DrunkBomber

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 27, 2008 -> 02:50 PM) For some reason I thought this was the "J4L is headed for the slammer" thread. Is he out yet?

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ May 26, 2008 -> 06:30 PM) Is that a serious question? No

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 25, 2008 -> 04:32 PM) Well, the MSM is in 100% 'if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist' mode lol I think the Dems have found their way to lose an election that was bascially impossible to lose. They are going insane on the Sunday morning shows Obama was compared to Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt. McCain? Well he would be the worst president in History, according to MSM news media atleast. There is no way this stuff going to work. Even with Obama's free media (mainstream news media basically being a free 24/7 political ad for him) I think people will see past this blatantly false propaganda. Eh, or maybe not. I guess the general public can be dumb as hell sometimes. I think they accomplished this feat last election.

Now I dont really associate myself with either party. However, if I were to pick it would be the GOP. Just the thought of someone losing an election even though they won the popular vote is pretty frustrating. Whats the point of democracy if the peoples votes are second tier.

Also, I would be very interested in a reality show for Katherine Harris, I think that might be sheer entertainment.

My favorite part of the movie was when the dems thought they had the right to guess which candidate was intended to be voted for on ballots that were punched incorrectly. *for the record, I think that whole process was ridiculous and that process cemented my opinion that I think the government in this country has too much power. I just thought that part of the movie was funny.

Is it true that if you dont use it, you lose it?

