--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's why NO ONE should be allowed to have an estate worth more than > twelve million in today's dollars. > Do you think that Murdoch is smarter > or superior to anyone here? Smarter? Sure. Quite a bit smarter than many here. > Nope he's just a greed SOB plain and > simple. An interesting view -- as are your apparent intrinsic observations, logic and world view. Is your premise and observation is that greed is sole thing that one needs to become a billionaire? Thats clearly different than what I have observed. Is greed even a necessary requirement to be a billionaire (or 100 Mil player)? Are the Google guys "greedy"? is Steve Jobs? Is Bill Clinton, Is Oprah? U2, John Lennon -- in his day, Sean Penn? Angelina Jole? Dereck Jeeter?Maria Sharapova (who will soon, based on signe contracts, become the highet paid athelete in the world (male/female, all sports) -- 100 Million / yr. > The root of all problems Sort like watering the root? Fix / do that and EVERYTHING will be good. No problems anywhere if you limit assets per person? > We need to relieve them of the burden of their > wealth and return the planet to the people to whom it belongs! Well relieveing them of their wealth clearly seem sis a great burden an sacrifice for you. You truly are a selfless saint. So are you saying that part of Murdoch's assets belong directly to you? What portion? What portion of the Google guys forntune belongs directly to you. Greed is not a virtue. Neither is confiscation. Do you advocate a direct confiscation of all individual asses over 12 mil? If so, how would that be done exactly? At this point, some might throw out a large leap of illogic wrapped in a large red herring along the lines of: "you disagree with me, thus you must agree with everything Murdoch does and stands for. Its a black and white world. You are for us or against us." I assume, your being as smart as Murdoch, are beyond such muddled thinking.
