentioned an Obama supporter that got caught on television being unable to name a single accomplishment that he had.

This is what separates Hillary from Obama. She tried to be nice, but she can only do so for so long. Yet getting into the gutter is a winner for her. If Obama refuses to answer it, the charge sticks. If he fights back, and they are both in the gutter, she wins. He has nowhere to go but down. Scorched Earth benefits her, especially because it is her expertise.

Obama then briefly turned into Obambi. He simply would not hit back. He meekly stated that he has a 20 year record of action. He stated that the soldiers at Walter Reed like his actions.

He then temporarily toughened up, explaining that Hillary’s battle cry of “let’s get real,” implied that all his supporters were delusional. He mentioned that he had the endorsement of all the major Texas newspapers.The reality is clear. We must “bring people together, and stop the bickering.” This is not “just about policy positions. We must inspire people or face gridlock.” The crowd roared in approval, and the standing ovation showed that charges must be answered.

Yet the next question dealt with Obama being guilty of plagiarism. First of all, he was. So what? Hillary plagiarizes his speeches. She is a poll driven, focus group tested robot. Also, Obama did point out that he used the lines of Deval Patrick, who is one of his National Cochairs. They share views, and talk of plagiarism is “silly.” He again mentioned Barbara Jordan. We should focus on “issues, not silliness.” He is proud that some of his speeches are “pretty good.” He stated that college tuition credits of $4000 and ending the Iraq War are concrete policy proposals. He then looked at Hillary and stated that we should “not tear each other down, we should lift the country up.”

Hillary then drove in the dagger. “If a candidacy is about words, and speeches are plagiarized, then this is not ‘change we can believe in.’ It is change we can Xerox.” The crowd mildly booed, but she continued, going after Obama due to differences on health care and a moratorium on foreclosures. She then stated that “the world will breathe a sigh of relief when President Bush is gone.” While I am sure she meant gone from office, and not dead (her supporters get less charity on this issue), Al Queda wants him gone in every sense of the word. She then announced that she is “tired of companies deciding who will live and who will die.” Al Queda is nothing. We need to get those big bad companies that provide American jobs.

Obama did briefly fight back, announcing that his health care plan was fine when he was down by 20 points in the polls, but all of a sudden it is not fine because he is ahead. He acknowledged that their plans were 95% similar. Hillary wants to force people to buy health care, while he wants to lower costs. He points out that former Labor Secretary Robert Reich agrees with him. The argument of 15 million uninsured under his plan is not true. He pointed out that in 1993, Hillary went behind closed doors for her health care plan. He will be more open. Politics must change, or plans mean nothing. Again, he implicitly hints at what he needs to explicitly state, that Hillary is too polarizing to get anything done. She has ideas, but not likability.

The next question asked Hillary whether she thought Obama was unqualified. Given that her entire campaign is based on her being ready to lead from Day 1, her refusal to answer showed her for what she is, which is not worth describing.

She stated that the issue was “up to the voters.” She then immediately shifted the debate back to health care. It had nothing to do with the question, but it was a brilliant maneuver. She supports mandates. She praised John Edwards and the late Texas President LBJ, stating that Social Security and Medicare were mandates, not voluntary.

Obama, after briefly mentioning that he would not be running if he thought he was unqualified, took the bait and stayed on health care. He stated that mandates should be on government, not on people in the form of paying fines. Forcing people to buy health care requires stiff penalties for those who don’t, including wage garnishments.

Obama is right on the issue, but it plays to where Hillary is strongest, that being arcane policy details.

Hillary then explained that this issue was personal for her, which is her way of saying she is right and nobody else has moral authority to discuss the issue. She pointed out that Obama has mandates on parents to provide care for their children. In her view, the “social compact requires that all pay.”

Obama could have pointed out that people did not want Hillary’s social compact. He did point out that children have no choices, but that adults do. Hillary sighed in the same manner that got Al Gore into trouble in his debates.

Again the moderators tried to bring the issue back to whether Hillary thinks Obama is qualified. She continued to talk about health care.

