World_Anonymous

I despise Huckabee so much, that I, as a staunch conservative, would vote Gravel or Kucinich to office over him. Anyways, I like how Tancredo put it, Huckabee's supporters only support him because of his religion, they don't even care about the other issues, and neither does Huckabee, and soon people will begin to care and he will not be able to answer and he will fall very deep, hopefully into a hole he can't get out of. I hope Ron Paul takes NH, but if not I'm hoping for Romney or McCain to sweep it.

Not if you live in the UK. Yep, you heard me right, in the UK you have no right to protect yourself at all. Might as well call criminals to harm and rob you. You can't fight back, guns and knives are banned. Now only the criminals have them.

Dial 0, contact your Operator, and ask for the phone number to a Jesus Christ.

Because of my original viewpoint, that each culture has its own identity, it's biased and unfair to promote a culture as a worldwide standard. English is the language of the USA and British Commonwealth, French is the language of France, French Guyana, and Quebec, Chinese is the language of the People's Republic of China, and so on and so fourth.

To sum up my thoughts on language, I just don't want to see any single culture become the basis for globalisation. I'd rather there be a worldwide Esperanto-like language, learned by everybody, so that all cultures can have their own languages, but still communicate.

Ok, you seem to agree. So now for your new points - how does the spread of the English language or culture hurt it? You do realise if the English culture didn't spread, there would be no USA or Australia, don't you? So the spread of the English culture seems to make new cultures with their own identity and we agree that a spread of culture to other countries won't kill that spreading culture. So what exactly is the problem? I'm bloody proud as hell that I'm an Australian and part of the Aussie culture. I wouldn't even be an Australian if the English didn't colonize. Apart from all that, the motherland seems still have their own culture steeped in tea, crumpets, football (soccer) and very poor cricket. :lol: And an obvious disregard for Oxford commas. :P Personally, I'd rather Britain have left Australia, India, portions of Africa, etc, to themselves, but that's part of their kingdom in the past I suppose. The thing there however, is that it was almost a British invasion, and here, countries are requiring it, not Britain forcing them to do so. It doesn't hurt a culture, but we need to respect the cultures as individuals, and no one should sanction them to constrict to other cultures ideals (or nor shall they steal other culture's ideals), except for in the case of extreme violation of human rights.

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers. What exactly is that relevant to? he probably meant to quote the post with all the percentages of languages spoken. Or he's trying to support your argument by saying China is diverse in languages, but retains its identity as Chinese culture. [/hide] No, he said countries are able to globalise but also retain their identity, and obviously China isn't if English is a requirement there to learn. Making it obligatory to learn a second language doesn't have anything to do with the nation keeping or losing their identity. It only allows the students to have opportunities to, for example, travel and work on the USA, or have British costumers. Yet, they still can keep their culture if they want. Unless you were to proof that there is a correlation between the loss of culture and the (mandatory) learning of a (specific) second language. But, as I said above, if you look at the other side of the globalisation, English is being hurt by expanding our language to places that don't need to be involved with our language. I'd be alright with a standard language like Esperanto, but using one cultures language to make it a worldwide standard is criminal to everybody.

Yes, you should be required to learn that language if you're immigrating there, but why be required to learn if you're not? A culture can survive with that kind of requirement, yes, but it's also hurting the English culture in my opinion, by requiring the globalisation of a culture that belongs to those within the USA and British Commonwealth.

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers. What exactly is that relevant to? he probably meant to quote the post with all the percentages of languages spoken. Or he's trying to support your argument by saying China is diverse in languages, but retains its identity as Chinese culture. No, he said countries are able to globalise but also retain their identity, and obviously China isn't if English is a requirement there to learn.

I'm a pro-USA, pro-Constitution American. I'm anti-War in Iraq, not a Isolationist, but someone who is for the USA to stop policing the world!!

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

Because generalising and covering cultural identities kills the world. Our history, even the bad, is surrounded by examples of different cultures, abolishing that is just wrong. I still am against the UN. Socialist Canada and the UK can go have a blast and spend tax money in third-world countries, but the USA does not need to do that, because that violates national sovereignty, and is a waste of American money that should be spent in America!

I'm not saying to lock people in their countries, but the government has no business trying to promote other languages. And there should be no international language, we all have different languages and cultures, it's called diversity, and it's a beautiful thing. Imagine how boring it would be if we were all the same.

Globalization is a good thing. Globalization saves lives in developing countries, and encourages growth in all. By uniting the world with one language (English, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, to name a few) globalization becomes that much easier, and the entire world population benefits from it. Oh, and just so you know, the traditions and cultures of most developing countries are what is killing them- the tradition of having many children for insurance [bIG problem], many religious traditions that hinder growth, too much focus on agriculture, bribing systems [Kenya], a lot of it needs to be fixed and modernized for the sake of these people. But hey, if you prefer culture over human lives and development, more power to ya. I just think each country should be concerned with itself, and only itself. Forcing countries to spend money in other countries, like through the UN, is criminal to national sovereignty. The USA should not be in the UN, and neither should other countries. Each country should be for itself, with allies of course, but not in the way like how the USA restricts Israel from bombing the hell out of Iran with their nuclear weapons. If Israel has carefully considered all the pros and cons of bombing Iran, and chooses to, then they should be able to.

In my opinion, we need to stop the globalisation of English. English is the language of the USA and the British Commonwealth, not the language of China, not the language of Germany, not the language of Japan, etc. These countries should not require students to learn English. If you want to learn another language, more power to you. But it should not be a requirement to learn a language that is not your own, it should be encouraged, but not a requirement. We need to stop this rapid globalisation, like the EU (and abolishing the EU), we need to reestablish the cultures of countries, because each country has its own identity, and no one country, like the USA or Britain, etc, should be leading the free world. We all need to work together, but we all need to keep our cultures alive, each one, respectively. I'd like to hear your opinions after my somewhat lengthy rant.