|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 07 2015 19:53 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 18:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2015 18:12 coverpunch wrote:On September 07 2015 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2015 10:09 coverpunch wrote: I don't think anyone is going to be calling Iraq a failure or a mistake. It's fine for Sanders to say it to cheering anti-war crowds, but it won't work with a broader audience that needs the president to show strong confidence in America's inherent goodness and for other members of government that need him to go along with American policy. It certainly isn't going to work for a Republican who is an establishment candidate. I don't understand this. Even Republicans admit that it was a huge failure. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone is NOT going to be calling Iraq a failure or a mistake, if they want to be president. People can dance around with comments like "Well at the time it was a good call", but 100% of people understand that in retrospect- with 20/20 hindsight- it can be objectively said that it ended up being a bad move overall. The Iraq War fiasco was more than just the initial call- it was the years afterwards, even with correct intelligence, where we overstayed our welcome and fucked up everything anyway. Source it please. Show an instance of the president or any presidential nominee openly declaring it a failure after 2008. What the heck are you talking about? It takes five seconds to Google this election and the things said about the Iraq War, and the candidates are (appropriately) avoiding the topic like the plague: "This week, potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush has come under fire for stating he would have invaded Iraq but then changing his position, saying: “Knowing what we know now, I would have not engaged, I would have not gone into Iraq.” Even more surprising is the fact that Bush isn’t the first Republican candidate to offer that type of response. Dr. Ben Carson told CNBC that the Iraq war was ‘unnecessary.’ Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina said, ‘The intelligence was wrong’ and that ‘she would not have gone in.’ Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed with his opponents and went even further claiming President Bush would not have gone in either, if he knew what we know. Texas Senator Ted Cruz stated that ‘Iraq was a mistake’ because ‘intelligence reports were false.’ Kentucky Senator Rand Paul thinks that invading ‘Iraq was a mistake’…’even as a hypothetical.’" ~ http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/322015-iraq-war-veterans-respond-every-republican-candidates-statement-iraq-war/ Literally all there's been is backpedaling, because no one wants to be connected with that fiasco. How could you think that the candidates would want to be related to Bush and the Iraq War? Distancing themselves from the Iraq War has been a pretty big priority for everyone- not just Democrats lol. Why do you think that some candidates would embrace that failure? They can still be big on war and freedom and beating up the Middle East but still admit that the Iraq War was a screw up- there's no reason why they'd need to take on that baggage too. Even the conservative pundits on Fox News (e.g., Bill O'Reilly) have come out to talk about how much of a failure it was. If even Fox News is admitting it, then there's nothing left to argue lol. Ah, typical internet reading skills and straw-manning. For one, I have never implied that Republicans would want to be connected to it or embrace it as a success. In fact, I posted explicitly that they are not doing that. I merely said they would not call it a failure, in the broader point that rehashed history like this makes for loaded questions. Your quotes prove my point. Nobody is saying the Iraq War was a failure. They're parsing it in a political way to say if we knew then what we know now, we would do things differently. Which is what you could say about ANYTHING in life. It's as much a non-answer as any, particularly with the problems Iraq has now. To make it clear: nobody is saying the Iraq War was a success. Because it clearly isn't at the moment. But nobody is going to openly declare it a failure either because that has all kinds of weird implications for our contemporary politics, politics that nobody wants to dig too deeply because you'll quickly end up with VERY difficult questions of whether the US should intervene and take on the Islamic State, the when and how and why and how long of it all. Just ignore the 3000 troops that are already there and the 20 airstrikes that happened over the weekend.
Oh ffs. I'm really not in the mood to have a semantics argument with anyone, so if you're going to completely ignore the rhetoric of Democrats and Republicans and the rest of the world in regards to the Iraq War, then there's really nothing left to say. Think what you want.
|
|
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence."
Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision
|
"Nobody" refers to Republican presidential candidates in the context of the election. Not "nobody" as in "no person anywhere". Sorry if that is unclear. I'm only talking about the candidates answering a hypothetical question about the Iraq War, not making a judgment about the war itself.
My point, to reiterate, is that these historical questions are quite loaded politically. As another example, you could ask all the candidates if they would go along with Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. It is designed to produce answers that upset people. It's arguable that wriggling out of such questions with a neutral non-answer is a presidential skill and that's true, but I don't think it reflects on the candidate in the way that many people have been saying with regards to Jeb Bush and Iraq.
EDIT: It is notable that this same question haunted Hillary in the 2008 primaries (and Kerry in the 2004 election), since she actually voted for it as Senator. She's been called out for it by Sanders already, and Sanders did in fact vote against it from the start, but she seems to have gotten past it this time among Democrats by being clear that she considers it a mistake in retrospect.
|
On September 07 2015 18:24 MattBarry wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 13:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Immigrants to the United States should “speak American,” former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said on Sunday, adding her voice to a controversy triggered by Donald Trump’s criticism of Republican rival jeb Bush for speaking Spanish.