She stated that she has represented our country for 15 years, and that she has represented 80 countries. So this means she did run the country from 1993-2001, making her ineligible to run again, and further reducing her husband to his proper irrelevance. As for the 80 countries, she did mention in a speech, but not at this debate, that she stood up to the Chinese and lectured them about human rights. Obama could have brought up that she did not actually change any policies, and that her words fell on deaf ears. She was on the Armed Services Committee, but not for 15 years. She mentioned nations such as Pakistan, Cuba, Kosovo, and Serbia, which only means that she reads newspapers. She has nothing to do with any of these recent world events. She properly pointed out that they are serious issues. She then implied that she is ready. Yet she would not explicitly state that Obama was less ready than her.
Obama pointed out that “Job # 1 is keeping people safe.” He wants us to have the strongest military and proper roations, which President Bush messed up. He showed judgment on Iraq from the beginning, and Hillary did not.”He also stated that Al Queda is stronger than any time since 2001. I believe he got this from himself. He stated that it is easier for the military to get Taliban weapons than getting our own government to properly equip our soldiers. He then again claimed that he had good judgment, which apparently does not come from talking to military generals. He conclude dby stating that it was wrong for us to put all our eggs in one basket in the form of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, and that he has been proven right. Again, his focus group on this issue is him, and maybe his wife.

Hillary was then called out by the moderator for her attack on General David Petraeus. It was explained to her that not only did the surge work militarily, but even Iraqi political progress is occurring. The candidates were asked how they could compete against Senator John McCain, a war hero who was right about the surge. When liberal networks are right about something, then the entire civilized world has grasped the idea first. Now the candidates on the left needed to do another contortionist imitation.

Hillary stated that the purpose of the surge has “not been fulfilled.” The Iraqi government has been slow. After all, America from 1776 to 1789 was all hearts and flowers. She would then begin withdrawing troops within 60 days, which would pressure the Iraqis to act. Actualy, it would result in mass murders of inocent civilians, as happened in Southeast Asia, but again, facts are irrelevant.

Obama stated that it was “indisputable that there has been a decrease in violence.” Yet he still had the audacity of…well, just plain audacity…to then state that he was right for opposing the war from the beginning, and therefore the best person to take on John McCain. Because of Iraq, we are ignoring Latin America, and Iran benefited from the Iraq War. The Iraq War also drains us from spending at home. On this point I agree with Obama, but am happy about this. I would rather money be spent that is not a waste, than brought back here and wasted. Obama also got a laugh by stating that “McCain endorsing President Bush’s policies proves he does not understand the economy.” I can only wait to hear McCain explain life to Obama.

The next topic was earmarks, with Obama being asked about his 91 million in undisclosed earmarks.

Obama replied that this was not true, and that he declared everything. He mentioned a website called “Google for Government,” with Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. He referred to Senator Coburn as a “common sense fiscal conservative.” He then threw in the obligatory joke about “No bid Halliburton contracts.” I wonder how the candidates would stammer and stumble if forced to answer a question about what Halliburton actually does. “Something with big oil” is not an answer.

Hillary was then asked about her 342 milion on earmarks. She was not asked why this was all President Bush’s fault, but she was asked if McCain was better than her on this issue. Given that it is his signature issue, she could not simply concede that he was much better.

Instead, she blamed his support of tax cuts and the Iraq War. First of all, those are not earmarks, and second of all, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, although he now wants to make them permanent. He has supported tax cuts in general, so maybe Hillary is opposed to tax cuts in general. She blamed President Bush for turning surpluses into deficits, although 9/11 and the War on Terror caused most of that. She made a remark about how we “borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis.” It is a great line, but meaningless since she has proposed nothing in terms of altering that strategy. She also stated that President Bush “outsourced the government.” Yes, this woman needs a muzzle. No, I am not stating all women need muzzles. Hillary does.

The candidates were then asked about Nany Pelosi’s remarks that the Superdelegates, also known as “democratic party fatcats” or “grand poobahs,” would not alter the will of the people. This was in response to allegations that Hillary is trying to steal the nominations by any means necessary, which she is. Michigan and Florida broke the rules, they were punished, and Hillary wants to reward them anyway solely because she finished ahead in those states, mainly by reneging on promises the candidates made to not compete there.

Hillary did not have the guts to say what she has been doing. She blathered that the “process will support itself out.” She then actually shut up.

Obama stated that “primaries and caucuses must matter.” He again quoted Barbara Jordan by stating that the “democratic party at its best can summon a higher purpose.”

The candidates then were asked about the toughest test they ever faced. This question was designed to see what qualified them to be President.

Obama spoke of his dad leaving when he was 2 years old, his being raised by his grandparents, his rocky youth, and the struggle to learn to take responsibility for his own actions. He then offered class warfare about how he became a civil rights lawyer rather than somebody who went to Wall Street. He is “worthy of the decency and generosity of the people.”

Somebody ought to tell every liberal that there is nothing noble about being poor, and that being rich does not mean ill gotten gain. Tyhen again, they have not grasped this for two centuries, so starting now would be pointless.

