The largest majority of people who do contribute to those functions want to do the same. I don't agree with restricting movement either....between similar economic countries. However when the president of Mexico endorses the idea that several states in America belong to Mexico i believe something should be done in order to insure the loyalty of those that are here to this country, unless of course you support a civil war which is what all of this crap is leading up to.
Gee, that sounds awfully familiar... where have I heard that sort of talk before? You might have heard it from White,Black or Hispanic supporters of enforcing laws against illegal immigration. Perhaps you should listen to their message instead of chalking them off as racists. Of course. I LOVE borders, for instance. I think the *government* ought to respect the border of my property line - but instead it claims to own every bit of land in the country and forces us all to pay rent. THAT is not respecting borders! And thats a point i disagree with the government on so no argument there. If we could get the right candidates in office we could change that kind of thinking. I am actually a supporter of (if all else fails) militant methods of regaining what is ours from the government. Endorsing another wrong because you've been wronged does not as they say make a right. Didn't you just suggest increasing foreign aid to Mexico? How is that 'extremely limited government'? I suggested that as a means of bringing their economy up to par with ours. Just because i disagree with something does not mean that if i can't stop it and the money is going to be spent in any case that i will not suggest alternate means of attaining my parties goals. For instance trillions of dollars are going to be spent in any case a lot of it on things that we do not support, wouldn't it make more sense to try and make sure as many of our objectives as possible are met since the money is going to be spent in any case? Like i said i disagree with the party on this issue so i am in the habit of trying to think of ways to solve this problem. Again with the thinking for myself huh? "Yeah for you" Actually it stems from my perceptions of what would make this country the best that it can be. I do not try and force my opinions on other Americans and therefore it is my right to have this opinion, wouldn't you agree? You have a right to whatever thoughts you like, but not to MY money to carry out your agenda. You forget this is a nation of we the people, The majority agrees there is a problem with illegal immigration but if the situation was reversed and the majority agreed with you would i then have a right to tell you that you could not use my money to promote YOUR agenda? If so then if the situation is ever reversed i will say exactly that. Since it goes against my opinion i should have the right to refuse payment correct? Then would anything be accomplished? There are many things that are paid unwillingly by the citizens that in fact benefit us in some areas regardless of whether or not we agree with how they benefit. I'd be willing to bet that some people (myself included) might have been unwilling to fund research for a Atomic bomb as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet the results of those two attacks were a huge part of ending the war and in hind sight i do agree with their use because honestly i'd rather a lot of the enemy die then a lot of Americans. The list goes on, By the way thanks for showing me the respect i show you. Susan Hogarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/3/07, chris fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No but i am part of what keeps the economy and the education as well as > healthcare going so i should be able to say that if you're illegal and not > contibuting to it then you should not be allowed to benefit from it. And I am another part. So you want to steal my money (via taxes) to take actions I don't approve of (restricting the free movement of people)? Nice. > Again nobody i endorse supports banning immigration or even stemming it. > However Illegal immigration is a different topic all together. Illegal > immigration support is a tool of globalists who want to replace the > constitution with some international agenda. Gee, that sounds awfully familiar... where have I heard that sort of talk before? > It is possible to be for borders and NOT for big government by the way. Of course. I LOVE borders, for instance. I think the *government* ought to respect the border of my property line - but instead it claims to own every bit of land in the country and forces us all to pay rent. THAT is not respecting borders! > Im for an extremely limited government which is why i discuss my opinions > with people who in most other aspects agree with me. Didn't you just suggest increasing foreign aid to Mexico? How is that 'extremely limited government'? > I tend to rationalize things out for myself and not automatically follow > what my party says. Yeah for you. > Freethinking American, who'd a thought it right? You have a right to whatever thoughts you like, but not to MY money to carry out your agenda. -- Susan Hogarth http://www.colliething.com --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