“It’s a benefit of Jeb Bush to be able to be so fluent in Spanish, because we have a large and wonderful Hispanic population that is helping to build America,” Palin said on CNN’s State of the Union.
“On the other hand, you know, I think we can send a message and say: ‘You want to be in America? A, you better be here legally, or you’re out of here. B, when you’re here, let’s speak American.’ I mean, that’s just, that’s – let’s speak English,” added Palin, who was John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential race.
Palin, who is popular among some US conservatives, said that “a unifying aspect of a nation is the language that is understood by all”. Most of the illegal immigrants in the United States come from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking Latin American countries.
Bush on Thursday rejected the notion offered by Trump that people should speak only English in the United States. Bush, who is fluent in Spanish and frequently breaks into the language at his events, vowed to keep speaking Spanish whenever he felt like it.
Trump, the Republican front-runner whose hardline stance on illegal immigration is a hallmark of his bid for the party’s nomination in the November 2016 election, said: “We’re a nation that speaks English.”
Bush said Trump’s jibe at him that he “spoke Mexican” while on a visit to the U.S. border was deeply divisive. Source I agree that all Americans should be fluent in English but it's certainly within the rights of Hispanics to live in spanish speaking communities. Let's not forget we annexed a significant amount of Hispanics and some of those spanish speaking communities survive even now. I mean shit, I'd be pissed if the national narrative started focusing on my home of Louisiana and people started telling us to stop having French speaking communities. They've already killed that over 60 years ago. My grandparents and their classmates would get hit over the knuckles with a ruler if they spoke French in school.
|
On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision Ahhh did the Supreme Court hurt the poor Judge's feelings?
Is it wrong for me to think that a Judge should not act like a spoiled 8 year old?
|
On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision
I'm pretty sure the elected nature of judges plays into this somehow or other (looks like Tennessee is hybrid).
|
On September 07 2015 02:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Bernie Sanders has a solid lead over Hillary Clinton among New Hampshire Democrats five months ahead of the Granite State's first-in-the-nation primary, and the Vermont senator is also gaining on Clinton in Iowa, according to NBC News/Marist polls released on Sunday.
In New Hampshire, Sanders had the support of 49 percent of Democrats when Joe Biden's name was not included as a choice, with Clinton in second with 38 percent support.
Sanders maintained his lead when Biden was included as a choice, with 41 percent picking Sanders, 32 percent choosing Clinton and 16 percent picking Biden, who is still weighing whether or not to enter the race.
None of the other Democratic candidates — former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb — attracted more than 1 percent support in the poll.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump leads at 28 percent. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has focused his campaign on New Hampshire, took second with 12 percent support, with Ben Carson in third with 11 percent support. Source
I'm so happy with this news lol. Interesting to see that Bernie's lead is bigger without Biden in the race.
|
President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order on Labor Day requiring that federal contractors provide their employees with paid sick leave, the latest in a string of executive actions aimed at raising the bar in the U.S. workplace.
According to the White House, the order will give roughly 300,000 workers under federal contracts up to seven paid sick days per year. Workers will earn one hour of leave for every 30 hours worked. The rules will start with new federal contracts signed starting in 2017.
"Many parents are forced to choose between taking an unpaid day off work -- losing much needed income and potentially threatening their jobs -- and sending a sick child who should be home in bed to school," the White House said in a statement.
Although most U.S. workers do receive paid sick days through their jobs, roughly 39 percent of private-sector workers do not, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The workers who don't have paid sick leave are disproportionately employed in low-wage industries like restaurants and retail.
The White House has named expanding paid leave as one of its top priorities. After the president highlighted the issue in his State of the Union address in January, The Huffington Post pointed out that if the president wanted to bring paid leave to more workers, the easiest way to do so would be to issue an executive order like the one slated to be signed Monday. Last month, The New York Times reported that a draft of an executive order related to sick leave was circulating at the Labor Department.
The executive branch has a long history of using its contracting power to influence labor policy in the private sector, stretching back at least to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Obama administration has grown aggressive with the tactic over the past two years. It issued an executive order setting a minimum wage of $10.10 under federal contracts, and another that effectively strips federal contracts from firms found to have committed wage theft.
