son of sam crash

[houstondan]

anyone have details??



Press Release Source: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Philanthropist and Entrepreneur John Walton Killed in Airplane Crash
Monday June 27, 8:19 pm ET

BENTONVILLE, Ark., June 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- It is with great
sorrow that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., announces the death of John Walton.
A Vietnam War hero, member of the Wal-Mart Board of Directors and
philanthropist, Walton was killed when the ultra-light aircraft he was
piloting crashed shortly after take-off from the Jackson Hole Airport
in Grand Teton National Park. The crash occurred at approximately 1:20
p.m. CDT and the cause has not yet been determined. Walton, 58, was the
aircraft's sole occupant.

dan

[Seth Masia]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/06/27/obit.walton/

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> anyone have details??
>
>
>
> Press Release Source: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
>
> Philanthropist and Entrepreneur John Walton Killed in Airplane Crash
> Monday June 27, 8:19 pm ET
>
> BENTONVILLE, Ark., June 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- It is with great
> sorrow that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., announces the death of John Walton.
> A Vietnam War hero, member of the Wal-Mart Board of Directors and
> philanthropist, Walton was killed when the ultra-light aircraft he was
> piloting crashed shortly after take-off from the Jackson Hole Airport
> in Grand Teton National Park. The crash occurred at approximately 1:20
> p.m. CDT and the cause has not yet been determined. Walton, 58, was the
> aircraft's sole occupant.
>
> dan
>

[Denny]

I am sorry to hear of any pilot buying the farm...
But the vultures will be circling after that crash...
$20B up for grabs in the insane american legal system...
Should be entertaining to watch...

denny

[Gary Drescher]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I am sorry to hear of any pilot buying the farm...
> But the vultures will be circling after that crash...
> $20B up for grabs in the insane american legal system...

Perhaps he left a will.

--Gary

[Denny]

Perhaps he left a will
*********************************************
<picture hysterical laughter from one who has seen wills ground into
puree in a courtroom>....

$20B weighs a lot more than a 2 ounce sheaf of LW&T...

IF <a big if> his estate is iron clad encased in family trusts and
corporations in multiple layers, and the rest of Mr. Sam's inheritees,
of both Sr. and Jr., are all getting a slice big enough to satiate
their appetites, then it will go down quietly... But let there be just
one who feels short changed, and you can bet there will be a decade of
blood splattering on the courtroom walls... A lawyers one third share
of even a small chunk of a $20B estate will have the sharks slashing at
each other to discover that shirt tail relative living in a trailer in
the boonies...

As I said, this will be interesting to watch...

[Gary Drescher]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> IF <a big if> his estate is iron clad encased in family trusts and
> corporations in multiple layers, and the rest of Mr. Sam's inheritees,
> of both Sr. and Jr., are all getting a slice big enough to satiate
> their appetites, then it will go down quietly...

Has it often occurred that a multibillionaire businessperson's will left
room for a legal challenge that wasn't quickly and easily disposed of?

--Gary

[Montblack]

("Gary Drescher" wrote)
>> I am sorry to hear of any pilot buying the farm...
>> But the vultures will be circling after that crash...
>> $20B up for grabs in the insane american legal system...

> Perhaps he left a will.


Another Mormon will?


Montblack

[john smith]

CNN reported this morning that his ex-wife (a judge) had nothing but
nice things to say about the deceased.

[Robert M. Gary]

Hopefully he arrange stuff with his attorneys before hand and has his
assests locked up in trusts for his kids. The liberals of the world get
sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
Robin Hood.

[Gary Drescher]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hopefully he arrange stuff with his attorneys before hand and has his
> assests locked up in trusts for his kids. The liberals of the world get
> sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
> Robin Hood.

Uh, right. I'm sure such estate-tax supporters as Warren Buffett, George
Soros, David Rockefeller Jr., and Bill Gates Sr. "get sick when they see
someone successful".

It's astonishing what bizarre stereotypes some people can convince
themselves are true (assuming you even care if what you say is true).

Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the estate
tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in
which success is based on merit rather than inheritance" (NY Times
interview, Feb. 14, 2001). "Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax 'would
be a terrible mistake,' the equivalent of 'choosing the 2020 Olympic team
by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics.'"

--Gary

[Dave Stadt]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Hopefully he arrange stuff with his attorneys before hand and has his
> > assests locked up in trusts for his kids. The liberals of the world get
> > sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
> > Robin Hood.
>
> Uh, right. I'm sure such estate-tax supporters as Warren Buffett, George
> Soros, David Rockefeller Jr., and Bill Gates Sr. "get sick when they see
> someone successful".
>
> It's astonishing what bizarre stereotypes some people can convince
> themselves are true (assuming you even care if what you say is true).
>
> Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
estate
> tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in
> which success is based on merit rather than inheritance" (NY Times
> interview, Feb. 14, 2001). "Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax
'would
> be a terrible mistake,' the equivalent of 'choosing the 2020 Olympic team
> by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000
Olympics.'"
>
> --Gary

And why should the country be run according to dear old Warren? Far a I
know he gets one vote same as the rest of us. You shot most of your
credibility by including Soros as supporting evidence

[Gary Drescher]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
> And why should the country be run according to dear old Warren? Far a I
> know he gets one vote same as the rest of us. You shot most of your
> credibility by including Soros as supporting evidence

Sorry, you're not following the structure of the discussion. I didn't cite
Buffett's view or Soros's as "supporting evidence" that the estate tax is
correct. I just cited their views (and the similar views of many other
multi-millionaires, billionaires, and multi-billionaires) to demonstrate the
absurdity of Robert's contention that the liberal estate-tax advocates "get
sick when they see someone successful". If Robert wanted to have a
good-faith, civil discussion of the issue, he would have to go to the
trouble of informing himself about the actual arguments and motivations of
the people he disagrees with, instead of trying to caricature them with
baseless insults.

--Gary

[Rich Lemert]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The liberals of the world get
> sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
> Robin Hood.
>

I'm sorry, but this statement is crap. Not everyone defines "success"
the same way (i.e. the accumulation of great wealth), but even if you
accept that definition most people I know would applaud the guy's
success - to the extent that he earned it.

The question I would ask, though, is what have his heirs done (other
than have better luck choosing their family) that would justify calling
them "successful"?

[Rich Lemert]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> If Robert wanted to have a
> good-faith, civil discussion of the issue, he would have to go to the
> trouble of informing himself about the actual arguments and motivations of
> the people he disagrees with, instead of trying to caricature them with
> baseless insults.
>

Bravo!

I for one am getting very sick and tired of people on both sides of
the political spectrum lumping everyone that disagrees with them into
a single camp so that they can derisivly dismiss them as "just another
batch of xxxx". If you want to disagree about a policy or a philosophy,
do so based on the merits/demerits of that philosophy. Don't, however,
try to define the opposition's platform because you will be wrong.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
estate
> tax played in promoting economic growth,

Buffet is a good investor but a hore**** economist.

>by helping create a society in
> which success is based on merit rather than inheritance"

So replace it with a society of parsites. Yeah, like socialism was so
successful at creating economic growth!


> (NY Times
> interview, Feb. 14, 2001). "Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax
'would
> be a terrible mistake,' the equivalent of 'choosing the 2020 Olympic team
> by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000
Olympics.'"
>

The same Buffet who praised income tax hikes while paying mostly (90%?) Cap
Gains?