non-issue

Yahoo! has dog tags and a purple heart

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 26, 2008 -> 12:11 PM) TV Sit Coms This one would be good. The only thing I would add might be a genre.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 04:44 PM) Do you even acknowledge there was a safety concern that prompted this? Allow me again try to explain why it is legal to lay someone off who does not speak a language. Let's pretend you own a software company and offer technical support. You have a customer in Canada who you have a contract to supply support for one year. They are acquired by a Quebec firm and moved where they only speak French. Are you seriously telling me that you could never lay off these people, even though you no longer have a position for them? This contract was changed. Because, as you noted, Spanish is not safer than English, it was left up to the private company to meet the new requirements any way they could. The state gave them an opportunity to require English only and for whatever reason they elected to go this route. You believe the state should have required English only. That would be the greatest burden to place, the most intrusive demand the government could make, typical for do gooder liberals. They can always run a business better than the actual owners. I believe that government, when given a choice, should always chose the smallest burden on businesses. I know that is very conservative and I've said many times, when it comes to business and guns, I'm clearly with the GOP. I never said it was a handicap. You keep talking about discrimination, again, I used the wheelchair as an example that discrimination is based on the requirements of the job. You never countered it, only misstated the intent of the remark. When it is a legitimate requirement, it is allowed. Yes, there is other things the private company could have done, but they chose not to. Requirements change for positions all the time. Imagine the morse code operator who lost his job. The requirements for the contract changed. They change all the time to adapt to technology, to discovered hazards, etc. Are you suggesting the government should never change the specs and never change vendors because someone will lose their job? If they did require English only, what level of literacy would you require? There are plenty of illiterates that were born in the US. Would you also exclude them from the job force? Would you set different levels based on jobs? Should the government say what level of literacy is required to run a printing press or Alpha (he owns a printing company)? I for one trust Alpha to make that decision, not some Senator with no experience in printing. Ok, thats all I was looking for. I honestly wasnt trying to say its OK to do it to Spanish speakers and not English speakers, I just want consistency. If you think that when faced with situations like this is should be left up the the company to decide which burdens them the least I agree. Im just picturing people saying this is OK and then if the shoe were on the other foot all of a sudden its discrimination. I agree that businesses should be allowed to govern themselves on decisions that affect the day to day operations. If you think it would have been OK to fire the Spanish speakers if they chose to than thats fair. Im sure there are a lot of underlying issues that surround this situation that I would never want to debate in this arena, in terms of this all I wanted is fairness and consistency.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 01:17 PM) Yes, you can fire someone for not speaking a language. If you can legally not hire them for a reason, you can fire them for the same reason. I have posted several jobs that require speaking a foreign language, I could also post some jobs where speaking English would be a requirement. For most of the country, it would be a natural requirement for a police dispatcher to speak English. If that person suddenly decided they would only speak French, they could, and should, be fired. The ability to coimmunicate over the phone with the residents of that town as a police dispatcher would outweigh their legal right to work. Why does that not make sense to you? Two decisions were made. 1. Oregon required that Firefighting Crews must speak a common language. Legal. Do you disagree? 2. Companies were required to meet that law. *They* decided how to do that. Again, Legal. Do you disagree? The companies could have offered language training, they could have fired specific workers who did not meet the requirements. They could have insisted everyone learn French. Disagree all you want how those private companies met that requirement, but the requirement to me seems necessary. Unless you can demonstrate that speaking different language is as safe as speaking the same, you argument doesn't hold water. All it will take is a company to sue that crews speaking the same language is not necessary to safely perform that job and the law would be changed. So far, that has not happened. No, I dont agree because there are other things that they could have done instead of firing people for not speaking Spanish. Spanish was not a requirement for this job. In the description of the what violates language discrimination it says what you can and cannot do. The issue here is, that law might say that they have to speak the same language, but it doesnt say anything about being allowed to fire them. If they were that concerned they could have put forth an effort to help the two groups communicate with each other instead of firing one side and not the other, or in the least divided the groups by language. Now since the *new* rule doesnt mention *firing* anyone and only says they have to speak the same language either one of these options would be the LEGAL way to do it. Nowhere in the new rule does it say to fire anyone or say that they are exempt from discrimination laws. So unless you saw something that says to *fire* anyone who doesnt speak Spanish, it is still language discrimination. Also, you keep talking about not *hiring* certain people, save it, these people were already employed and met all the criteria for the position and they tried to make a BS loophole to allow discrimination but it still doesnt permit firing. For how much this country bends over backwards to try to accommodate everyone its amazing how people will all of a sudden turn around and say something like this is OK because the victims arent what people would like to traditionally consider victims. At the drop of a hat liberals want people fired for saying something on the radio, or jobs and spots at schools reserved for minorities and whatever else the flavor of the week cause is. Then, regular English speaking Americans are fired for not speaking Spanish in the U.S. and we get a liberal to say, well thats ok, its survival of the fittest. Its the most hypocritical argument Ive ever heard. Since safety is the default argument you guys have I would like to know why Spanish speaking firefighters are safer than English speaking ones. Would it not be *safe* to divide them into different groups by language? Is that not safe? It shouldnt matter who you are or what you believe politically, these people were fired unjustly, and by definition it is against the law. If you want to defend firing these people for whatever reason thats your choice, but in this country, no person should ever have to go home and face their family and have to figure out how to put food on the table because they were fired for speaking English. Also, that wheelchair argument is still ridiculous. Are you really going to try and say that a fireman who only speaks English is as unsafe as an NFL ref in a wheelchair? Ill be sitting by my mailbox waiting to get my handicapped parking pass because I only speak English in America.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 08:18 AM) One more example. Down the road from me is the Rio Grande Bible Institute. From their Mission Statement It is an immersion program, all instruction is in Spanish. Most of the graduates upon graduating, are sent as missionaries to Spanish speaking countries. Explain to me, from a conservative vewpoint, why any of their employees should be required to speak English to get a job there? It seems completely unnessesary, but I'm willing to learn. And explain why it would be illegal for them to require Spanish speakers as instructors? The class in in Spanish, theres no English speaking people lined up for the job. There are firefighters that speak English that had the job though. You actually proved my point even more. The guidelines book is in English and the test is in English so why should it be illegal to require people to speak English? Also, I hope you realized you compared speaking English in the U.S. to being in a wheelchair.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) And the private company that employs them would certainly be in their right to only employee English speaking firefighters. I would have no quarrel with that. What is in question, is how the government should write the conditions of the bid. I believe they should write the least restrictive option possible. You think they should write the one that places the greatest burden on the private companies. But as I mentioned before, I am very pro-business and if you think you can hire the deaf and run a successful company, who am I to disagree? If you have jobs that the deaf can do, why couldn't someone who voluntarily doesn't speak at all handle the job? Again, I feel it is *your choice* not the governments. No a private company doesnt have the right to hire only English speaking employees. I posted three examples of lawsuits because of it. Why do you guys keep saying "private companies" like that somehow means they are exempt from abiding by discrimination laws. "Private companies" still have to obey laws and have to follow discrimination guidelines. Just because the protect the little guy rules backfire doesnt mean that they all of a sudden thrown out. So are you saying "private companies" have the right to discriminate on who they hire based on things like language, race, age, sex or sexual orientation?

