True Heroes

The news of signing Men's Mid Nike Dunk SB Shoes spreads formally, fan clap and cheer, overjoyed all without exception with the masses of shoes as the legendary superstar of slide Eric Koston, wait, see Koston sign editions of SB fight what like is shoes can. As everyone knows, one shoes from designing to produce, take time consuming quite some time, believe until fund this Eric Koston name P Discount Women's Low Nike Dunk SB Shoes remium low to help luxurious to put out, all sorts of tribulation and agony will all be cleared off. NBA fight shoes king global exclusive honor expose the new product once, we get detailed, exquisite information and picture now last month, share with everybody as soon as possible. As drawn, Discount Men's Low Nike Dunk SB Shoes for getting blue vamp purely, worthy of, line with metal silvery hook mark, bottom car line and hook are marked and inlaid the edge in inside Cheap Women's High Nike Dunk SB Shoes, China, also intersperse red. Bottom of being getting white finally and grow bottom outside the glue, until very striking appearance to vie for eyes add one silk classical elegance even more originally. Because the first picture exposed reveals the hook is marked golden for metal, does not know whether this pair seen now is the last finished product.

These are thick leather Discount Women's Muks Boots of vintage and monk of New Zealand. In order to formate, strengthen plate fish, boot is light to dehumidify underskirt coke. Clever with the zipper in a section of sides and a deep elasticated detailed comfort of cloth of the triangle. The supreme girth is 2-3 centimetres on the height, 37 centimetre from highest layer Mukluk Boots it is the heel question inlcuding qualities of we of 43 centimetres getting regarding the ones that measure are backward more in Discount Women's Muks Boots probably Guarantee, advanced quality, if you find them again, we are satisfied with the contract, we will return.

In the town of Eindhoven, in the south of the Netherlands, there is a statue of Frits Philips:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f...

and one of Anton Philips, his father

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0...

But our school system quit teaching this kind of story long ago, and it isn't to our credit that we let it happen.

Now you can sit in the midst of the product of our education system and hear them chant, "We gotta kill capitalism".

I'm sympathetic to what you say, but when I think back to when I was a kid, my facility with abstract concepts was pretty limited, and I was much more attracted to adventure, danger, monsters, feats of skill and strength, fearlessness, elaborate machines, etc.--and by a certain age, the opposite sex. Sports, war, power, and intrigue simply have wider appeal.

I had three older brothers, each spaced 2 years apart. From my earliest memory reading was the order of the day. I didn't see a TV until I was 14, thank God.

I can't tell you how many biographical stories I read about people like Mr. Tata, Andrew Carnegie for one example. In those days an industrialist like Carnegie was considered a hero (libraries all across America were his giving back), unlike today when his memory is reviled by socialist idiots.

With those 3 older brothers I not only read about heros, I lived the adventure, danger, monsters, feats of skill and strength, fearlessness, and elaborate experiments with explosives, weapons, and architecture. In the country outside of Austin, and in the Sonora deserts kids can do anything damn thing they pleased and if they didn't kill themselves, oh well. The learning experiences were tremendous.

But that is by-the-by, instead of singing praises to a man who only has the color of his skin as a qualification, if the little kiddies were taught about people like Tata and Carnegie perhaps they would grow up with their heads screwed on straight instead of becoming little Nazis or little Red Pioneers.

"libraries all across America were his giving back."

Why what did Carnegie steal that he feels the need to 'give back'. Wasn't his cheap steel 'giving enough'?

Are you competing with muirgeo for the stupidity award?

Carnegie could not consume all his wealth, so what was left for an old man to do with it?

Why? Carnegie wasn't a thief hence he had no to duty to 'give back'. This guy puts it better:

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_11/casey...

"My guess is that despite his intelligence, expertise, and generally affable, self-deprecating manner, Buffett is profoundly misanthropic. Like Gates, Buffett has a classic anticapitalistic, limousine-liberal mentality toward money. He says imbecilic things like, "The market system has not worked in terms of poor people" (on a recent "Charlie Rose" show). That matches Bill's incredibly hackneyed and politically correct press conference statement: "We really owe it to society to give back." No, you idiot savant, society — which is largely composed of nonentities who produce no more than they need to survive personally (if that) — owes you a huge debt for your work with computers. I'm just sorry you're not actually worthy.

Many people of great wealth seem uncomfortable with money, a feeling which perhaps underlies their pathological urge to hand it over to the undeserving. Andrew Carnegie was another sufferer: "A man who dies wealthy, dies disgraced." Discomfort with wealth is among the many reasons the Orient will overwhelm the West in the next few generations. Buffett's and Gates' grandchildren may be working as maids and houseboys for the Chinese. A rich Chinese wouldn't dream of leaving his money to a charity, to be dissipated by the do-gooders, world-improvers, socialites, and socialists who almost invariably infest the board of charities."

Actually Gil, I misread your comment, perhaps reading it too quickly, I got the impression somehow that you were suggesting that he had "stolen" his wealth. My apologies.

Sam,

Your first instinct was correct. There is enough ignorance/stupidity wrapped up in Gil's short comment to justify dismissing him, again.

The word steal was the disingenuous toss out by Gil with no real intent to add a thing of value, or even comic relief, to the discussion.

Gil neglected to place a comma after "Why" which may have contributed to my misreading it. He fixed that in his next reply.

His point is that Carnegie gave the world quite a bit as evidenced by his accumulated wealth.

Did you even the -read- link I posted?

* sigh * :(

Sigh, no link just a quote and a sentence.

Oh do elaborate O Wise One! Did you even the link I posted? It's from a Libertarian site, honest!

I never did like the phrase "giving back". As usually used it is literally false, and almost always betrays misguided notions. If it pleases someone to engage in some activity, they should just say so instead of concocting some nonexistent debt.

There is a problem with accumulation of vast wealth.
You can spoil your family if you give it to them, if you indulge in charitable giving, you must be uncomfortable with wealth, etc.
If you invest it, you are liable to make more money, if you give it to the government, it will be wasted, etc.

Perhaps it should all be converted to cash an burnt in a funeral pyre.
That way it would counteract the depredations of the central bank and be a small benefit to all.

To call it another way, you can't take your entitlement to consume with you when you die.

All of that is true. But that does not make it a debt that you should be "giving back".

I agree.