[Rhodes22-list] don't take me or my followers wrong..

[Steven Alm]

Actually, Brad, I take from poor ignorant sots that are stupid enough to
give it to me and then I give it to the rich--my mortgage company, the oil
companies, the fine people at Sprint, Marriott, Dewars distillery, etc.
This is "trickle up" and it seems to be working for them.  Please send me
your money so I can continue my support of these fine companies.

Comrade Slim

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Brad Haslett <flybrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Stan,
>
> Don't pity Slim.  I've seen his act.  He is communist #1.  He takes
> from the rich and re-distributes it to "poor".  He develops "class
> warfare" between the Minnesota and Michigan football teams and bilks
> the ignorant of their hard earned money.  Slim is the classic "fellow
> traveler".
>
> You want me to give something to Slim?"  How about a knuckle sandwich?
> Actually, Slim hasn't asked for a thing though I'd give him the shirt
> off my back if he asked for one.
>
> All you people looking for an opportunity to volunteer, I still own a
> construction company in Gulfport, Mississippi.  You've all ran your
> mouth - I've yet to see any of you pounding a single nail in the
> "battle zone".
>
> Bite Me!
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:47 PM, stan <stan at rhodes22.com> wrote:
> > I don't know how "redistribution of wealth" gets distorted with nonsense
> > talk like taking from Brad to give to Slim ..(although I am in favor of
> that
> > particular distortion) ..
> >
> > "We" say double the pay of the guys who build our beautiful boats and cut
> > the pay for the fatcats who give us inferior products and services and
> get
> > hundreds, yea, thousands of times more than productive workers do.
> >
> > Redistribute the wealth in this simple manner and the country will bloom.
> >
> > ss
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steven Alm" <stevenalm at gmail.com>
> > To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL Ben C comment on reply...
> >
> >
> >> Hell, I'll take some of Brad's money!
> >>
> >> Comrade Slim
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Herb Parsons
> >> <hparsons at parsonsys.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> David,
> >>>
> >>> It's pretty easy to get "the majority" to agree to taking from "the
> >>> minority".
> >>>
> >>> Some of us have been opposed to the progressive tax burden for a long
> >>> time. I for one have since I first understood it. I believe we should
> >>> have a flat rate on individuals, and no income tax on corporations
> >>> (business don't pay taxes, they collect them).
> >>>
> >>> My issue on Obama's plan is he is taking cash from one group, and
> giving
> >>> it to another.
> >>>
> >>> Not putting it into another program, efficient or inefficient, he is
> >>> taking Brad's money, and handing it to Me.
> >>>
> >>> That's wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> David Bradley wrote:
> >>> > Ed, et al., a question for you.  What do you call it today when we
> >>> > have a progressive tax rate?  Are we living in a Socialist system
> >>> > already, by your definition?
> >>> >
> >>> > I participate in a transfer of weatlh 24 times a year with every
> >>> > paycheck.  Each year I look at a summary of a large payment to the US
> >>> > government for services rendered to me and others.  I don't begrudge
> >>> > any of it other than the parts that go to inefficient programs and a
> >>> > war we shouldn't be in (but that's a different debate, please).  I
> >>> > don't believe we will live long enough to see a world without war or
> >>> > inefficient programs, but I think there can be proress.  I believe
> the
> >>> > government has to play a role in determing the use of those funds,
> >>> > because voluntary giving by individuals will not address major needs
> >>> > in our country.
> >>> >
> >>> > When the Federal tax rate went down a couple of (few?) points, it had
> >>> > no impact on my investment or consumption patterns.  I don't believe
> a
> >>> > change in the tax rate upward by a couple (or few?) percentage points
> >>> > will change my investment or consumption patterns anywhere near as
> >>> > much as, say, not being able to rent my house in CT will.  Most if
> not
> >>> > all of the people I know (which actually represents a cross section
> of
> >>> > left-to-right) feel the same way.  Some are less inclined to give
> back
> >>> > the tax cut, but this is not top of anyone's list of concerns and no
> >>> > one in our extended circle views it as a shift to a Socialistic form
> >>> > of government.
> >>> >
> >>> > I do not view a marginal shift in the progressive tax rates as
> >>> > Socialist, never mind Marxist.  I don't believe there has been any
> >>> > discussion of the government rescinding private ownership of
> anything.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think a majority of people share in this opinion, or one close to
> >>> > it.  We live in a 50/50 society which right now may be more like a
> >>> > 55/45 split.  You seem to live in a 90/10 world of extreme opinions
> >>> > and rhetoric.