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) you quoted my post which is why I thought you meant me. I asked for a review of the thread and if I, or anyone else, violated the 'buster rules, I'm certain one of the Mods will take care of it. Because I am involved, I am stepping out of that review. I quoted your post to let you know that the message is for you. Not because I was implying something in it was a violation.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 12:22 PM) Oregon discover a safety problem with crews that have mixed languages. They could have ignored it because these guys were already employed, but instead chose to correct the problem before someone was injured or killed. You believe that no one should have lost their jobs over this, care to explain what you would have done? To require everyone speak English would have placed the greatest burden on the private companies, instead they chose the path that results in the least burden. What would you have done? The law allows companies to hire for the requirements for the job. Do you ever wonder why there are no NFL referees in wheelchairs? It is not discrimination when a handicapped person in a wheelchair applies as a NFL ref and is denied employment. Just like it is not discrimination to require that all members of a firefighting crew speak a common language. Your argument that an unsafe, dangerous condition be maintained after discovery because they were already employed is just wrong. When we discover dangers in the workplace we do, and should, correct them. They were fired because there was an unsafe working condition that had to be corrected. It doesnt matter. You keep saying the same thing but it simply doesnt apply. Since neither language is "safer" than the other there is no legal way to use that as a reason why its ok. The law is cut and dry. YOU CANNOT FIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF WHAT LANGUAGE THEY SPEAK. As NSS said in the beginning of the thread you could have put the English speakers in one group and Spanish in the other. Since Spanish isnt a necessity in firefighting you cannot fire someone for not speaking it, its against the law. There is no way anyone can say that Spanish is more important to firefighting than English so firing either one is discrimination. Its amazing how liberals will defend laws like this till theyre blue in the face when it is convenient for them but all of a sudden it backfires and we get "what would you have done?" Person in a wheelchair as an NFL ref? Is that a joke? Unless you can somehow prove that Spanish is safer than English your argument is a joke. Speaking English isnt a disability like being in a wheelchair. So again, it is language discrimination to fire people for not speaking Spanish. Since English speaking firefighters can do the same job as Spanish speaking ones it is impossible to say one is better or more qualified than the other. Speaking English doesnt make working conditions more dangerous. They could just of easily fired the Spanish speakers and not skipped a beat. So firing them because of their language is in fact discrimination and in fact illegal.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 12:26 PM) Notrhing is said? I spent thirty minutes this morning patiently explaining why I felt the path that increased the safety for everyone to an acceptable level, while placing the least amount of restriuctions on companies was the correct course of action. Show me which part of the agreement I am violating and I will suspend myself right now. I wasnt talking about you. You were just the most consistent mod in here so I was asking why no mods had said anything and it appears its because you disagree with me.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 09:46 AM) And just because I thought this would be funny . . . Society to Preserve English in the Workplace visits a manufacturing plant. Inspector: "I've been walking through your plant and I noticed no one is speaking and they are flashing gang signs. We're concerned. Plant Manager: "Well most of our plant employees cannot speak, and those are not gang signs, that is sign language" IN: "Hmm, you said most of your employees cannot speak, what about the rest?" PM: "Well the rest choose not to speak, they appreciate the silence." IN:"A ha! And when they do choose to speak, what language do they speak?" PM:"A bunch of different ones, but it isn't important. It's just on breaks and after work" IN:"NOT IMPORTANT! They should speak English to work in America." PM:"But they choose not to speak while working, and in fact it makes everyone more efficient." IN:"We will get to the bottom of this. We have ways to make them talk! They do not have the right to remain silent, and we must be certain when they do talk, they talk English." Also, is there any particular reason we had to agree to follow all of those rules in the Buster? Was it for show, or does it only apply if the mods or admins dont agree with the person that is breaking them. I realize its hard to talk politics on a message but just because people dont agree with me doesnt mean that it should be ok. After about three days of BS from 2-3 posters I finally had enough and still nothing is said.