Michael Oke, II wrote: > Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > >> Michael Oke, II wrote: >> >>> Sure there are people that are giving these resources to them and they >>> expect something in return but that hardly makes it right, either for >>> people born in this country or those that followed the laws and legally >>> earned the right to be here (or there, depending on where you are when >>> you read this). >>> >>> >> So you are all about government regulating where and how people can >> economically compete, and which people can compete. So it follows you >> are in favour of government doing *exactly the same thing* with >> companies. Ergo, you are a socialist. Are you not? >> > Yes, in a sense of the word, I am for the government regulating that > only legal residents and citizens be allowed to compete. That hardly > makes me a socialist, even by your wacky definition. > So you supported Obama when he regulated companies who needed loans?
> >>> This is not about competition, it's about legality. >>> >>> >> Nope, this is about the *making* of laws. This happens before laws get >> written. So, when you vote your congressmen, do you want them to be in >> favour of free competition or do you want them to be in favour of state >> regulation of the market? >> > Nothing whatsoever to do with free competition as I fully support it. > It does have to do with the legal right of somebody to work in America. > Or the legal right of Coca Cola company to make business abroad? What did you use to call it? Free trade, was it? Why does Ford, GM, Coca Cola, MicroShit, etc have the right to work and offer their products abroad (and take earnings back to US share holders) while Mexican people can not work inside USA (and send money to their families)? > As for getting a hold of these resources, in most cases they merely > apply and are given. Is that hard to understand? If you want to know > why, I recommend that you contact the legislature of California and ask > them. > So you mean to tell me that those naughty foreigners have only to apply for a work permit and it is given? So why don't they? >>> And we don't have social medicine? How untrue. You would >>> merely have to spend an evening in the emergency room of almost any >>> hospital in southern California to know that. >>> >> So Virgil, and Pete, and ......whoever. Are just whiners. They are >> really against the system, they are communists in disguise. >> > Pretty sure that they aren't altho Pete seems to straying into a > different area of late. > So you mean to say that we should counsel Pete, Virgil and other homeless people to move to AZ and they'll get free medic care. > Let see, why wouldn't we do just that, legislate that illegals can't > receive treatment? Nope, illegals can't receive *free* treatment, or if they receive it they get deported after they are healthy. That is, unless those illegals are paying taxes in which case they *are* paying for said treatment. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
