Dude, you're letting your IQ show. I grew up speaking German and English. I LEARNED Spanish here in El Paso TX. because I am excepting of the fact the culture is strongly Hispanic. I only started refusing to speak Spanish when it became increasingly apparent, that they expect me to speak their language in MY Country.

I'll be damned if I am going to be forced to speak a foreign language in my own Country.

So, you want to get off your stereotypical view of me and other Americans, and maybe get closer to the topic of the thread?

I'm really getting angry about the 'official' polls on CNN. Paul is in last place?!?!?

Richard...build a bridge and get over it...thats called a joke!!!!....which is mostly true

Well, I have to admit that this has always puzzled me. If someone comes to this country, and INSISTS upon retaining their native language, customs, mannerisms, etc., wanting to change the environment HERE around them to what they had THERE in their own country, basically refusing to become an "American" in any classical sense of the word, then why in the world did they leave their home country in the first place? If they want to BE in their country, then why didn't they just stay there instead of trying to bring it here with them?

Does anyone think it RIGHT that someone should come to this country and expect everyone else to learn THEIR language in order to converse with them? I'm sorry, but if you come to MY country and want to speak to me, you need to learn MY language, otherwise we have nothing to talk about. Literally.

Sorry, but WE do not want YOU to try to convert OUR country into YOUR country. We didn't leave HERE to go THERE, you came HERE from THERE. We don't want HERE to become THERE, otherwise WE would go THERE.

Most people consider it a courtesy that when you go to a country where a different language is spoken, to LEARN that language. Many people consider people coming to this country wanting to convert OUR country to theirs as a hostile invasion. This country has enough problems without having islands located on American soil where the local people pointedly make into outposts of their own country. That isn't a "melting pot" at all. That isn't even a "country", except by definition of the physical boundaries of a piece of property. How can a "United States of America" be "united" at all if much of the population in those islands demonstratably doesn't even want to be "American"?

If you want to teach your children your home country heritage, fine and dandy. I agree that you should. But don't try to force ME to have to learn it too just because you may be my neighbor or in any way want to converse with me. If anyone walks up to me and speaks to me in anything other than English, I walk away because you are wasting my time. If anyone calls me on the phone and speaks anything other than English, I hang up the phone. If anyone emails me in anything other than English, I simply delete it. I live in America. The de facto official language is ENGLISH. If I feel I NEED to learn your language, then I will. But your just WANTING me to does not constitute a NEED in my opinion. You either came to this country to become an American, and all that this implies, or you are just a temporary visitor who is welcome to leave anytime the requirements of becoming an American get to be too burdensome for you.

If I wanted to go to YOUR country, I would expect no less treatment, and I would most certainly comply out of courtesy.

That was the reason for this poll. I don't believe a damned thing the media is telling us about the "official" polls and voting results.

Bravo sir. Oh wait, that's not English is it. Well said, then. :D

I mean, realistically, if I moved to Mexico and only spoke German, you think the Mexican people would learn my language, or expect me to learn theirs? Answer is, there are several German Communities residing in Mexico, they're called Mennonites. And guess what...they had to learn Spanish to survive down there.

Come up here the other side of the border though, and we're racist for expecting the same sort of courtesy. We're "targeting" hispanics for expecting them to learn English, the language of the land, which even the Native Americans speak.

It's amazingly one sided.

OK, consider this: You go to a country you have always dreamed of visiting, say Brazil, and when you finally get enough money together, after possibly a lifetime of saving, you go there. Now, you are there and you pick up the phone and hear "dial one for portuguese in portuguese, then dial 2 for english in english", and so on. Are you telling me you will not dial 2 for english?
Of course you would, even if you spoke portuguese as a second language perfectly, you would still dial the number for your native language. Does this mean you want to convert Brazil to english? 'Course not. My point was: why do some people seem to think having to simply stay on the line an extra second or two while the phone ASKS them if they want to speak spanish, before being able to continue in english such a terrible thing?
I never said I wanted to convert the US to some other language, now did I? I'm just tired of hearing people complain about having to press 1 for english when that is NOT even one of the options - think about it, they assume you want to continue with english, and only give the option of changing to spanish. If you don't press any buttons at all, does it convert to spanish? NOPE! It continues in english. How is that trying to convert the country to spanish????
So really, the whole side of Rich & Richer's argument is moot when the phone NEVER asks for one to press a number to continue in english in this country - at least that has been my experience. If you can find a phone number here that does do this, I'd like to call it, because until I hear it, I won't believe you.

OK, My side of things...Why can't the message just say "press one for spanish" in spanish? Why do they even have to reference the native language of the land? That should be automatic if you don't press one for spanish. THAT is what my avatar is saying.