In announcing the executive order, the White House also called on lawmakers on Capitol Hill to pass legislation guaranteeing sick days for workers. Unlike most developed nations, the U.S. does not have a law requiring businesses to offer employees paid sick leave. Democrats have sponsored sick-leave legislation but it has gone nowhere in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Source
|
Holy crap, Happy Labor Day indeed!
|
On September 07 2015 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision Ahhh did the Supreme Court hurt the poor Judge's feelings? Is it wrong for me to think that a Judge should not act like a spoiled 8 year old? Your feelings are accurate. This has to be one of the most "I'm leaving and taking my ball with me" rulings I have seen in a while. He is basically saying that the Sup Court's ruling confused him and he needs them to tell what marriage is. He is just going to get over turned and maybe admonished in the appeal's decision.
|
The earnings gap between black and non-black workers is smaller among union members than among members of the labor force as a whole, according to a report issued Friday from the City University of New York’s Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies.
The report found that unionized black workers make a median $21.62 per hour, roughly 10 percent less than unionized non-black workers’ $24.04 hourly wage. Non-union black workers earned a median $13.65 per hour to non-union, non-black workers’ $17.00, amounting to a nearly 20 percent pay disadvantage.
A similar study issued late last month by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that unionization also narrows the pay gap between men and women, such that unionized women earn 88.7 percent of their male, unionized counterparts. Among workers as a whole — union and non-union — women earn 78 percent of what men take home, on average.
Together the two studies suggest that raising the rate of unionization would help correct some of the most persistent forms of pay discrimination in the American economy.
CUNY sociologist Ruth Milkman, who co-authored the Murphy Institute report, said wage differentials in a unionized workplace tend to be lower across the board.
“Unions tend to negotiate both a higher floor and a lower ceiling in terms of wages, so that’s the main thing,” Milkman said.
An April Pew survey found African-Americans tend to hold a more favorable view of labor unions than other Americans. Sixty percent of black respondents reported feeling positively toward unions, as opposed to 45 percent of white respondents and 48 percent of the population overall.
Women and men in that survey held roughly the same views: Forty-seven percent of women were pro-union, as opposed to 48 percent of men.
Source
|
On September 07 2015 18:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 13:48 Doraemon wrote: did palin really say "speak american"? :S and these people have support? I don't think anyone is surprised at the stuff she says anymore lol I think people who are shocked by her are idiots. She ceased trying to be a politician after the 2008 campaign and her character assassination by ex McCain operatives. After that she became a "rock star" like Bono or Eddie Vedder. What you need to know about rock stars, is they don't really need to be universally loved, they need 10 million rabid fans who will buy albums and go to concerts. TSwift enjoys her millions of twitter followers, but less than 25% of them are actual "customers" that make her money, and well there it is.
|
On September 07 2015 18:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 13:48 Doraemon wrote: did palin really say "speak american"? :S and these people have support? I don't think anyone is surprised at the stuff she says anymore lol
No one is shocked when Trump/Palin say stupid/racist/misogynistic stuff anymore, just as Hillary Clinton's never-ending scandals no longer fail to shock us. We get it; Trump is an asshole, and Clinton is corrupt. Inshallah they don't win their respective primaries so we get to vote for someone who is neither.
Personally I'm hoping for Kasich v. Sanders. That would be a legitimately cool debate.
|
On September 08 2015 03:07 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 18:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2015 13:48 Doraemon wrote: did palin really say "speak american"? :S and these people have support? I don't think anyone is surprised at the stuff she says anymore lol No one is shocked when Trump/Palin say stupid/racist/misogynistic stuff anymore, just as Hillary Clinton's never-ending scandals no longer fail to shock us. We get it; Trump is an asshole, and Clinton is corrupt. Inshallah they don't win their respective primaries so we get to vote for someone who is neither. Personally I'm hoping for Kasich v. Sanders. That would be a legitimately cool debate. No debate with Kasich could be legitimately cool. His only response to substantive questions is an appeal to God.
|
On September 08 2015 03:07 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 18:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2015 13:48 Doraemon wrote: did palin really say "speak american"? :S and these people have support? I don't think anyone is surprised at the stuff she says anymore lol No one is shocked when Trump/Palin say stupid/racist/misogynistic stuff anymore, just as Hillary Clinton's never-ending scandals no longer fail to shock us. We get it; Trump is an asshole, and Clinton is corrupt. Inshallah they don't win their respective primaries so we get to vote for someone who is neither. Personally I'm hoping for Kasich v. Sanders. That would be a legitimately cool debate.
I agree- I would love that match up. I think Kasich has 0% chance of even being in the top 3 Republicans during the primary though.
|
On September 08 2015 03:13 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2015 03:07 Yoav wrote:On September 07 2015 18:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2015 13:48 Doraemon wrote: did palin really say "speak american"? :S and these people have support? I don't think anyone is surprised at the stuff she says anymore lol No one is shocked when Trump/Palin say stupid/racist/misogynistic stuff anymore, just as Hillary Clinton's never-ending scandals no longer fail to shock us. We get it; Trump is an asshole, and Clinton is corrupt. Inshallah they don't win their respective primaries so we get to vote for someone who is neither. Personally I'm hoping for Kasich v. Sanders. That would be a legitimately cool debate. No debate with Kasich could be legitimately cool. His only response to substantive questions is an appeal to God.
