To: Robert McKay 

R_>>Yes -- and pretty much the best possible use of the money, since it
R_>>doubled the amount of wealth -- they have the money, and I have a house
R_>>equal in value to the money, a house that did not exist when we started.

R_>Unfortunately, those who would whine that you ought to have given the money
R_>the poor typically subscribe to the nonsensical zero sum theory
R_>- they hold that wealth doesn't increase, and therefore when one person
R_>gains wealth someone else of necessity loses wealth (it's interesting to not
R_>that if you had given the money to the poor, you would have lost wealth;
R_>apparently the loss of wealth is only bad when it happens to the
R_>entitlement-hungry power base that supports such worthless drones as hold to
R_>the zero sum theory).  One wonders if they've ever had a real job...

You're absolutely right.

The same people seem to think we can pay millions to settle lawsuits
and STILL give the same dollars to the poor.

I saw a pamphlet in church telling "How you can defend the Church in
this crisis."

The Church doesn't NEED defending -- that's what caused the crisis in
the first place.  The Church needs to get rid of the defensive-minded,
sweep-it-under-the-rug types and get on with the business of the Church.

R_>It's also worth noting that I have *never* seen someone who wants anyone wit
R_>wealth to give it to the poor who is himself showing the signs of voluntary
R_>privation.  Quite the contrary - they're mighty well-fed people.  Indeed, al
R_>of them seem to have more wealth in their possession than I've ever dreamed
R_>having.  Kind of makes you go hmmm...

Liberals are people who make rules for OTHER people to follow.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5