Lack of "define reasoning"? That's a joke right? Actually, his reasoning was defined to the basic constitutional right of private property regardless of if you agree or disagree with his positions. There is no wiggle room here.

Ron Paul consistently stated the Jim Crow laws were wrong. Period! That if he had been in office he would have voted against them or if he could have repealed them without attacking private property rights, he would have, Period! The protection of private property by law has changed so much since that time it would be unrecognizable for many under the age of your electability requirements for a presidential candidate "under 40".

It seems to me you just took the talking points and came to a conclusion. You would not have come to the same conclusion if you actually read or listened to his full statements on the topics.


So what you and others have done is take the principled reasoned responses as to why someone believed that there was a better way than force to achieve equality and turn it to "Well he most be racist" is a total perversion of the facts.

It was bad and unconstitutional laws that created the inequality and some felt adding similar unconstitutional laws to fix it, was just as bad.

First you had government dictating to business and the populace separate but equal (segregation), then you had government dictating that you can't.
Some felt the government had no place in either position.

If it were any other infringement on personal liberty his response would have been the same regardless. His vote on the issue had nothing to do with not wanting to strike down the Jim Crow laws and everybody who has ever listened to a word he has stated knows so. There was no racist motivation.

You can put all of his stances on the same page and every time someone tries to do exactly how you try to make it appear.

Take his illegal drug stance.
People automatically state he is pro drugs.

Personally he states he thinks illegal drugs are bad for you and it is a poor choice for someone to chose to do them but it is your choice. That is a far cry for advocating the use. He doesn't. He just believes that it is your right regardless if it is a bad decision. Caging someone for the harm they chose to do to themselves is wrong.

Same thing here. He believes racism is wrong. Forceful segregation on the population is wrong. Easy for the majority to agree on, right?

Well, the only consistent liberty orientated position to take is, ALSO forcing people not to be racist is also wrong even if you don't agree with them. People who own property, businesses, etc. should be allowed to do with their possession what they chose.

But let's us look at it from today's perspective. Could a business survive or thrive in a climate like that today? I think not. Do you really think that it is best to hide racism and outlaw it? Does that ever work for anything else, ever? IS it gone if racist comments are uttered quietly instead of spoken out loud? Do prevailing ideas win out by silencing opposing ones? No, they fester and grow with disdain.

For me, I would prefer to know who wouldn't want me in their business in today's world. Why would I want to give my hard earned money to someone who despises my presence? That if he/she legally could forbid me from his/her premise they would do so. Instead their thoughts are held in private while they walk to the bank with my funds.


My whole point is Agree or Disagree but his reasoning is sound in principle and it has nothing to do with racism. It was about property rights and his consistent positions. To borrow from a previous campaign, It's the Constitution Stupid!

Protecting thought, speech and property when someone is using it in a manner that you disagree with is very hard thing to do. Particularly when people who tot the standard answers are standing there waiting for a consistent person to remain consistent across the board.

As for the newsletters he has addressed them for years. He took them head on in 2008 and here we are again.


He stated plainly he doesn't agree with what those articles stated, he didn't write them, didn't see them at the time, they aren't his opinion. He denounced them and isn't his opinion and wrong. What moral responsibility is he lacking? Seriously, lacking moral responsibility? OK what would be morally responsible? I mean, besides denouncing them.

Actually, I find the fact that a man that has never stated anything racist, never personally wrote anything racist, consistently preaches the opposite of categorizing any individual into any group, be so loosely called a racist because of his stance on personal property and the words written by another that he never read until years after the fact.

I believe they usually do not reference the 'native' language, english, in those menus (Didn't Christopher Columbus speak spanish? And I think the true native language of this land was 'Injun'). I know I have never had to press a number to continue in english. But even if one did have to do such a thing, I don't think it is a big deal. I have certainly put up with worse things in life. Anyway, if you do happen to come accross a phone menu where you actually have to press a number to continue in english, and the phone is located on US soil, I'd like to have the phone number to hear what it sounds like, because so far, I have yet to hear such a thing.
FWIW, I agree completely with you guys re: foreign individuals coming here and trying to morph the US into their old country. Don't let the door hit you in the buttocks is what I would say to those individuals. But my experience has been limited to mostly spanish people wanting to share their culture with me and re-live some pleasant times from back home. Most, if not all, are additions America could use much better than some of these 'native' citizens that are basically a waste of human skin, and most of these foreigners I've met would hate to change what they see as a country that is better than the one they escaped. I know I never get tired of learning, and you never know what you may need in the future. Whoever is not against us is for us.