On the contrary. I have no interest in taking money out of the pockets of
the rich and giving it to the poor. I do have an interest in my fellow human
beings, and I would like to think that most people here have enough humanity
to give someone help if they truly need it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:51:09 -0400, DSK said:

Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid,
etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying
goose-stepping igno-fascists such as yourself. This has
nothing to do with what it really means.

A silly argument on both sides. Take a lesson from Humpty Dumpty.

The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words. It's over
whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy. Discussing what the
meaning
of "is" is may generate a great deal of heat, but it generates no light.

I wasn't the one who brought up the definition issue--Jon and Doug did
that all by their lonesomes. You seemed to have had no trouble grasping
the gist of the issue, as I presented it. Jon and Doug obfuscated the
issue with the definition game because they have no valid argument against
my original premise, that redistribution of personal wealth is a concept
loved by the left and despised by those who have achieved a degree of
success by their own lights.

Max