I think I was actually calling someone else a commie, but I was replying through the web interface, and forgot to quote what it was in response to. I think that collectivist is a more proper term. Or possibly, my most hated enemy, altruist. In various threads you have advocated large centralized government, redistribution of wealth, tighter control over business, and socialized health care. All of these things speak to me of collectivism, socialism and yes communism.
Now I understand that you wouldn't want to label yourself as such, what with the negative connotations and all, but I think if you take a good hard look you will see that you believe in many of the things that these philosophies support. Also remember that when I use the words communist and socialist I mean them as originally intended, not as the totalitarian hells that they invariably turn into. Being a pure socialist or communist is not necessarily an insult, it can be just a description. Of course I think that collectivism in all it's different shades is among the most evil belief systems around. Timothy Heald Information Systems Specialist Overseas Security Advisory Council U.S. Department of State 571.345.2235 -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:31 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: woo hoo oh. I thought that just became the point after I showed you what a public place was, this mind you in response to your demand that I show you what possible legal or other reason I could have for saying it was a public place. Or was that your evil twin? I forget. I do know Tim called me a Communist for saying it was. Anyway. I leave you with one final reference: http://www.esgs.org/uk/log37.htm And I will take the advice given there, which is to walk away. Have a nice day. Dana Nagy, Daniel J writes: > what were the oh, 15 or 25 emails before you started bringing up those, and > exempting the drunk in public one, i have to dispute the rest. never mind > how amazing it is that it comes back to you showing us examples of the law, > which wasn't the point. the point was should the -government have the right- > to do these things, not what is currently in effect. > > --d. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:14 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: woo hoo > > > The "female" told you what the definition of a public place is and backed > it up with seven different references. If you *must* be irrationally > insulting at least be accurate. > > Dana > > > i can respect anyone who can validly make a point. i understand that isn't > > what you mean when you say that, but hence why when ian was talking about > > his view, at least i could understand the logical reasoning, unlike the > > female who just told us how she felt. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
