jordan

Phi, you interpret "consequence" to mean something strict or severe. Maybe a system where X number number of complaints means that the person is required to take some kind of basic language course where they are taught the parts of the language neccesary for basic communications in their field. I don't know exactly. My reasoning is this: Why do people come to the US (yes, I'm on to specific examples now)? Because the opportunity for work and life are better than in their home country. I want to avoid generalizations, but I would bet it can be agreed this is the most common reason. So, if they are to come here and start work, that is more than comendable. But, if I walk into the restraunt and have to try pointing like a two year old, then try and communicate that we need a new waiter, then get up and leave entirely because the people at the restraunt decided they did not need to learn the language of the country they were living in, I would be frustrated. I have been to France and there is the most noticable difference in dialect I have experienced. We had a tour guide that spoke the language and that helped, but it became a burden not to be able to communicate well. Of course, in that case it is my fault, not theirs. But that is also touring and not immigrating.

It seems fair that if there should be some kind of censequence for an immigrant who decided not to learn the native language of the country he/she moved to and as a result a citizen of that country has to use wild hand gestures to comunicate. Tolerance doesn't seem the issue as much as respect on the part of the immigrant. At the risk of sounding rude, it doesn't seem fair that the immagrant can move to the country and use whatever advantage drew him/her and then expect the other citizens to accomidate the fact that the immigrant didn't wish to learn the language. If there are not inconviniences due to language barriers, I don't see any reason the immagrant should be forced to learn the language. Wow, that was hard to phrase while not using specifics. I hope it's not to hard to follow. If it was hard to follow the situation would be rather unintentionaly ironic.

It seems as though there will be only two whether I like it or not. To try and make three means taking a risk of losing power. One party will have to split into two and risk giving the other an unckecked majority, and I don't believe they would be willing to do that. So, working with only two, you might have to make the call of which fits better. But then again, two would be fine (one would be fine for that matter) if they did a better job of representing their voter's priorities rather than puting such an emphasis on who's paying them. But can you blame them for giving precidence to those who allowed them to get where they are? This reminds me, I had intended to start a thread to brainstorm some new ideas for electoral processes. While on an airline a while back, I read an article that basicly said our system of voting is the worst and easiest to rig. It talked about a few others that seemed relatively fair. If you have any interest in a thread like that, I might start it with some of the ideas I had. Agreed. Since we're talking about priorities, I have always said that keeping the country together is one of my biggest priorities. I have considered Kerry just because I think he'll disappoint Bush fans, but it don't think it will devide the country as much as if Bush gets re-elected. That's also why I suggest we make the best of the situation in Iraq and just unite and get it over with.

Or how about the tilt of the Earth's axis. If the Earth just spun in a circle, sunrise and sunset would be at the exact same time every day. But since the Earth's axis is tilted, you move up and down latitudes and thus pass into the lit half and the dark half of the Earth at varying times. Note: I am assuming there are no hidden variables that make the moon different than the sun in this case.

I have come to a few conclusions after reading all these political threads that are currently going. I hope that this thread will not digress to Kerry vs. Bush like they have all seemed to. After a while, I got fed up with everyone saying a million different things about both candidates that are pointless. I am tired of people citing trivial things that appearently proves Kerry hates the country and Bush has to be working for Iraq. I have had many varying oppinions given to me on all of this and I have come up with one thing: social issues are a whole lot easier to debate. This, I feel, is because there seems to be a more clear-cut line with social issues. One person can, for the most part, be right while the other can be wrong. In judging who is a better candidate, that's not always so. From post #61 in this thread (Though he just happened choose social issues, the quote could have refered to anything.) The point that the quote illustrates is that everyone has different priorities. budellewraagh doesn't think social issues are as important as foreign policy issues, while my dad would say exactly the opposite. Any extremely devout Christian would probably tell you social issues are more important than anything. I know someone else who has a wife and kids and feels that the security of his family and his nation are the most important to him. And you know what, they're all right. To each of them, what they feel is the most important is the most important. So I guess I'm a bit unsure why we all are trying to push our priorities on others. I don't really think it's fair to tell someone that your priorities are more important. I don't think someone in New York City should try to convince someone in rural Whyoming that homeland security is the highest priority. It seems we need to understand that everything from income to location can greatly affect what is "right" for us. Well, I have now hit on a few points and not really gotten anywhere, but I have been wanting to say some of that for a while. As for me, I'm waiting for a debate before I decide who I support.

