Even with your smiley Don, I will say that I love America (USA)…and have never trashed it. I do call to attention that which I find to be ethically a problem. One general area is actions individuals take that cause additional suffering in the world.
Also, it is in this way that I found fault with the majority of Ws political declarations. This even though as is the case with most presidents these days he presented notions and ideology that was mostly formulated by his staff. Based on what I had read about him and his family many many years before he even ran for office, I could guess that unless he changed greatly, he would be the same bumbling and catastrophic decider he had been all of his lifetime. I always hoped for change, but, didn’t happen. He still exhibits signs of actual brain damage. As to the article…as cogent as it appears, it is but the ravings of a loony! Ideologues are a dime a dozen…and this locally grown one has escaped across the pond…good luck law students in England! Yes, I do appreciate ethics…and it is something that we all need to contemplate. I’ve ranted for tariffs here numerous times. I’ve mentioned how the US (corporations) has raped and pillaged the planet too…all of this is obvious, unless one only gets their news from corporations. IF the US government began to abide by the laws and treaties it has signed tomorrow, the world would be a far better place. My lungs are not being held until this happens. Are yours? Oh, and I couldn’t find anything in that article that even remotely guaranteed ‘the people’ received money for goods let alone being able to make the determination to sell. It did imply that world banks would receive a windfall if this fantasy were actualize though. On Jul 30, 10:45 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:23 PM, > > ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > > “…Broadly speaking, laws defending ownership stimulate economic > > growth.” – DJ > > > Don, quit true! And, let us not forget the rest of that equation, laws > > defending ownership stimulate poverty. > > Nein. > > http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/05/12/leif-wenar/we-all-own-stolen-g... > > Very long but interesting. Trashes Bush and America in general. You > should enjoy it. ;-) > > dj > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 3:43 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't know the show or the character of the investigator but I'd > >> guess it was just a way to differentiate his victim(the one he's > >> assigned to) from some other murdered person. I don't see it as > >> claiming ownership. My brother, my sister, my school, my band, my job > >> etc. Doesn't so much claim ownership but more like claims belonging > >> and/or allegiance. > > >> I have learned it's generally not a good idea to grow attached to > >> 'things.' The only thing I might dash into a burning building to > >> retrieve is my guitar. A Gibson acoustic given as a wedding gift from > >> my wife. Beautiful mellow tonal quality. Superbly unique as well. > >> I'd never seen anyone with one until The Edge played one just like > >> mine at a late night U2 appearance on The Conan O'Brien Show a few > >> years ago. Judging by the serial number mine was the second one made. > >> I wouldn't take 10 thousand for it but I'm sure it's probably only > >> worth 2 or 3. I love that guitar and it is MINE. > > >> Now, when we get into property rights or Bush's theme of an 'ownership > >> society' we are talking about a whole different ball of wax I'm > >> assuming Fran wasn't really referring to. Someone has already stated > >> the relationship to freedom. This link helps describe some of the > >> reasons I happen to agree with this connection. Broadly speaking, > >> laws defending ownership stimulate economic growth. > > >>http://www.heritage.org/index/Default.aspx > > >> dj > > >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:50 AM, deripsni<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > I repeat, its the teams job, with the help of the community. If the > >> > lead investigator wants to the take the input and help of others and > >> > make it his/her own, in my mind thats the actions of an insecure > >> > person enforcing their position. If you prefer to see it differently, > >> > thats okay ;-] > > >> > On Jul 29, 7:47 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Could it possibly be you are taking that innocent little phrase a > >> >> tad too far? The lead investigator is in charge. I am grateful that > >> >> they take a strong personal responsibility to find out not only what > >> >> happened but to catch the murderer. To bring in the OJ case seems an > >> >> odd support piece of your argument. Catching the suspect with enough > >> >> evidence to go to court with is the guy's job, and that is the > >> >> beginning of justice yes, but not the final result. > > >> >> On Jul 29, 1:00 pm, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > A homicide investigation typically involves many people, not just the > >> >> > lead investigator. He/She gets assigned to the case and its a team and > >> >> > community effort, not one persons. There is no "I" in team. Calling > >> >> > the victim "mine" seems to negate the involvement of the team and the > >> >> > community, without which many crimes would not get solved. Although > >> >> > the investigator may be on a truth finding mission, unfortunately > >> >> > justice isn't a police function, but a function of the court. Police > >> >> > worked very hard on the OJ case, but was justice a result of their > >> >> > efforts? > > >> >> > On Jul 29, 2:38 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > Although I agree with your view on ownership, I do not agree at all > >> >> > > with the following: > > >> >> > > On Jul 29, 5:04 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > For example, on the "First 48" show the other day, the lead > > >> >> > > > homicide detective referred to the person who had been murdered > >> >> > > > as "my > >> >> > > > victim". Pesonally, I would think that if ownership of the victim > >> >> > > > were > >> >> > > > allotted to anyone, it would be family members. I think it would > >> >> > > > be > >> >> > > > safe to say that the person who said this is dwarfed by > >> >> > > > insecurity and/ > >> >> > > > or carried away by a need to reinforce his position of power. > > >> >> > > I don't see it that way in the least. This is a guy who is > >> >> > > commited to finding the killer of this person. He has made it his > >> >> > > personal mission, he has "owned" that responsibility and takes it > >> >> > > very seriously. Nobody else is going to do that job but him. The > >> >> > > family is not equipped to do it. He is providing a service of truth > >> >> > > finding and justice. Saying it another way might actually make it > >> >> > > easier to not take it so seriously. "It is just another victim" for > >> >> > > example.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