> >>> >
> >>> > Dave
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Ben:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thank you for your reply
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Ben said, "The problem I have is that I don't carry the same
> suspicion
> >>> of
> >>> >> the MSM as you and some others do.  I think back to Woodard and
> >>> Bernstein
> >>> >> and Watergate and I conclude that any reporter who could "nail"
> Obama
> >>> with a
> >>> >> credible story of the kind of involvement with Ayres which would be
> >>> >> significant would win a Pulitzer, be the toast of the town, get all
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> great women, and be a multi-millionaire forever. Who could resist
> >>> >> that?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The aspects that I look here are recent track record for finding all
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> truth.  Where are those investigative reporters like Woodward and
> >>> Bernstein
> >>> >> looking?  I do not see most of the MSM looking and analyzing Obama's
> >>> >> philosophy in terms of what it means in 'economics'.  In fact I do
> not
> >>> >> believe 90 % of the reporters understand economics, economic
> history,
> >>> >> American history, etc.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Why do I make that statement?  I make it because I am a product of
> the
> >>> same
> >>> >> education system that they are.  Most teachers in public schools,
> >>> private
> >>> >> schools and on to the college level do not study no less understand
> >>> >> economics and economic history.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> If the reporters do not understand what they are looking at, why
> >>> >> expect
> >>> them
> >>> >> to ask questions that distinguish the nuts and bolts of what makes
> the
> >>> >> traditional American system work?  How can a search for truth be
> >>> expected
> >>> >> even if they want a Pulitzer Prize if they do not understand the
> >>> traditional
> >>> >> economic
> >>> >> system.[see:
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100208.php3]
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams are two who currently write
> well
> >>> about
> >>> >> economics.  George Soros also writes about a narrow field of
> >>> >> economics.
> >>> >> Soros is a lucid writer but has developed his opinions, theories,
> >>> >> views
> >>> from
> >>> >> his experience in a narrow sophisticated area and tries to apply
> them
> >>> >> to
> >>> the
> >>> >> whole world and America.  [see:
> >>> >> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102108.php3 ]
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I like Soros's concepts of openness and democracy.  I have a problem
> >>> >> of
> >>> his
> >>> >> acceptance of socialist means or government compulsion as the best
> >>> >> solutions.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> What I am saying is that Obama says he wants change.  The problem I
> >>> >> have
> >>> is
> >>> >> that most of the change he espouses is based on Socialist concepts
> >>> >> that
> >>> have
> >>> >> been failed concepts during the 20th century.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> You have suggested in the past that you would like to get rid of the
> >>> whole
> >>> >> bunch in Washington.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  But, I ask
> >>> what
> >>> >> change are we going to put in place?  Who are the people that are
> >>> >> going
> >>> to
> >>> >> make that change?  Obama has not demonstated more integrity, rather
> he
> >>> has
> >>> >> walked with devils.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I cannot agree that changing to a socialist system or socialist
> >>> >> programs
> >>> are
> >>> >> a real solution based on those concepts and programs track record.
> >>>  Those
> >>> >> systems have not been the economic systems that have made America
> the
> >>> place
> >>> >> it is today, nor are they the economic systems that have made the
> >>> >> world
> >>> a
> >>> >> better place.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I recognize two social and economic systems that have made a
> >>> >> difference.
> >>> >> First, Democracy that keeps dictatorships in check and, second,
> >>> individual
> >>> >> initiative exercised thru free enterprise.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I see Obama's ideas as ultimately placing excessive tax burdens on
> >>> >> free
> >>> >> enterprise.  I see the upcoming supermajority as the road to
> serfdom.
> >>> >> I
> >>> see
> >>> >> Obama as an evangelist type person, that is giving a persuasive
> sermon
> >>> and
> >>> >> when he leaves the tent living a different life style.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Ed K
> >>> >> Greenville, SC, USA
> >>> >> Addendum:  "Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral
> >>> authority
> >>> >> and character increase as the importance of the position increases."