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2008 -> 09:18 AM) One more example. Down the road from me is the Rio Grande Bible Institute. From their Mission Statement It is an immersion program, all instruction is in Spanish. Most of the graduates upon graduating, are sent as missionaries to Spanish speaking countries. Explain to me, from a conservative vewpoint, why any of their employees should be required to speak English to get a job there? It seems completely unnessesary, but I'm willing to learn. And explain why it would be illegal for them to require Spanish speakers as instructors? Your example isnt like this situation at all. I have explained the reasoning in all of my last few posts and nobody acknowledges it because there is no possible way to debunk it. To throw in an example of a Bible Institute doesnt change anything. So again: There were already firefighters hired that had already been employed, there was nothing in the job description about having to speak Spanish. These specific firefighters were from Colorado. I found the requirement packet for Colorado fireman and posted the link and told you what page this was on. Absolutely nothing about having to speak Spanish, which I would hope wouldnt even have needed to be proved because everyone should know that theres no way they would require that. Another reason why your example is off in comparison because the guidelines are in English, the test is in English, the instruction is in English. So where were at now is a bunch of firefighters are ALREADY employed. Some speak Spanish, some speak English. Next: English speaking firefighters get laid off for not being able to speak Spanish. Its not like they just didnt hire them like your example is insinuating, its that they were already employed and then got laid off for not speaking Spanish andd safety is listed as the reason. So people living in this country that hadnt learned the language get to keep their jobs over people that speak English only, even though Spanish was not a requirement when they got their jobs. Next: We see what the federal standards for language discrimination are and this is without a doubt language discrimination. Spanish wasnt a requirement and there is nothing close to reasoning that would suggest that either language is safer, better or more necessary than the other. Meaning, there is no justifiable reason to fire one and not the other. So basically whoever got fired would be a victim of language discrimination. In this case, it was the English speakers. There is absolutely no doubt that the reason these people were fired is because of their language. It is illegal to do that and is by definition a form of discrimination. So, as I said before, there isnt even a gray area, its black and white. Now if you want to discuss the validity of the laws or policies thats a different discussion. None of the examples you are going to come up with will matter because of how clear the laws are. A Bible Institute is nothing like this situation. Now, as I keep saying, I dont think these laws should only apply to or protect one group. I just think that if theyre going to have them they should work both ways or they shouldnt have them at all. As of right now though those are the rules and they were broken and people lost their jobs illegally and its not fair.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 24, 2008 -> 10:56 PM) The state made, as a condition of being awarded the contract, a provision that everyone in a crew have at least one common language. In America we compete in as open and competitive a marketplace as we can put together. Survival of the fittest. Improvement through competition. Some companies that bid on these contracts decided that they could best compete for those contracts with Spanish speaking firemen. If companies believe they can compete with a Spanish speaking workforce, the market will decide if they win or not. But there are so many jobs out there where you do not need to speak any language I do not see the problem. There are people who do not speak at all, they use sign language, and there is room in the workforce for them. Finally what a surprise, seasonal, dirty, dangerous work. Long hours under adverse conditions. And immigrants are becoming the largest part of the forest firefighter workforce. Duh. It doesnt matter, its language discrimination. There isnt even a gray area, its black and white. You cant fire people because of their language. I posted the requirements for Colorado fireman. I posted California language discrimination definitions. I posted the law that says it is illegal to fire someone for this reason. I dont care if the job is testing airbag fatality rates with live people. The type of work is 100% irrelevant. Also, this wasnt some circumstance where a contract was awarded and then these private companies had to go out and hire new fireman and only hired Spanish speaking employees. There were already employees in place and they were wrongly and illegally fired. There are all these BS laws and rules that are made to "keep things on a level playing field" and not to get into a whole new debate but I know just as well as you know that those are liberal ideas. Theres no way this country is ran on a survival of the fittest mentality. There are laws, programs, loopholes, special interest groups etc that are always out there trying to keep things balanced but when something like this happens all of a sudden its survival of the fittest? Id be interested to hear your thoughts on survival of the fittest in terms of affirmative action.