He seemed like the least ridiculous Republican during the debate imo, since he gave a straight answer to supporting a loved one's gay wedding and stating we should accept the Supreme Court's decision, even though he's personally against gay marriage.
|
On September 08 2015 03:13 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2015 03:07 Yoav wrote:On September 07 2015 18:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2015 13:48 Doraemon wrote: did palin really say "speak american"? :S and these people have support? I don't think anyone is surprised at the stuff she says anymore lol No one is shocked when Trump/Palin say stupid/racist/misogynistic stuff anymore, just as Hillary Clinton's never-ending scandals no longer fail to shock us. We get it; Trump is an asshole, and Clinton is corrupt. Inshallah they don't win their respective primaries so we get to vote for someone who is neither. Personally I'm hoping for Kasich v. Sanders. That would be a legitimately cool debate. No debate with Kasich could be legitimately cool. His only response to substantive questions is an appeal to God.
In the 1st debate he seemed less....genuine? Or at least as hardcore about religion then some of the others.
|
Top Republican lawmakers are planning a wide-ranging offensive — including outreach to foreign officials by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office — to undermine President Barack Obama's hopes of reaching an international climate change agreement that would cement his environmental legacy.
The GOP strategy, emerging after months of quiet discussions, includes sowing doubts about Obama's climate policies at home and abroad, trying to block key environmental regulations in Congress, and challenging the legitimacy of the president's attempts to craft a global agreement without submitting a treaty to the Senate.
A top policy aide to McConnell (R-Ky.) has had conversations with a select group of representatives from foreign embassies to make it clear that Republicans intend to fight Obama's climate agenda at every turn, sources familiar with the efforts say.
Sources say the aide, Neil Chatterjee, hasn't tried to persuade other countries to oppose a climate deal, though he is informing them about the GOP's options for undercutting it. He has had conversations with officials representing both developed and developing countries. Environment & Energy Publishing first reported on his efforts.
McConnell himself warned foreign leaders last spring to "proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal” with Obama, noting that "two-thirds of the U.S. federal government" — Congress and the Supreme Court — hasn't signed off on the president's plans.
Republicans have no direct way of interfering with December's climate summit in Paris, and Obama's domestic climate strategy relies almost entirely on executive branch regulations that don't require Congress' approval. But the resistance could threaten to gum up progress in carrying out Obama's policies, making it easier to undo them if the GOP retakes the White House in 2016.
The Republican tactics are partly aimed at an audience abroad: countries that have long expressed doubts about the sincerity of the United States' climate efforts.
Source
|
On September 07 2015 22:46 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 18:24 MattBarry wrote:On September 07 2015 13:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Immigrants to the United States should “speak American,” former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said on Sunday, adding her voice to a controversy triggered by Donald Trump’s criticism of Republican rival jeb Bush for speaking Spanish.
“It’s a benefit of Jeb Bush to be able to be so fluent in Spanish, because we have a large and wonderful Hispanic population that is helping to build America,” Palin said on CNN’s State of the Union.
“On the other hand, you know, I think we can send a message and say: ‘You want to be in America? A, you better be here legally, or you’re out of here. B, when you’re here, let’s speak American.’ I mean, that’s just, that’s – let’s speak English,” added Palin, who was John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential race.
Palin, who is popular among some US conservatives, said that “a unifying aspect of a nation is the language that is understood by all”. Most of the illegal immigrants in the United States come from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking Latin American countries.
Bush on Thursday rejected the notion offered by Trump that people should speak only English in the United States. Bush, who is fluent in Spanish and frequently breaks into the language at his events, vowed to keep speaking Spanish whenever he felt like it.
Trump, the Republican front-runner whose hardline stance on illegal immigration is a hallmark of his bid for the party’s nomination in the November 2016 election, said: “We’re a nation that speaks English.”
Bush said Trump’s jibe at him that he “spoke Mexican” while on a visit to the U.S. border was deeply divisive. Source I agree that all Americans should be fluent in English but it's certainly within the rights of Hispanics to live in spanish speaking communities. Let's not forget we annexed a significant amount of Hispanics and some of those spanish speaking communities survive even now. I mean shit, I'd be pissed if the national narrative started focusing on my home of Louisiana and people started telling us to stop having French speaking communities. They've already killed that over 60 years ago. My grandparents and their classmates would get hit over the knuckles with a ruler if they spoke French in school. There are still significant French speaking communities in Cajun country but it is really sad that they've essentially pushed French out of south eastern LA. I want to learn French before my Francophone grandparents pass away
Given our situation, I can't blame the Quebecois for being wary.
|
|
|
|