The shrubs home state GOP platform and what you may be voting for...

[treesinger]

The Republican position on bi-lingual programs, IIRC, is to be against those programs that are meant to perpetuate NOT learning and do NOT emphasize needing to learn the language that a huge majority of the country speaks.

Language can be a huge barrier and can be lifesaving. This winter, there was a fire in Philadelphia. The family only spoke Spanish. No one on the fire team spoke Spanish so they didn't understand that there were more children still inside.

Wanting English to be the national language is NOT about elitism, snobbism or disrespect of any person's culture. It's about consistency, safety and community. Those that can not communicate with safety officials endanger themselves and their families. Those that do not speak English separate themsleves from a majority of the US population by default.

Now, that said, I have NOTHING wrong with businesses that conduct themsleves in other languages only, press 2 for Spanish, or otherwise pander to people who only speak a different language. Private enterprise is private. However, when it comes to government functions and services, I believe they should only be presented in English unless the department, as a rule, MUST have multi-lingual support. (say, department of hispanic affairs)

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by treesinger
Wanting English to be the national language is NOT about elitism, snobbism or disrespect of any person's culture.

I'm sorry, but when contained in a document that also contains this quote...:

We favor strengthening our common American identify and loyalty over the ideology of multiculturalism that emphasizes differences between racial and ethnic groups.

...your attempt to justify their position just falls completely flat. That may be what you believe, and why you believe it (and I don't have a major problem with that stance, btw), but it's not how it comees off in that document. You're simply giving them the benefit of the doubt in regards to their intentions, something I'm not willing to do with any politician, let alone the Texas Repugnican Party that spawned our current "president".

 

[Saffron]

treesinger ... just an aside ... I don't speak a word of Chinese, but I know if I were to walk up to someone who only spoke Chinese, whose house was on fire, I would understand the universal launguage of pointing at a burning building and making rocking motions to indicate a baby or "stacking motions" to indicate little children and how many. Something else had to be going on at that fire in Philly with people who did not speak English. (Which I don't remember at all).

It's kind of like the universal gesture for choking. I don't have to speak Chinese to know a Chinese person is choking. Etc. etc.

 

[Aristocath]

I find this upsetting for so many reasons.
As a former teacher, I saw how hard it was for my students when the bilingual programs were cut. They may speak English at school, but Spanish may be the primary language at home. A lot of these families work hard to assimilate; having a bilingual program so the student can learn subjects in their native language as well as learning to speak English isn't a bad idea. Think of the teachers and other students in the classes too. When students come unable to fully participate in a class, it takes time away from other children.

I like to remember that we are a nation of immigrants, who welcome the tired,poor, huddled masses, yearning to be free. Paraphrased from Emma Lazarus

One other thing: I'm proud to be a Texas Democrat!

 

[missypie]

As a Texan for 23 years, I'm in favor of only one item on that list. Living here in the Big D is very uncomfortable for me!

 

[beattyfamily]

Exactly who are you trying to sway with this post? Calling him the Shrub?

Really, these political 'attack' threads are pointless, IMHO. I guess you just need to vent?

Where are all the Kerry threads showing what exactly he'll do differently than President Bush?

Proud Republican in "Kerry Country"!!

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
So basically, they give you a list of acceptable "causes" (whatever those may be) and if the reason you want to get divorced isn't one of those reasons, you can't? You have to stay married?

I've got to oversimplifying this. This doesn't even make sense. The government is going to tell me who I have to live with?

eta: just read Saffron's post, and apparently, I'm not oversimplifying. Wow. This is unbelievable to me. I think I'm speechless.

This was of great concern to me as well.

No, you're not oversimplifying it. The Republicans believe there are too many divorces which is something we can all agree on. The problem is, their solution is to make divorce as costly, difficult and lengthy as possible to deter people from divorcing.

It means that you can't simply decide your marriage is over and as amicably as possible, end it. One of the partners will have to show in court, to all the world, just what a lousy husband/wife they have. And, to insure that your divorce will be granted, you'll need to make it seem as bad as possible.

Great thing for the kids, huh? It's also just what the overloaded court system needs.



It's just another example of them trying to put their noses into people's private lives.

So, yes, if they have their way you will have to prove to a judge that you should be allowed to choose who you live with.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Originally posted by Samsara
All of the following statements come from the Texas GOP official Party Platform. Keep in mind this is the shrubs home state and what you see here may be what you are voting for come Nov. 2.


We oppose the Endangered Species Act.

---Completely disagree


The Party supports repeal of all Motor Voter laws; re–registering voters every four years

--- Doesn't really bother me one way or the other, if you don't make an effort to register you probably won't vote anyway.