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 24, 2008 -> 10:53 PM) You're just throwing s*** to see if something sticks. Seriously, threatening public figures? Are you f***ing kidding? I just copied a group of the rules, I wasnt saying they were all violated, but I am saying that some of them were.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 24, 2008 -> 10:18 PM) No threat. Merely pointing out that you might want to be careful who you talk down to. It's hard to discuss anything with true conservatives. For many reasons, but most of all, because they can't read. "Ghey" is not "gay", it's a common tongue-in-cheek phrase. If you don't know it, look it up. And I am more educated than you, for what that's worth -- you are the one insulting community college kids, when, personally, I've met some math whizzes there. And, yeah, I think you should stfu when you're drawing on your inane liberal stereotypes. If they were original, fine, but as it is...nah. No Im not insulting anyone, Im saying that the info you are spewing is along the lines of something you would learn in a political science class. Who said I was a conservative anyway. Theres something to be said about irony when someone goes on a tangent about how much smarter they are and more education theyve received and you go to the point of correcting word usage and then you start a sentence with And. If anyone reads through this thread they will see that your first contribution was blatant sarcasm with no merit, which as I posted was supposed to be out of bounds in the buster. That didnt stop you from continuing with the juvenile tactics and eventual insults and threats. To which finally I responded. Over the course of the thread I tried to use articles, examples and clear points to explain my stance and all I get is BS from you. You complain about liberal stereotypes but you use conservative stereotypes. You skipped over everything I said to explain myself just to try and discredit my points. You twisted my statements around to try and make me look like I was saying things that could be viewed as bigotry. Time and time again I TRIED to stick to the point of the thread and say that I dont think the situation was fair because by definition its discrimination. Then I get an answer like, well its a private company so they can fire whoever they want. Theres no real way to respond to that because its painfully obvious you dont understand whats being discussed. Private company or not, you are not allowed to discriminate in the work place and language discrimination is illegal. Yes, even in private companies. So I post why its illegal, show an exact copy of the law and definition and then explain that it isnt fair when its overlooked because the tables were turned on someone not speaking Spanish. Thats it, thats my whole point. If language discrimination is being enforced, than it should apply to everyone including people that only speak English. Im not even sure if you agree or disagree with that because you werent even in the realm of the topic. So as I try to explain why I feel a certain way about it I get called the tongue in cheek term "ghey." I have my intelligence and education questioned. I get threatened, over a message board ) Now, if I were the one to start the nonsense you did in this thread Im sure I would hear about it from a mod because even your first post violated the rules we were supposed to agree to. Since it was being tolerated for a few days I get goated into a pissing contest with you, which is over because there isnt a thing in the world I would want to do less than have someone hide behind a cpu and tell me to "watch out who I talk down to." So congratulations, you win, youre smarter, better, more educated and whatever else you want to throw in there...

--Couching an insulting statement, i.e. "if you think/do X, you must be an idiot". This is the same thing as calling someone and idiot, and is not OK. --Baiting or pushing people over the line, i.e. posting the same silly request repeatedly, as if they didn't hear you the first time. --The use of ridiculous hyperbolic statements that are so far over the top, that no resonable response of discussion can follow them. --Sarcasm as a way of insulting other posters, like saying "oh yes, because so-and-so knows everything, we must bow to his wisdom!!!!11!1!1!!" --Making threatening or questionable statements about elected officials or others in the public eye, i.e. "someone needs to assasinate that SOB" I guess this stuff only applies when someone who sees it disagrees with who is saying it.

Is it too early for nominess for post of the year? Thread title: Firefighters Being Fired For Not Speaking Spanish Quote: As for your mewling about English being the "unofficial language", it has nothing to do with anything that's been discussed. So...that's nice?