You said immigrants, so if you want to rent your house to legal immigrants then
no problem here, however if your referring to illegal aliens then you should be
deported along with the illegals for violating the rights of hundreds of
millions of Americans.
Susan Hogarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Susan:
> 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!
Chris:
> And thats a point i disagree with the government on so no argument there.
Susan:
Really? You think it's wrong for the government to attempt to control
my property? What if I want to rent my property to immigrants?
(Horrors, I may even let 15 of them live in the same house!)? Would
you support my right to invite them here from their country and live
on my land? Or would you say the government has the right/duty to keep
them away from my place because they come from a different sort of
economy?
Susan:
> Didn't you just suggest increasing foreign aid to Mexico? How is that
> 'extremely limited government'?
Chris:
> I suggested that as a means of bringing their economy up to par with ours.
Susan:
Foreign aid, besides being wrongly taken from the citizens of the
'donor' country, tends to weaken rather than strengthen an economy.
Removal of trade and immigration barriers will strengthen both
economies.
Chris:
> 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.
Susan:
What makes you think it's any more possible to 'influence' the
spending than to stop it? You certainly never will stop it if you've
already accepted it's unstoppable and are just worrying about how to
get the biggest slice for your own pet projects.
Chris:
> 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?
Susan:
I think our best effort will be spent on working to end this spending
as soon as possible. If we are squabbling over the latest budget, we
are too preoccupied to resist the growth of the next one. This is what
governments LOVE.
Chris:
> 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?
Susan:
Of course. That doesn't mean your opinion is correct, though.
> You have a right to whatever thoughts you like, but not to MY money to
> carry out your agenda.
Chris:
> You forget this is a nation of we the people,
Susan:
*Blink*. DO you think you have a right to spend my money on your
agenda, so long as you have enough folks who agree with you?
Chris:
> The majority agrees there is a problem with illegal immigration
Susan:
So? What does mob rule have to do with rights?
Chris:
> 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?
Susan:
Yes, of course!
Chris:
> 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?
Susan:
Yes!
Chris:
> Then would anything be accomplished?
Susan:
Umm, people would pay for the things they wanted, and not pay for the
things they didn't want. For *damn* certain there'd be a lot less war
under such an arrangement. And a lot more justice!
Chris:
>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.
Susan:
Hello? You would force someone to pay for something he did not believe
was right because you (and the rest of the mob) happened to believe it
was right? What sort of sense does -that- make?
Chris:
> 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,
Susan:
We are in serious and irreconcilable difference here as (1) I don't
think of the Japanese people as my enemy, and (2) even if the Japanese
government was the U.S. government's enemy, I don't think the
deliberate slaughter of innocents is warranted, and (3) that whole
business about the slaughter of civilians 'saving' people is bosh in
my opinion, and (4) a whole host of other reasons.
Chris:
> By the way thanks for showing me the respect i show you.
Susan:
Likewise.
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