The Party opposes any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.

---I'm not a religious person, but seeing religious symbols doesn't scare me.

The Party supports the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America. While encouraging fluency in additional languages by all citizens, no governmental entity shall require any agency, contractor, business, or individual to publish public documents in a language other than English.

---Agree 100%

The Party views any form of desecration of the American flag as an outward act of disregard for our nation and its people and advocates penalties for such acts.

---Agree 100%

The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation.

---Don't care

The Party believes that capital punishment should be swift and unencumbered.

---Disagree 100%

The Party recognizes that addictive drug, alcohol, and pornography use is dangerous and affects all sectors of society.

---Yes and books are good, your point is? Just fluff right there.

We call upon the Texas Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws.

---???

The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders.

---Disagree

The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy.

---See above

The Party believes that pornography is repulsive, addictive and
contributes to deviant criminal behavior.

---More fluff, this is not really a stand on an issue

We urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

---Completely agree

The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress.

---Not sure what I think on this one

We favor strengthening our common American identify and loyalty over the ideology of multiculturalism that emphasizes differences between racial and ethnic groups.

---Agree

The Party supports the termination of bilingual education programs.

---Disagree

The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.

----Not alltogether, but I don't want to see US troops under UN command


Do you really want to see the United States embracing this radical ideology?

 

[Pin Wizard]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
Where are all the Kerry threads showing what exactly he'll do differently than President Bush?

Proud Republican in "Kerry Country"!!

I've wondered the same thing.

And I believe it would be "Kerry County" as opposed to "Country!" I don't see it being his Country.

 

[Maleficent13]

Peachgirl, I'm still stunned over it. I try to type something, but I am just not coherent. I just don't understand it at all. Could someone who supports this "rescind the no-fault divorce" thing chime in with why this is a good idea?

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Why would anyone be against the endangered species act? Can't make enough money wthout using up this fragile habitat as well?

I can explain that one. Many Texans have a huge problem with the endangered species act because of the way it tramples on their rights. It works like this. You buy some land with the intention of comercially developing on it or just building a house and perhaps a barn or 2. Then, AFTER you have purchased the land, the government (usually at the prompting of some environmental group) determines that a blind cave spider rare blind cave spider call you lan home. The Government the prohibits you from building anything on the land and refuses to compensate you for the limitation they have placed on you. The land is now unsellable, but still taxable. Suddenly you investment is nothing but a liability, but hey, at least your cave spiders are happy.

The endagred species act is a great idea in theory, but if the govenment is interested in protecting animals, it should reimburse those citizens who's rights they trample in the process. Until they do that, I can not support the endangered species act. I love the goal, but it does not justify the means.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Pin Wizard
I've wondered the same thing.

You guys don't seem to get it...There isn't a single plank on that repugnant platform that John Kerry would support. Not ONE.

But I'm curious...are you as quick to condemn both Cheney and Bush for every attack they make against John Kerry ? Since that's pretty much what every "sound bite" they give is about these days, are you as vocal in your condemnation of their comments ?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Yes, I am a Kerry supporter, but that's almost beside the point. Even more than I want to see Kerry in the White House, I want Bush and his extreme right wing idealogues OUT of it. On his absolute worst day, I don't think Kerry could do a worse job as president than what his inept higness George II has done.

 

[beattyfamily]

Originally posted by WDWHound
I can explain that one. Many Texans have a huge problem with the endangered species act because of the way it tramples on their rights. It works like this. You buy some land with the intention of comercially developing on it or just building a house and perhaps a barn or 2. Then, AFTER you have purchased the land, the government (usually at the prompting of some environmental group) determines that a blind cave spider rare blind cave spider call you lan home. The Government the prohibits you from building anything on the land and refuses to compensate you for the limitation they have placed on you. The land is now unsellable, but still taxable. Suddenly you investment is nothing but a liability, but hey, at least your cave spiders are happy.

The endagred species act is a great idea in theory, but if the govenment is interested in protecting animals, it should reimburse those citizens who's rights they trample in the process. Until they do that, I can not support the endangered species act. I love the goal, but it does not justify the means.

Thank you for explaining that. Very interesting.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by WDWHound
I can explain that one. Many Texans have a huge problem with the endangered species act because of the way it tramples on their rights. It works like this. You buy some land with the intention of comercially developing on it or just building a house and perhaps a barn or 2. Then, AFTER you have purchased the land, the government (usually at the prompting of some environmental group) determines that a blind cave spider rare blind cave spider call you lan home. The Government the prohibits you from building anything on the land and refuses to compensate you for the limitation they have placed on you. The land is now unsellable, but still taxable. Suddenly you investment is nothing but a liability, but hey, at least your cave spiders are happy.

