Cultural unity

flavio said:
Pretty much everyone in Ireland speaks English. I think the English imposed the language on them. Most of Ireland doesn't even speak Irish anymore.


And you gathered this from .....? Because, having been there, and having cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, oh, and my own sainted mother from Ireland, I beg to differ. I'll wager you think Welsh is a dead language too.
 
How about a census?

According to the 2001 Census, 167,487 people (10.4% of the population) had "some knowledge of Irish" - of whom 154,622 were Catholics and 10,987 were Protestants and "other Christians".
Knowledge of Irish by persons over the age of 3 (2001 Census):
  • Understands spoken Irish but cannot read write or speak Irish: 36,479
  • Speaks but does not read or write Irish: 24,536
  • Speaks and reads but does not write Irish: 7,183
  • Speaks, reads, writes and understands Irish: 75,125
  • Has other combination of skills: 24,167
  • No knowledge of Irish: 1,450,467
 
flavio said:
How about a census?

How about
A Census said:
Irish language in Northern Ireland

If you're gonna insist on acting like an idiot with Gonz and Gato, do it, but if you're gonna step up with me, put your brain in gear first. Twit.
 
ok.....

population of the island is approximately 5.8 million people (2001); 4.1 million in the Republic of Ireland (1.6 million in Greater Dublin) and 1.7 million, in Northern Ireland (0.6 million in Greater Belfast)
According to statistics released by the Government of Ireland in 2004, there are approximately 1.6 million speakers of Irish in the Republic. Of these, 350,000 use Irish every day, 155,000 weekly, 585,000 less often, 460,000 never, and 30,000 didn't state how often. However, these statistics are often disputed by Irish language activists and their opponents. 80,000 people has been quoted as the number of people in the Gaeltacht who use the language as their first, daily language1. Other data state that 165,000 can speak Irish in Northern Ireland. About 25,000 people use the language at home in the United States.
You might want to reconsider the brain/gear/idiot/twit remark when doing something as foolish as using immediate family as a basis for remarks about a population.
 
Professur said:
And you gathered this from .....? Because, having been there, and having cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, oh, and my own sainted mother from Ireland, I beg to differ. I'll wager you think Welsh is a dead language too.



Do you speak Gaelic? And to be 100% honest I did think all of the UK, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England all spoke English, I apologise for thinking that
 
chcr said:
:lol: If they immigrated much after the Civil War (sorry SnP, the "War of Yankee Aggression") They had to be literate in English, able to provide for themselves (so as not to became a drag on the state and it's taxpayers), pay a 50¢ head tax per person and, just by the way, not be Chinese. You know, I was expected to know all this stuff in high school history. :shrug:

That was simply to get in. You actually had to know more about the country's history than most citizens bother to learn today to qualify for naturalization. I think it's still that way, at least it was in the early eighties. Most of us probably wouldn't be able to qualify for citizenship.

The simple fact, as HomeLAN points out, is that there are legal avenues for entry and immigration. If you don't want to use them, stay the fuck out.

Edit: BTW, try to visit Mexico sometime without an entry visa.

the immigration law of 1917 said that folks had to pass a literacy test IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE and this was mainly designed to keep out asians and eastern and southern european peasant types, since they were considered inferior by the eugenically minded americans in power at the time.

historically most immmigration restrictions have been aimed at, more or less, keeping out those that weren't of "good racial stock." read into that whatever you want.

i can't see how i could begrudge mexicans for coming to this country by passing across a border much as my own ancestors did. they're just looking for opportunity.

as uncle ted (nugent) would say: "get over it."
 
2minkey said:
i can't see how i could begrudge mexicans for coming to this country by passing across a border much as my own ancestors did. they're just looking for opportunity.
Legal or illegal. If you can't see that there is a clear difference then there is really nothing else to discuss.
 
if you can't see that the issue is quite a bit richer than a simple legal formality, then there is nothing left to discuss.

and maybe we should just accept all laws as they're handed down to us, keep smiling, go with the flow, and never raise our voices. those students in tianamen shoulda just shut the fuck up, too.

you like affirmative action? no? tough shit. it's THE LAW!

*snoooooooooze*
 
2minkey said:
if you can't see that the issue is quite a bit richer than a simple legal formality, then there is nothing left to discuss.
:rofl4:

You actually believe that, don't you? Which would you rather have...A person knock on your door to gain entrance to your home, or a person who comes in through the window?

2minkey said:
and maybe we should just accept all laws as they're handed down to us, keep smiling, go with the flow, and never raise our voices. those students in tianamen shoulda just shut the fuck up, too.

We're not in China.