In essence, Obama is qualified because he had a rough life, and appreciates the good poor people over the bad rich, or as they should be called, productive, people.

Hillary stated that she “lived through crises and challenging moments,” and the audience began clapping wildly. Yes, she reminded people of her struggle against the evil republicans, refusing to acknowledge that this cuts to the heart of the argument of why she should never be President. All she does is fight with people, and she blames others for her own failures. She continued.

“How does she do it? How do others do it?” Yes, she was comparing her soap opera drivel with real struggles of everyday Americans, commenting that her struggles paled by comparison. If she believed this, she would not have even offered the comparison. She stated that she and McCain spoke at the Brooke Medical Center. She offered more sob stories. She then stated how “honored she was to be on stage with Barack Obama.” This allowed her to get a wild standing ovation to end the debate.

Analyzing winners of debates is not based on personal feelings. Hillary is a bad person. There is no way around it. She will say, do, and lie about anything. The ends justify the means. Obama is a better person. This is irrelevant.

Analyzing winners of debates is also not about issues and substance. These candidates are liberal, meaning they are wrong on virtually everything.

George W. Bush is a much better human being than John Kerry. He is also right on the issues. Yet Kerry won the debates. This did not lead to an electoral triumph because Kerry was seen as better with words. President Bush was and is more likable.

Analyzing winners of debates is about points in debates, and nothing more.

Hillary Clinton cleaned Barack Obama’s clock. She attacked, and he did not hit back hard enough and often enough. Obama needs to “grow a pair.”

Maybe Obama is right, that he can smile and pleasantly wave his way to a win. Yet nice guys usually do finish last, and Hillary is as mean as they come. She decked him, and stuck knives in him, and he tried to remain cool and calm and above the fray.

She wants more debates because she is good in debates. The fact that she is awful on so many levels does not matter. She will not give up. She would destroy the party before surrendering.

She is prepared for scorched Earth. I wonder if he is prepared. After all, he will never be ready to fight terrorist rogues if he cannot even stand up to Hillary.

He wants to lift people up. She wants to tear people down.

She is too polarizing to govern, but she only needs 50.1% of the vote in several large Electoral College states, despite her wanting to abolish the Electoral College a few years back when it seemed to be less useful to her ambitions.

Hillary Clinton won the Texas Smackdown.

Good luck Mr. Obama. You will need it. Lady Macbeth is just getting started.


26 Responses to “Texas Smackdown”

  1. micky says:

    ” Green jobs”
    This just a buzz word, a catch phrase that gets all the environmental moonbats lit up everytime they hear it.
    Anyone who is already employed in the energy sector would more than likely be adopting any green technology or ideas to their knowledge .
    What does Hillary plan on doing ? Creating a bunch of tree hugger jobs that wiil replace all the people presently employed in the energy field ?
    Most techs in the field have said there is no such thing as “green jobs”
    Its just another name for jobs that are already being performed.
    To me it sounds more like green jobs would mean more illegals doing our yards.

  2. Jersey McJones says:

    What do you guys have against people speaking spanish anyway? It doesn’t bother me, but man it sure makes you guys look hateful.


  3. Brian says:

    Did you ever consider the idea of not writing on Hillary…considering your decades old extreme disdain for her? Once you state ” Hillary is a bad person”, it’s all over…

    Don’t you get that no matter how many books, articles we read, no matter how many documentaries and news progams we watch, we rarely if ever really know the individual. We live in an era where these character assassination books have become all too common.

    Hillary wants to be President…Ronald Reagan did too…and Gerald Ford believed he lost to Carter in 1976 because of it…Ambition is not exactly unique to her…

    I also don’t know if Dubya is a better person than John Kerry. Though, I like him a great deal more…Newt’s personal history wreaks of someone you might refer to as a “bad person.” Hillary has stood by her spouse through good days and bad…Newt supposedly left a wife as she was in the hospital giving birth. You do the math.

    Let’s just get on with reality here…McCain is the only candidate left fit to deal with the world in the year 2009…good person, bad person, whatever…the others pale in comparison.