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > Hopefully he arrange stuff with his attorneys before hand and has his
> > > assests locked up in trusts for his kids. The liberals of the world
get
> > > sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
> > > Robin Hood.
> >
> > Uh, right. I'm sure such estate-tax supporters as Warren Buffett, George
> > Soros, David Rockefeller Jr., and Bill Gates Sr. "get sick when they see
> > someone successful".
> >
> > It's astonishing what bizarre stereotypes some people can convince
> > themselves are true (assuming you even care if what you say is true).
> >
> > Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
> estate
> > tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in
> > which success is based on merit rather than inheritance" (NY Times
> > interview, Feb. 14, 2001). "Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax
> 'would
> > be a terrible mistake,' the equivalent of 'choosing the 2020 Olympic
team
> > by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000
> Olympics.'"
> >
> > --Gary
>
> And why should the country be run according to dear old Warren? Far a I
> know he gets one vote same as the rest of us. You shot most of your
> credibility by including Soros as supporting evidence
>

You can be assured that Buffett, Soros, Gates, and Rockefeller will have
very little estate taxes to pay after years and millions of $$ in tax
planners. None of these will pay even a small fraction of the money they
each reaped from the government over the years.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And why should the country be run according to dear old Warren? Far a I
> > know he gets one vote same as the rest of us. You shot most of your
> > credibility by including Soros as supporting evidence
>
> Sorry, you're not following the structure of the discussion. I didn't cite
> Buffett's view or Soros's as "supporting evidence" that the estate tax is
> correct. I just cited their views (and the similar views of many other
> multi-millionaires, billionaires, and multi-billionaires) to demonstrate
the
> absurdity of Robert's contention that the liberal estate-tax advocates
"get
> sick when they see someone successful".

Other than theit own?

> If Robert wanted to have a
> good-faith, civil discussion of the issue, he would have to go to the
> trouble of informing himself about the actual arguments and motivations of
> the people he disagrees with,

He said it in an awkward fashion, but their motives are belied by the their
ACTIONS.

> instead of trying to caricature them with
> baseless insults.

Not baseless, just awkward.

[Matt Barrow]

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The liberals of the world get
> > sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
> > Robin Hood.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but this statement is crap. Not everyone defines "success"
> the same way (i.e. the accumulation of great wealth), but even if you
> accept that definition most people I know would applaud the guy's
> success - to the extent that he earned it.
>
> The question I would ask, though, is what have his heirs done (other
> than have better luck choosing their family) that would justify calling
> them "successful"?

Turned the $4 billion company into a $14 billion company.

[Aluckyguess]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> > ups.com...
>> > > Hopefully he arrange stuff with his attorneys before hand and has his
>> > > assests locked up in trusts for his kids. The liberals of the world
> get
>> > > sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
>> > > Robin Hood.
>> >
>> > Uh, right. I'm sure such estate-tax supporters as Warren Buffett,
>> > George
>> > Soros, David Rockefeller Jr., and Bill Gates Sr. "get sick when they
>> > see
>> > someone successful".
>> >
>> > It's astonishing what bizarre stereotypes some people can convince
>> > themselves are true (assuming you even care if what you say is true).
>> >
>> > Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
>> estate
>> > tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in
>> > which success is based on merit rather than inheritance" (NY Times
>> > interview, Feb. 14, 2001). "Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax
>> 'would
>> > be a terrible mistake,' the equivalent of 'choosing the 2020 Olympic
> team
>> > by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000
>> Olympics.'"
>> >
>> > --Gary
>>
>> And why should the country be run according to dear old Warren? Far a I
>> know he gets one vote same as the rest of us. You shot most of your
>> credibility by including Soros as supporting evidence
>>
>
> You can be assured that Buffett, Soros, Gates, and Rockefeller will have
> very little estate taxes to pay after years and millions of $$ in tax
> planners. None of these will pay even a small fraction of the money they
> each reaped from the government over the years.
>

I am sure they have all payed more than thier fare share of taxes.
If you have ever made any real money (six digits or more) Its hard to keep
Uncle sam thinks he deserves as much as you did working for it. Its bizare.
>
>
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
> estate
>> tax played in promoting economic growth,
>
> Buffet is a good investor but a hore**** economist.

My point was not necessarily to endorse his economic views, but rather to
cite him and the other billionaires I mentioned as examples of estate-tax
advocates who obviously do not "get sick when they see someone successful".

>> by helping create a society in
>> which success is based on merit rather than inheritance"
>
> So replace it with a society of parsites. Yeah, like socialism was so
> successful at creating economic growth!

