t wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:27:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold.
First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't
disappoint.

"Elitist". Leadership or rule by an elite.

"Elite". The best or most skilled members of a group.


and you were fussing at others over definitions of terms. So, let's be
precise:

From the American heritage dictionary:
é·lit·ism
NOUN: 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or
groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority,
as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 2a. The sense of
entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or
domination by such a group or class.
OTHER FORMS: e·litist €”ADJECTIVE & NOUN

"Elitist" is one who considers himself to be a member of the elite, which
is not necessarily the same thing as being elite.



Of course I want the best possible people to run the country. I am
sorry if you disagree.


Yet you support those who want to punish them when they are in the private
sector.




.... snip


I'm no longer going to bother arguing with you. Your mind is closed.
You ask for proof and when it is presented with you, you simply
indulge in the same tired, reflexive rhetoric.

Why?

Because


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!


Proof? What proof are you talking about?

That, based upon your readings, Obama can't possibly be a marxist or
socialist?

OK, fine Tom, Obama is not a Marxist or socialist, the rest of us were
wrong. He's a free market capitalist who advocates raising taxes on those
who succeed (the private sector elite per your definition above), taking
the fruits of their labor and re-distributing that wealth to those who
haven't. That he will benefit politically from those to whom he bestows
this "largesse" I'm sure isn't even in the equation. He's not a socialist
even though he advocates nationalizing 1/7 of the US economy by
nationalizing health care. I don't know what the rest of us were thinking.

Oh, and he supports the second amendment,too. Just ask him. Pay no
attention to the fact that he has said, "I am consistently on the record as
opposing concealed carry" Chicago Tribune April 27, 2007
Has stated, "...just because you have an individual right does not mean
that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that
right" 2008 Philelphia primary debate. Has stated, "I'll continue to be in
favor of handgun registration requirements and licensing requirements for
training." Chicago Defender, July 5, 2001. Forget the fact that he voted
to allow prosecution of citizens who use a firearm for self-defense in the
home (Illinois SB 2165 3/25/04). But he supports the second amendment and
his followers should get in peoples' faces and let them know that (recent
campaign appearance).






--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough