“How so? [laws defending ownership stimulate poverty] Do you feel everyone has equal talent and ambition?” – rig
OK, deconstructing a little, without the very notion of ownership, there would be no wealth nor poverty…at least not as we see and define it today. Also, the notion that ‘stimulating economic growth’ is a good thing ignores all too much, even though it is one of the most prevalent memes pushed by the corporate owned media today. When you ask about talent and ambition, this tacitly assumes that these traits are those held by the economic elite…they may be and they may not be. In other words, it is a non-sequitur. It also tacitly implies that such people should be rewarded with material gain for whatever traits they exhibit in acquiring them, even if it is through inheritance or theft. “Ownership also provides jobs/income and products.” – rig Uhhh, did I suggest that it didn’t? Quite the reverse. Here you apparently suggest that this is a good thing. I am not convinced. Of course, I will keep the topic on track by not giving examples of different cultures and groups of people that do not conform to what you apparently accept as innate and divinely given systems. “ There is a real threat to Democracy and capitalism with Obama's dictat to "spread the wealth around" or the inclusion of abortion and end of life policies being debated in the healthcare legislation which determines who will live and who will die- perhaps our version of the guillotine- USA style.” – rig Geezzzz, to me, this sounds like a Faux Infotainment rant! ;-) Rather than conflating issues that are not related in the least, I will yet again deconstruct. There is no threat to Democracy. This is propaganda. Get a grip! Look at the facts rather than the self serving attempts at influencing public opinion. Please! Also, in no way does capitalism go hand in hand with democracy. Nor is there any extant pure form of capitalism on the planet. Now, IF one wishes to criticize BOs stances, let’s take them on a case by case basis. I could start a very very long list. In most ways I find how he has been leading including the advisors and administrators he has to be lacking. This has nothing to do with the invented and promulgated fear mongering about the notion of socialism. This has been addressed ad nauseam…and found to not be a problem in any way nor different from historical policies overall in the US. (With apologies to those of you from different countries…we here in the USA are quite provincial) Oh, yes, I forgot, somehow you include abortion in the topic of defending ownership?????!!!!!! If anything, you make the point FOR abortion!!! We can do another topic about it if you wish. The same for end of life policies that do need to be debated further… and have little to do with healthcare legislation contrary to what the highly paid (highest) lobbyists in the world would have you believe. Vested interests are doing their best to survive by influencing public opinion. The problem here is propaganda and fear tactics rather than an open and honest debate is being used. The result is an ignorant population. What has anyone heard about single payer insurance lately!??!! There is a group of people attempting to get a law passed to force the media to at least discuss it. A truly sad state of affairs in a country that touts itself as being the greatest and most democratic and freest etc. Very sad indeed! “guillotine-USA style”….rigsy, this hyperbole is even beneath you! “ The "poor" are dazzled by celebrity and the opportunity to get something for nothing plus a deep-seated resentment of class differences.” – rig Where to start…just what the heck do you mean by dazzled by celebrity??? Do you mean that only poor people go to the movies, read People magazine etc.? Oh, and as to getting something for nothing…I would posit that even IF this were the case (it isn’t) they are clearly not as successful at doing so as the rich are!!!! Now we come to the pièce de résistance. “…deep-seated resentment of class differences”. This appears to be one of the most hateful comments of the group to me. First, IF it is the case, why shouldn’t it be? Secondly, are you including yourself in this attitude?...the deep-seated resentment? If not, I suggest you reflect a bit. As I’ve said often, there is a common suspicion of anyone different. This includes different economic strata. And, for those who succumb to such suspicions, whether valid or not, they can NOT be defined as only the lower economic tier. “…The very rich with no conscience/hope have undoubtedly taken steps to avoid the revolutionary changes already.” – rig First, the ‘revolutionary changes’ as you call them have been taken over the last couple of decades. What is being proposed now is one small attempt at returning to being able to deliver quality health care to people rather than a system based upon the ‘bottom line’. IF you think that “socialized medicine” will treat the poor and aging poorly…check out what a system based on the bottom line does….look around. Yes, ‘they’ clearly have taken steps to avoid a return to a more egalitarian view of health care. Since the USA doesn’t allow much torture and physical coercion within its borders (most of them anyway) yet, the main avenues available are political influence/purchase and public opinion control/influence. Sadly, from what I see you type, my guess is that there has been some success here. :-( On Jul 31, 3:59 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > How so? Do you feel everyone has equal talent and ambition? Ownership > also provides jobs/income and products. There is a real threat to > Democracy and capitalism with Obama's dictat to "spread the wealth > around" or the inclusion of abortion and end of life policies being > debated in the healthcare legislation which determines who will live > and who will die- perhaps our version of the guillotine- USA style. > The "poor" are dazzled by celebrity and the opportunity to get > something for nothing plus a deep-seated resentment of class > differences. The very rich with no conscience/hope have undoubtedly > taken steps to avoid the revolutionary changes already. > > On Jul 30, 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. > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