  4. Brian says:

    There is a common language in this nation known as English. I have many bilingual friends, work with latinos etc…I’m always peppering a phrase with a little espanol…but I had to laugh at this Ramos guy…and be dismayed by his asking questions in spanish…the idea in this country for well over a hundred years has been to work hard, learn english and within a few generations move up the ladder…and it’s been a smashing success for so very many people of all backgrounds…

    I know a number of latinos who would enhance their quality of living by improving their english skills…simple as that…bright people who work in hotels and restaurants in busboy type positions…and the psychological effect it has on them is of consequence…they often see themselves as being of a lower class…even though, they could lift themselves up with a good plan and a couple of years of dilligent work and training…which is available and for little if any cost…I’ve worked in hotels for years to subsidize my art…and the programs exist…some take advantage of them and some don’t…

  5. Jersey McJones says:

    Brian, we have a huge new hispanic population in America. They will assimilate like everyone else after a time, but in the meantime should we just ignore them? Should we just dismiss the reality that they’re relatively new to the country and that it will take time to assimilate? And most of these folks are from poor countries with poor schools, so they don’t have the english background that immigrants with established english institutions have, like Indians and Koreans for example.

    Why does this bother you guys so much? I don;t get it. And it makes you look so petty and spiteful. You’ll be lucky to get a 20th of the Hispanic vote for the GOP in coming elections if you don’t knock this rhetoric off.


  6. micky says:

    If you,ve been here long enough to vote as a citizen but cant speak english yet something is wrong.

  7. Jersey McJones says:

    Well, it’s more than that Micky. What about all the new comers watching the elections and trying to learn about our democracy? Don’t we want them to be informed citizens for the future? What about Puerto Ricans? They vote. I would bet that most people that have been here long enough to vote do understand english quite well. That’s beside the issues at hand. This all just sems petty and vindictive to me.


  8. Jersey McJones says:

    And is it just me or did Hillary basically concede the election last night at the end of the debate?


  9. […] Minister Gordon Brown’s grilling by senior MPs on the Commons liaison committee. (34 clicks) Texas SmackdownThere was a Texas Smackdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Liberal helping… Dancing with Marlee Matlinby Paulo Ignazio I’ve always had a thing for deaf women. (Any […]

  10. micky2 says:

    These people have to go through a naturalization process that requires they study our countrys history,political process’s and customs before they are naturalized. Right?

    Besides that , any TV or cable service these days offers simulcast or translation or closed captioning in spanish. Its not really neccessary for some shmuck to sit on the side and repeat everything.
    I think the candidates are just trying to grab some appeal.
    No, I dont think. I’ll bet on it.

    Yea, Hillary did seem to be a little passive when she started with the ” no matter what happens, we’ll be fine”.
    No matter what happens?
    Last week it was always presumptive lines like ” when I am elected president”

  11. Jersey McJones says:

    Yeah, I thought that last line from Hillary was interesting. I think she sees the writing on the wall.

    As for the spanish issue, I just think it’s petty and makes you guys look bad. I would drop it if I were you guys.


  12. micky2 says:

    Not really bad, just a question that has good relevance.
    Lets approach it from this angle.

    You said;
    ” I would bet that most people that have been here long enough to vote do understand english quite well. ”

    So if thats the case, then we can do away with multi lingual ballots , right ?

  13. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, is that really important to you? Is this the kind of thing that really concerns you conservatives???

    I’m sorry, but it seems juvenile to me.


  14. micky2 says:

    Whats juvenile about keeping trhe levels of communication in our society up to a standard ?
    When I go to work I expect everyone to speak the same language.
    When you have two or three levels of communication going on you end up with confusion and wasted time.
    Its a matter of patriotism and wanting to be an American citizen on Americas terms.
    Why should I have to wait on the phone before I can select the language I want to use ?
    Why should we use excess money and time and materials in drawing up so many extra documents for everyone who is too lazy to learn our language.
    This is the land of the free, but it is also a land of a system. Its not just the ballot, Please ! dont narrow it down to that and cheapen the conversation by focusing only on that. Spanish translation is every where.
    To the point that its only obvious to anyone that we are catering to people who dont wat to be Americans, they just want the package.
    Its real simple. And its been an issue for a long time in many cultures. This is where you have the phrase ” When in Rome, do as the Romans do”
    Liberals are of the position that we should honor and respect other countries cultures and systems when we go there.
    Well let me ask you something.
    Why should it be any different for America ?
    Dont we have the right to demand that our language be spoken in our workplaces, government and schools also ? As well as the KUMBAYA gang wants us to respect others demands ?
    Why must America conform or adapt and cater when foreigners come here and do the same when we go there ?
    Cant have it both ways guys.

    Nothing juvenile at all about not letting whats left of our system go to hell.
    On the other hand , I think its juvenile and irresponsable to let things continue on the path they are on.
    The first and foremost requirement of any society is that you all communicate on the same level.

    Tell me, please !

  15. micky2 says:

    Oh , by the way. You never answerd the ballot question.