> >>> John
> >>> >> Adams
> >>> >> {I am sure you can and will nit pik this post}
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Ben Cittadino wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Ed;
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> You have raised two legitimate questions for me to wrestle with so
> >>> >>> let
> >>> me
> >>> >>> give it a shot.  As I understand it you want to know what I think
> on
> >>> the
> >>> >>> issue of whether Sen Obama is using "deception or evasion about his
> >>> prior
> >>> >>> economic and politcal concepts".  As a corollary to that, you posit
> >>> that
> >>> >>> if he is being deceptive or evasive does that disqualify him on
> >>> >>> honesty
> >>> >>> and integrity grounds from being entitled to our vote.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I don't think I have ever suggested that inquiry into the Senator's
> >>> past
> >>> >>> associations is improper.  The problem I have is that I don't carry
> >>> >>> the
> >>> >>> same suspicion of the MSM as you and some others do.  I think back
> to
> >>> >>> Woodard and Bernstein and Watergate and I conclude that any
> reporter
> >>> who
> >>> >>> could "nail" Obama with a credible story of the kind of involvement
> >>> with
> >>> >>> Ayres which would be significant would win a Pulitzer,
> >>> >>> be the toast of the town, get all the great women, and be a
> >>> >>> multi-millionaire forever. Who could resist that?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> There is plenty of rumor, innuendo, and conspiratorial stuff out
> >>> >>> there,
> >>> >>> but I don't see persuasive proof.  I think Colin Powell, as a
> former
> >>> >>> National Security Advisor probably has sources better than ours
> which
> >>> >>> would steer him away from this endorsement if there were anything
> to
> >>> worry
> >>> >>> about.  Powell is old, rich, respected.  He has lived his life.
>  All
> >>> >>> he
> >>> >>> has is his legacy.  I can't believe a man like him or the other
> >>> prominent
> >>> >>> Americans who have vouched for Obama's patriotism would or could be
> >>> >>> mislead.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Look, there are lots of reasons to vote for John McCain.  If his
> >>> policies
> >>> >>> are closer to yours that's just fine.  I just think it would be a
> >>> >>> shame
> >>> to
> >>> >>> reject Obama solely because, what?, he hasn't made a full enough
> >>> >>> disclosure of , what?, some plot to turn us into welfare state
> >>> >>> zombies?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I don't see the persuasive, proof, the weight of the evidence that
> we
> >>> have
> >>> >>> anything to worry about.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On your second point, if he lied about something important, then I
> >>> won't
> >>> >>> vote for him.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Ben C.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Tootle wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> Ben,
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Start from the top.  I did not call you a Marxist.  The 'he' was
> >>> >>>> referring to Obama, if you go back and read the whole paragraph.
> >>> >>>> Furthermore, I do not know if Obama is a Marxist.  But he fails to
> >>> >>>> distinguish himself from them so that a dummy can tell whether he
> is
> >>> or
> >>> >>>> is not.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I agree that that association alone does not make him a Marxist.
> >>> >>>> However, his stated political philosophy one ago year ago was
> >>> >>>> parallel
> >>> to
> >>> >>>> Marxist style thinking, also know as Socialist thinking.  That is,
> >>> >>>> his
> >>> >>>> taxing proposals intimate a Marxist style or Socialist style
> >>> >>>> thinking.
> >>> >>>> Specifically, tax the hell out of those earning a high income and
> >>> spread
> >>> >>>> the wealth.  Or were his words, share the wealth?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I have a problem with this concept for several reasons.  First, it
> >>> takes
> >>> >>>> property in the form of money from one group and gives it to
> another
> >>> >>>> group.  What ever the reason, it is using the huge coercive power
> of
> >>> the
> >>> >>>> government to take property from one group and give it to another.
> >>>  Now
> >>> >>>> all kinds of social reasons can be given for doing this.  Bob
> >>> >>>> Skinner
> >>> is
> >>> >>>> good at explaining some of them.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> However, another reason I recognize it as a problem is that that
> >>> >>>> kind
> >>> of
> >>> >>>> transfer of wealth kills or severely harms individual initiative.
> >>> >>>> I
> >>> >>>> recognize that it is people, both ordinary and extra ordinary that
> >>> thru
> >>> >>>> personal effort, also called initiative, has made great strides in
> >>> >>>> raising the standard of living or wellbeing of all people.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> My question to you is still to discuss if Obama is using deception
> >>> >>>> or
> >>> >>>> evasion about his prior economic and political concepts?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> You are one guy who should be able to discuss that issue from all
> >>> sides.
> >>> >>>> Understand to some it is an honesty or integrity question.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Please take your time to do so, and Thank You.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Ed K
> >>> >>>> Greenville, SC, USA
> >>> >>>> (Sorry Andrew no attachment)
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> View this message in context:
> >>>
> http://www.nabble.com/Ben-C.%2C-thank-you-for-your-reply...-tp20095304p20110156.html
> >>> >> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> __________________________________________________
> >>> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
> to
> >>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>> >> __________________________________________________
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> >>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> __________________________________________________
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>