The endagred species act is a great idea in theory, but if the govenment is interested in protecting animals, it should reimburse those citizens who's rights they trample in the process. Until they do that, I can not support the endangered species act. I love the goal, but it does not justify the means.

Then hey, here's a thought.....Why not try to find things like that out before you buy the property ?

Oh...wait....You're not saying the Republicans are worried about protecting the consumer are you ? That'd be a first. Not a chance...This doesn't have anything to do with an individual buying land to build a house, it has to do with corporations overdeveloping wilderness areas in their immense greed for the almighty buck, completely heedless of what damage they may do to the wildlife in that area.

 

[Sandy V.]

Beattyfamily, I completely agree with you.

When the President is referred to as "Shrub", "Dubya", etc., it doesn't matter what follows - I stop reading.

It could have been the most intelligent and insightful stuff telling my why I should cast my vote for Kerry. Doesn't matter - I just don't wade beyond the derrogatory and disrespectful stuff.

Many Kerry supporters here are able to get their point across without resorting to vitriolic hatred. I respect them even if I don't necessarily agree with what they say.

But if you can't write a post without stooping to name-calling, I question if you're really trying to rationally discuss ANYTHING here or if you just want to see a good ole' CB free-for-all.

 

[Chicago526]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
Exactly who are you trying to sway with this post? Calling him the Shrub?

Really, these political 'attack' threads are pointless, IMHO. I guess you just need to vent?

Really? Posting the Republican Party's platform for re-election is an attack post? If you think posting the beliefs of the Rep. Party is an attack on the President, maybe you need to reconsider your party affiliation. To me, the OP's post was just pointing out what the Republicans believe and saying he disagrees. Calling him "the shrub" may not have been the best way to get his point across, but the rest of the post was very informative, IMO.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by WDWHound
I can explain that one. Many Texans have a huge problem with the endangered species act because of the way it tramples on their rights. It works like this. You buy some land with the intention of comercially developing on it or just building a house and perhaps a barn or 2. Then, AFTER you have purchased the land, the government (usually at the prompting of some environmental group) determines that a blind cave spider rare blind cave spider call you lan home. The Government the prohibits you from building anything on the land and refuses to compensate you for the limitation they have placed on you. The land is now unsellable, but still taxable. Suddenly you investment is nothing but a liability, but hey, at least your cave spiders are happy.

The endagred species act is a great idea in theory, but if the govenment is interested in protecting animals, it should reimburse those citizens who's rights they trample in the process. Until they do that, I can not support the endangered species act. I love the goal, but it does not justify the means.

Whatever happened with the blind cave spiders? I remember that one from the DB.

I agree that someone should check out the land first, and see what is living there.

Once the species is gone it will never come back. How many strip malls, and Wal Marts do we already have? Believe it or not, when we decimate certain endangered species it does have an impact on the ecosystem.

 

[peachgirl]

Exactly who are you trying to sway with this post? Calling him the Shrub?

Look at it this way, after November no one will be calling Bush anything. The Dem's will be more than happy to concentrate on a new President and look to the future. This would be unlike what the Democrats are still putting up with years after President Clinton left office.

For every "shrub" post you can find, I can find 10 "slick willie" comments. I wonder why Republicans only seem to be offended when the name calling is directed at bush?

Perhaps the right should have considered the precedent they were setting when they decided that there were no limits on just how insulting and disrespectful one could be when they didn't like the guy in office.

I'm sure you never engaged in such childish antics, but plenty did and still do. I guess it's just a case of what goes around, comes around.

 

[KristaTX]

hmmmm. . . . . interesting .

 

[MikeB63]

I don't have a problem with most of the issues listed. As some have already stated, I have stronger feelings on some than on others. As for the bi-lingual education and English as the official language issues, I couldn't agree more. When each major group of immigrants came from Europe (i.e. Poles, Germans, Italians, etc) they faced the same issues. They learned English. Most of these families spoke their native tongue in their homes. Why is it different now? Like it or not, this country was founded by English-speaking Christian people. Why is it so hard for people to accept that ? One of the major problems encountered with immigrants today is that they do not assimilate, generally speaking. Loyalties are still held for their former countries. Most immigrant groups of the past became Americans and were proud to be. I don't see that happening today.

As for the divorce issue, I find it amusing that people are okay with the government marrying them and following the laws set forth, but when it comes time for resolving the dissolution of a marriage, the government cannot set forth its rules.