Hm, so parasitism occurs not when some people are arbitrarily rich by
aristocratic birthright, but rather when a slightly leveler at-birth playing
field makes the process slightly more dependent on an individual's effort
and ability. I'm glad we cleared that up.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
> > estate
> >> tax played in promoting economic growth,
> >
> > Buffet is a good investor but a hore**** economist.
>
> My point was not necessarily to endorse his economic views, but rather to
> cite him and the other billionaires I mentioned as examples of estate-tax
> advocates who obviously do not "get sick when they see someone
successful".
>
> >> by helping create a society in
> >> which success is based on merit rather than inheritance"
> >
> > So replace it with a society of parsites. Yeah, like socialism was so
> > successful at creating economic growth!
>
> Hm, so parasitism occurs not when some people are arbitrarily rich by
> aristocratic birthright, but rather when a slightly leveler at-birth
playing
> field makes the process slightly more dependent on an individual's effort
> and ability. I'm glad we cleared that up.

We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

We HAVE had blatant parasitism, though. And you can count on about one or
two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two generations.

Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it, or
who they leave it to.

Glad we've cleared THAT up.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > So replace it with a society of parsites. Yeah, like socialism was so
> > successful at creating economic growth!
> >
> Hm, so parasitism occurs not when some people are arbitrarily rich by
> aristocratic birthright, but rather when a slightly leveler at-birth
> playing
> field makes the process slightly more dependent on an individual's effort
> and ability. I'm glad we cleared that up.

We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

Still going off on a tangent I see. Odd, isn't it, that the four wealth men
you mention are likely going to pay peanuts in estate taxes, what with theri
foundations, shelters...

Wanna bet how many of their executors pay out 75% or more?

We HAVE had blatant parasitism, though. And you can count on about one or
two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two generations.

Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it, or
who they leave it to.

Glad we've cleared THAT up.

And BTW
http://www.poorandstupid.com/2005_06_19_chronArchive.asp#111936529591024018

[Dave Stadt]

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The liberals of the world get
> > sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
> > Robin Hood.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but this statement is crap. Not everyone defines "success"
> the same way (i.e. the accumulation of great wealth), but even if you
> accept that definition most people I know would applaud the guy's
> success - to the extent that he earned it.
>
> The question I would ask, though, is what have his heirs done (other
> than have better luck choosing their family) that would justify calling
> them "successful"?

So to follow your line of thinking every successful business that is started
should be closed when the founder goes west to prevent his/her heirs from
benefiting from dad's success.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.
>
> We HAVE had blatant parasitism, though. And you can count on about one or
> two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two generations.
>
> Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it, or
> who they leave it to.

Yep, if somebody makes something all by himself, I tend to think of it
as solely "his" also. The thing is, nobody ever makes a *fortune* all
by himself. His doing so depends on the laws and infrastructure
within which he works, other people, and very often the government.
The "rail barons", as an obvious example, got rich because they were
the people the govnerment chose to have build the railway, and gave
the land to put it on. That's a really far cry from doing something
*yourself*.

We live in a complex, highly entangled, society.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Gary Drescher]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
>> The question I would ask, though, is what have his heirs done (other
>> than have better luck choosing their family) that would justify calling
>> them "successful"?
>
> So to follow your line of thinking every successful business that is
> started
> should be closed when the founder goes west to prevent his/her heirs from
> benefiting from dad's success.

Not necessarily. It's possible to acknowledge a variety of competing factors
that legitimately bear on ownership and inheritance, and accordingly to
forge a policy that compromises among them--a policy of taxation, for
example, that preserves incentives but still opposes the unlimited
cross-generational accumulation of wealth by some people (an accumulation
that can occur regardless of the heirs' merit) while other people, due to
the circumstances *they* inherit, face almost insurmountable obstacles from
birth (again regardless of their merit). Inheritance (like anything else)
needn't be all or nothing.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

Really? In 1789, even the right to vote was limited by law to white males
and (in most states) to land owners--that is, a purely hereditary criterion,
a purely congenital criterion, and a largely hereditary criterion that
effectively established an aristocratic class of voters. The principle of
one person, one vote (regardless of hereditary factors) was not even
nominally established until 1924, and remained largely fictitious until
1965.