Whether I agree with this or not doesn't seem important because I think you are making a case for the future of our country's foreign policy and not trying to deal with the present. In Iraq, there is no way to alleviate the current situation by not antogonising them. If we just leave, Iraq with plunge into anarchy and if you want to talk about poor fereign relations, how about invading a country on a mistake and then pulling out and letting them fight it out with bombs. That wont work. So in the future, perhaps letting them fight amungst themselves might be an option, but it isn't a very good one right now. We need a good plan for how to get out of Iraq, but leave it a peaceful nation. When Iraq is stable, we can start in with the education investments and such. However, I don't think the "men who are currently resisting American troops with guns and bombs" (does that make my meaning more effective than using "terrorist"?) are going to want to go to class and learn about democracy. Therefore, it seems the best solution is to stop griping (for the time being) and finish the job in Iraq. Once that's done, go protest on the White House lawn and plead America becomes isolationist, but until then, lets make the best of a bad situation and get out of Iraq as quick as possible by uniting and not griping.

I thought about an internet site, but honestly, I wouldn't trust them to interpret dreams like I would a phychology teacher.

Sure thing.

Argue semantics if you wish, but my point still means the same thing.

Well, maybe someone on this site can interpret the dream for you. If not, I'd be willing to ask my psychology teacher tomorrow if you wish.

If the terrorist in Iraq saw that the world was united against them (rather than devided because of them) do you think they would continue to fight?

That might depend on what the feeling is. I don't think you actualy described what you're feeling, whether it's mental or physical or both. I'm not a psychology major, though I just started in the class this year for a good start.

Would anyone like to comment on my first post in this thread, especially the second big paragraph about Iraq. I don't want to sound forceful or whining or anything, but I touched upon the "how do you win a war on terror" and "what is all the griping good for" questions, but no one has responded to my thoughts. I want to know what people think.

Thanks for a straight answer. I would hope you are basing your vote on more than that. Really.

Yes Hero. I saw that recently. I couldn't help but laugh at those few lines that appeared as though Bush got his hands on the script. Something like "only through fighting and spreading our cause can we truely achieve peace".

Come on now. I really doubt that was it. You can't even give a straight answer to a simple, unnopinionated question? If they were making ads saying Kerry froze under the pressure of Vietnam and then lied about it, say so. Why try and convince me that Kerry's opponent just wanted to say "Kerry was only slightly less of a hero while I dodged the draft entirely"? Did you really think I would glance over it without a second thought? I'm concerned that you can't even give me a straight answer for such a simple, straghtforward question.

Maybe he's waiting until the night before the election to reveal all that he has found...

Wasn't there an attack on the Trade Centers under Clinton? A victory in Iraq would be when all foreign influences can pull out of Iraq and they can maintain a stable country/economy.

What was their claim? I honestly don't remember who started it.

Am I wrong, or was Kerry the first person to attack saying Bush was a draft-dodger?

That's not the same as saying that [math]\sqrt{x^2}[/math] is equal to [math]x[/math]

In a sense, yes. It might not be so much griping as pointing out the lack of responsability or leadership and thus a reason not to vote for that person. Everyone has their best interests in mind when they vote and they want to perswade others that their candidate is better. To do that, one must show the downfalls of the other (though that can get very annoying hearing the same thing over and over). If I can show that Bush was negligent in 9/11, I can convince people not to vote for him. By doing that, I can prevent it from happening again. So while I can't change the past, I can use the past to change the future. The one thing that does bother me are the uncontrolable situations. The one right now is Iraq. I feel the time to complain is over. Iraq is no longer a choice. We have to finish it whether we like it or not. I believe that when the people of the world hear how the US can't even keep itself united during the war, we make ourselves look worse that when Bush went into Iraq without the approval of the UN. I would imagine that when the protestors and bombers in Iraq hear that the US is crumbling from within over conflicts about the death toll, that is just more of a reason for them to want to attack our troops. Since we are stuck in Iraq until it's finished, I say let's stand behind the troops, back our own country, show them we wont give in and just finish the job. Then you can complain or whatever, but complaining now is just making the situation worse and that isn't something you should want. Oh, I got a little sidetracked there, but it's almost on topic.

If I remember, there were two sides to this. I was doing a problem and trying to be a little creative. It asked you to write [math]|x|+|x+3|[/math] but without the absolute values. I knew they wanted me to restrict the domains and such to get three different equations that would all produce the desired result. But aplying the example problems right from the chapter to the homework questions is so boring. So I decided to not read the chapter and try and derive some of the solutions on my own. For this one, I rewrote the equation as [math]\sqrt{x^2}+\sqrt{x^2+3}[/math]. When graphed, made into a table or whatever you want, they always yeild the same solution. So I asked the teacher why that was not an equaly valid answer. She said that I found the technical definition of absolute values, but that writing the equation that way causes problems because people would assume that you should reduce the power and the root to leave you with just [math]x+x+3[/math](or not, but you get the point) which doesn't work. I still don't know exactly what's going on with this stuff. Does anyone know whether mine should be equaly valid or should be discarded?

Why do you put so much on who's a better soldier? That doesn't really have much to do but with a single area of the government. Who's a better soldier is more or less irrelevant in the, say, social issues.