  16. Jersey McJones says:

    I care about the ballot issue about as much as I care more taste/less filling debate, but on the other hand, it’s a nice gesture to have alternate languages, so hey, why not? I doubt it costs very much. It”s just a little more work for printers. So fine. I just doesn’t bother me.

    You know what else doesn’t bother me?

    Having to dial a number on the telephone to select my language doesn’t bother me at all.

    Flipping through a few extra latin television and radio stations looking for a show I might like really just doesn’t bother me at all.

    Hearing and listening to a person with a thick accent doesn’t bother me in the least – in fact, I love it! It’s an intellectual challenge, and a show of respect! I call that a Win/Win.

    Eating the wonderful foods all these peoples bring to America not only doesn’t bother me, but I would find it a living hell to do without it now!

    All the interesting music and art, films and pop culture they bring to us doesn’t bother me a bit. Some of it I like, some of it I don’t, but it sure makes life more interesting!

    So really, I don’t know what you guys are complaining about or what you think is so bad about our new neighbors. I like them and I really don’t care what language they speak.


  17. micky2 says:

    The food , music, accents,all that has nothing to do with any of this.

    You’re looking at this from an emotional personal values and somewhat humanitarian basis.
    I’m looking ay this as a societal structure issue.
    You may not mind all of that , bit thsat doesnt make it fair to all the other people who work hard to become Americans by studying the language.
    I already mentioned how the permeating of the language into the work place effects productivity. Its a waste of tax payers money to cater to lazy people.
    Someone has to pay those printers JERSEY !
    But since when did the left care about anyones money except their own ?
    Why should I have to dig in my pocket to print up all this literature on everything from directions on the wall in the hospital to our ballots or the interpretor they hire in courts to almost every legal document in the country ?
    Its not up to me or any one else to make communication functional.
    It would be nice if you could answer my question on the ballot.
    Since they all should know english by the time they are allowed to vote , then lets do away with bi lingual ballots, right ? And every other bi lingual document . Unless they are in grade school learning the language.
    And also. Why do moonbats insist we respect other cultures so much , but it doesnt matter if American culture gets taken over and put out of balance by immigrants ?

  18. micky2 says:

    A person that has any dignity , pride and integrity adapts to the people culture and surroundings, and does not expect the surroundings, culture and people to adapt to him. Life is much easier when you choose to understand everyone else. Instead of expecting them all to understand you.

  19. greg says:

    To be an American does not necessarily require one to speak English and never has. Yes, it is highly beneficial for anyone living and working in the US to speak the dominant language, and I, for one, strongly encourage everyone to speak it, but English has never been the universal language of the country. When Thomas Jefferson completed the Louisiana Purchase, the residents of the United States spoke not only English but German and French, not to mention a huge variety of Native American languages.

    My grandmother spoke Finnish at home as that was all my great-grandparents spoke and that was the case throughout her neighborhood in Michigan. Aside from vast areas in the Southwest where Spanish has long been the primary language, there are pockets in Texas and in California where German is still the primary language. And, of course, I live in a state where the largest cities are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco.

  20. Jersey McJones says:

    All this talk of lingual misunderstanding.

    I am ashamed that Americans have such a hard time with language. What a pathetic commentary on us.


  21. micky2 says:

    Yes, not necessary but beneficial not only to them but to the rest of the country as well.
    The days of Thomas jefferson are long gone.
    Society has streamlined itself to point of efficiency that with the help of liberal agendas will go backwards if they get their way.

  22. Jersey McJones says:

    “Society has streamlined itself to point of efficiency that with the help of liberal agendas will go backwards if they get their way.”

    You sound like Marx, Micky.


  23. micky2 says:

    Whatever Jersey.
    It makes no logic to have the mass adapt to the one, when its so much more efficient and functional to just teach the one guy english.
    This is a ridiculous arguement that we should cater to those who dont want to function in a society that has a standard of communication.
    You keep arguing it from a personal and emotional level by bringing up our acceptance of accents and music and cultures when all that has nothing to with basic communication and the fucntion opf our literary infrastructure.
    If someone is paralized for life in a wheel chair or disabled somehow, by all means we should accomodate that person.
    I see no reason to accomodate someone who is too lazy to learn to use the facilities that an able bodied person should be able to use.
    Besides that , as Greg said, its only beneficial to them to learn english for their own sake.
    You still havnt answerd the question

  24. Jersey McJones says:

    What question?


  25. micky says:

    You said;
    ” I would bet that most people that have been here long enough to vote do understand english quite well. ”

    So if thats the case, then we can do away with multi lingual ballots , right ?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.