To: driftless2
Contrarily, I am all for people NOT being FORCED to keep up their property excepting when it becomes a real ,not imagined, health hazard to others.There are various reasons why someone might find themself unable or even unwilling to maintain THEIR property in the way YOU desire;and that is their concern ,not yours.
Why do so many say they want freedom,but only if they get to limit freedom.
58 posted on
07/30/2010 8:50:50 AM PDT by
hoosierham
(Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
To: hoosierham
Why do so many say they want freedom,but only if they get to limit freedom.
Because they realize that freedom without limits is soon lost.
64 posted on
07/30/2010 9:50:20 AM PDT by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: hoosierham
The old rule used to be...if u didn't like your neighbor or his house....BUY IT!
90 posted on
07/30/2010 7:56:55 PM PDT by
M-cubed
To: hoosierham
So, if your next-door neighbor (assuming you do not live on a farm) decides to raise sheep, goats, hots, etc, you have no problem with that? How about your neighbor decides to establish gigantic, sexually provocative art or messages on his property? For example a very large phallus entering some woman’s sexual organ? In neon. No problem there? There’s certainly no threat of you contacting a sexual disease. Therefore, anything goes, am I correct?
96 posted on
07/31/2010 7:49:01 AM PDT by
driftless2
(For long-term happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
To: hoosierham
I agree with you. I guess the words property rights now require a “village”. Hillary would be so proud!
102 posted on
09/13/2010 10:29:18 PM PDT by
packrat35
(I got your tag line..)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson