On May 19, 11:49Â*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/19/10 13:30 , DEFCON 88 wrote:





On May 19, 8:59 am, Â*wrote:
∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.

Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.

You mean like the Kennedys?

Â* Â*The Rockefellers?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What I think he means is, that American Dynasties based on wealth come
ominously close to European Dynasties (or any other dynasties in
liberty-regressive nations) based on wealth, or power, or inherited
status. Ultimately, at their core, is the concept that one family
group amasses and maintains potentially undue power over others
through whatever means is at their disposal (in this case money and
political connection), and this is not at all what the Forefathers had
in mind in their Cradle of Liberty.

Having said that, I do have a soft spot for the Rockefellers - were it
not for very altruistic latter generations of that family, we would
have neither Acadia National Park nor the Jackson Hole district of
Grand Teton National Park - both near and dear to my heart.

Bruce Jensen