2minkey said:
you like affirmative action? no? tough shit. it's THE LAW!

*snoooooooooze*

But there are ways to change laws short of breaking them. By just choosing to break laws, just or unjust, you prove only things...

1. You are lazy.
2. You care more about self-gratification than public good.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Which would you rather have...A person knock on your door to gain entrance to your home, or a person who comes in through the window?

We're not in China.

They're not in your home.

But there are ways to change laws short of breaking them. By just choosing to break laws, just or unjust, you prove only things...

1. You are lazy.
2. You care more about self-gratification than public good.

People in Mexico can change US law?
 
Gonz said:
He also says Speak English or get the fuck out.


His story,,,his site

hah. yeah i'm sure he says that, too.

ted's full of contradictions. like telling people they need to "be a commando" and all that shit after he dodged the vietnam draft. that's what makes him great as a personality and a caricature of himself.

someday my four signed albums will be worth some money... maybe....
 
Gato_Solo said:
:rofl4:

You actually believe that, don't you? Which would you rather have...A person knock on your door to gain entrance to your home, or a person who comes in through the window?



We're not in China.



But there are ways to change laws short of breaking them. By just choosing to break laws, just or unjust, you prove only things...

1. You are lazy.
2. You care more about self-gratification than public good.


I'm not lazy, and neither are the mexican who want to be here.

self-gratification? huh? you're asking if i beat off once in a while?

yes, i'm aware we're not in china. it was an illustration of principle, which should have been obvious.

of course i'd rather them come through the door. i've already said that i think the thing in a post 9-11 world is keeping track of who's coming in. i think they should establish identity when they show up, but, i don't think it should be any harder for them to actually gain entry than it was for many of our ancestors. (unless of course they're a criminal, or the border guy realizes their name is actually yousef bin pooshah who's known to be a tit-jiggler for al quaeda or whatever...)
 
2minkey said:
I'm not lazy, and neither are the mexican who want to be here.

I never said Mexicans were lazy. Sounds like you have some kind of guilt thing going on there...

2minkey said:
self-gratification? huh? you're asking if i beat off once in a while?

I never mentioned 'beating off', either.

2minkey said:
yes, i'm aware we're not in china. it was an illustration of principle, which should have been obvious.

It has nothing to do with the topic, nor does it have anything to do with the points I raised. If you don't like a law, contest it in court, or petition your congress to change it. Perhaps you misunderstood.

2minkey said:
of course i'd rather them come through the door. i've already said that i think the thing in a post 9-11 world is keeping track of who's coming in. i think they should establish identity when they show up, but, i don't think it should be any harder for them to actually gain entry than it was for many of our ancestors. (unless of course they're a criminal, or the border guy realizes their name is actually yousef bin pooshah who's known to be a tit-jiggler for al quaeda or whatever...)

So all of that you posted was just ranting over how the system is unfair, even though the system isn't being used. You railed against any change, yet you want something to be done. Giving legal status to those who came in illegally, regardless of reason, is ridiculous to the extreme, and siding with the illegal immigrants is, in itself, nothing more than condoning, nay, abetting, criminal behavior.
 
I'd respond to ya minkey, but I don't need to. Everyone else with half a clue has already shown your complete lack of logical argument, or indeed a cogent point.
 
I think many of these people just aren't going to be able to get a green card. So instead of a life of extreme poverty they come here.

Understandable.
 
flavio said:
I think many of these people just aren't going to be able to get a green card. So instead of a life of extreme poverty they come here.

Understandable.

Understandable does not make it legal. I grew up with people who turned to drugs and crime because they "couldn't find a decent job". I understood their full reasoning, but I will not ever condone their behavior. They were trying to get out of their poverty as well. Now, most are either dead, or in jail, as they should be (in jail). They made a conscious choice to break the law, so they got what they deserved.

So once again we're back to the choice of knocking on the door, or sneaking in the window. Extreme poverty exists everywhere. If it didn't, there'd be no call for welfare, food stamps, medicare, and medicaid. That's where I draw the line. Come over to the US without using those services, and I have no problem. Come over to the US, use those services, but pay for them, still no problem. Come to the US, use those services, don't pay, and either invite your family, or send them the money you should be using to pay for those service...big problem. Which do you prefer?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Understandable does not make it legal.

If they are unable to obtain a green card the choice may be live in extreme poverty for life or come here illegally and make something decent out of your life. I can't blame them for striving to better themselves.

Just because they were born on a different piece of dirt than I was shouldn't really entitle them to less than me. That's just bad luck.

Obviously it takes some ambition to ride on the top of a train from Central America to the US in order to find a decent job.
 
Back
Top