" It would be more accurate to say many liberals have a distaste or contempt for this country rather then a hatred."
Don, the likely fact would be that liberals have a distaste or contempt for political and social conservatives, who usually do not look forward enough both in local and global context because they are too concentrated on and busy at following the past. Your following statements require the same going beyong : " It seems obvious to me that most people take better care of what they've paid for. Making it theirs and assuming the responsibility for maintenance and repair." Sure, Don, but isn't the purpose somewhat more than that. Which is, to make use of it, turning over or ploughing back, so to say, in a manner that adds value to the society or the economy, to the people. I would actually go ahead and suggest that if, or the day, one is not able to do so, the possession must be turned over to one who can so add value ! Ah, yes, I understand it goes against the right of freedom to hold property. And, it goes against human nature, as it is now. But these are difficulties in implementing the liberal idea. That is, just that. The difficulties take nothing away from the merit of the liberal idea. It's only when the merit of the idea is understood by the critical mass of population that people will also find ways to go beyond the difficulties, without contravening them. It is good to be liberal, Don. It makes you ready, to create and meet your future. " Giving people a stake in an enterprise motivates them to make sure said enterprise succeeds." I agree. But just at the speculators in the market place. They buy company, stakes in enterprises ... how much of motivation do they have for the " success " of the enterprise. They might not be concerned with beyond the next hour ! The stake is not the issue. You just need people with integrity, committment and capability, for them to be motivated about the success of the enterprise. Of course, the enterprise too should be able to attract and empower such professionals. " If folks are used to getting stuff for free with no effort on their part what value do you think they place on what they receive?" A lot, Don, if you would go beyond your negative opinion of other people ! I can understand such opinions, when they pertain to our relatives or people we relate to, who get used to taking advantage of us. But, people are a wide world. There are strangers you help during a journey, who return the help with thanks, from long long afar, when you may not expect them to. Because, I know the large majority of us do want to be able to support ourselves, lead an honourable life in our own eyes, and not be a burden on others. The solution indeed is to support those in need, alongwith enabling them to acquire the ability and the opportunity of a livelihood. People, who find themselves marginalised by the system, need to be helped to stand on their feet, not just fed. People who can help restore the life to one must also do so when the opportunity comes. Otherwise, what virtues of ours are we busy extolling to ourselves ? On Aug 1, 12:01 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, I agree the guy's idea stinks. Tariffs are designed to > bring economic advantage to the tariff maker, not some 3rd world > country. It may be the single dumbest essay I've ever wasted my time > reading. Frankly, I posted it for the title. I assumed(wrongly) no > one would get past it. ;-) > > I won't engage in ad hominem attacks on Bush or Carter in this post. > I will say many people that know anything about a >year-long hostage > crisis and gas lines and energy price controls would say that > President Carter left his one term in somewhat of a disgrace. Jus' > sayin'. Been awhile since I've heard Bush compared to Hitler. This > usually signals the end of debate so I shall abide by the precedent. > > It would be more accurate to say many liberals have a distaste or > contempt for this country rather then a hatred. The World Apology > Tours of '09 our leaders have engaged in is a testament to this. Your > own rhetoric lends credence to this observation IMO but I'll take your > word for it you love this country. Just not the way it is, > apparently. ;-/ > > Getting back to ownership. It seems obvious to me that most people > take better care of what they've paid for. Making it theirs and > assuming the responsibility for maintenance and repair. Giving people > a stake in an enterprise motivates them to make sure said enterprise > succeeds. If folks are used to getting stuff for free with no effort > on their part what value do you think they place on what they receive? > Seriously, you've spoken of your privileged youth in the past. What > value did you place on nice clothes, fancy cars and club memberships? > My guess would be not much. My impression of you is hemp wear and a > tie-dye T-shirt and custom painted/peace symboled VW Bug.(how close > did I get?) You can't really own what you haven't worked for or bleed > for or at least taken care of for a few years. Them's my 2 bits. > > dj > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM, > > > > ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > > “Yes, yes. Such a nincompoop he became President of the U.S. after > > being governor of Texas. A real moron.<-----sarcasm” – DJ > > > So, are you suggesting that it takes a person of higher standards to > > become president? We all know this is not the case. There have been > > very very poor presidents let alone presidents with very poor judgment > > or even business sense in the case of W. Look into his history. EVERY > > business he put his hands on failed from drilling for oil (dry wells) > > to baseball…even when his family helped him out, which was about all > > the time, most people would say that this person with a relatively low > > IQ wouldn’t even make a good small businessman in a small city. Yes, > > you can have a beer with him. Yes, he may be charming to some. (not to > > me) Yes, he may be “a good man that means well”. However, IF one uses > > that standard to elect a head of state alone, the result is obvious. > > Truth be told, I think that many of the worst leaders worldwide may > > have met that standard…and, yes, I include A. Hitler in that list. > > > Oh, and Carter didn’t need to ‘just shut up and go away’ like W nor > > Nixon did. There is a difference between leaving office in disgrace > > and not doing so. > > > And, no, I don’t believe conservatives hate poor people. In many ways, > > I think they are afraid of them and/or merely ignore them if possible. > > I say this having come from an upper class conservative Republican > > family. Most criticism about ‘hating the US’ is only a confusion and > > apparent conflation of addressing specific people and policies rather > > than the ideal. > > > So, now that you ‘teased’ me into reading the link, do you disagree > > with my analysis of it? :-) > > > On Jul 31, 3:38 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, yes. Such a nincompoop he became President of the U.S. after > >> being governor of Texas. A real moron.<-----sarcasm That said, it > >> is agreed he made some rather large mistakes during his career. > >> Without going into detail to defend him I feel it necessary to say > >> that I personally believe him to be a good man that means well. I'd > >> say the same thing about Carter if he'd just shut up and go away like > >> Bush has. > > >> On hating America. As it is common for those on the left to believe > >> us conservatives hate poor people it is just as common for those on > >> the right to believe the left hate the U.S.(but they support the > >> troops!) I felt I had to tease you into reading my link. Sometimes I > >> sweat and surf and pour over websites to find the perfect link and I > >> have a sneaking suspicion no one bothers to go and read it half the > >> time. :-( > > >> -Mewling Ant > > >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:21 AM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