> Odd, isn't it, that the four wealth men
> you mention are likely going to pay peanuts in estate taxes, what with
> theri
> foundations, shelters...

Do you, by any chance, have any factual substantiation for this claim? Or
any explanation of how it would even be relevant to the point I was making
about those individuals? The point, you may recall, was simply that they are
prominent examples of estate-tax supporters who (contrary to an earlier
claim) are obviously not "sickened" by the prospect of financial success.

> And you can count on about one or
> two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two
> generations.

Do you have any substantiation for *that* claim? (Unless you define
"fortune" as wealth so extreme that it is posessed only by the wealthiest
handful of families, in which case your claim becomes a mere tautology.)

> Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it, or
> who they leave it to.

First, as David's post pointed out, vast wealth isn't acquired without
substantial public assistance of various sorts. But let's put that aside,
and pretend that everyone really does earn all the wealth their enterprises
accumulate. I still don't agree that an absolutist right to retain all of
one's earnings is morally or logically defensible (though *some* substantial
right to benefit from the fruits of one's labors is certainly important).
The philosophical basis for (some form of) property rights is an important
matter that I'd be glad to engage in a serious discussion of, if you're
interested.

But it's also tangential to your claim that an estate tax that redistributes
a portion of a family fortune (in order to give others more of a chance to
work to develop *their* talents and contributions to society) thereby
promotes "parasitism". On the contrary, even if the wealthy *did* have an
absolute moral right to give away their (entire, untaxed) wealth even to
completely idle, undeserving heirs, that would just mean that they have a
right to promote (aristocratic) parasitism at the expense of a more
merit-based system.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> > We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.
>
> Really? In 1789, even the right to vote was limited by law to white males
> and (in most states) to land owners--that is, a purely hereditary
criterion,
> a purely congenital criterion, and a largely hereditary criterion that
> effectively established an aristocratic class of voters. The principle of
> one person, one vote (regardless of hereditary factors) was not even
> nominally established until 1924, and remained largely fictitious until
> 1965.

First, it had noting to do with aristocratic birthright.
Second, most everyone owned land.
Third, there was no aristocracy (see Jefferson's comments about aristocracy
Fourth, you again go off on a tangent after shoving your foot in your mouth
(like with George Patterson reciting state laws).
Fifth, you're full of ****.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
> >> The question I would ask, though, is what have his heirs done (other
> >> than have better luck choosing their family) that would justify calling
> >> them "successful"?
> >
> > So to follow your line of thinking every successful business that is
> > started
> > should be closed when the founder goes west to prevent his/her heirs
from
> > benefiting from dad's success.
>
> Not necessarily. It's possible to acknowledge a variety of competing
factors
> that legitimately bear on ownership and inheritance, and accordingly to
> forge a policy that compromises among them--a policy of taxation, for
> example, that preserves incentives but still opposes the unlimited
> cross-generational accumulation of wealth by some people (an accumulation
> that can occur regardless of the heirs' merit) while other people, due to
> the circumstances *they* inherit, face almost insurmountable obstacles
from
> birth (again regardless of their merit). Inheritance (like anything else)
> needn't be all or nothing.

Did you read Luskin's article?

I didn't think so.

Parasite.

[Matt Barrow]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > writes:
>
> > We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.
> >
> > We HAVE had blatant parasitism, though. And you can count on about one
or
> > two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two
generations.
> >
> > Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it,
or
> > who they leave it to.
>
> Yep, if somebody makes something all by himself, I tend to think of it
> as solely "his" also. The thing is, nobody ever makes a *fortune* all
> by himself. His doing so depends on the laws and infrastructure
> within which he works, other people, and very often the government.

So the restrains work for him...christ-on-a-bike,

> The "rail barons", as an obvious example, got rich because they were
> the people the govnerment chose to have build the railway, and gave
> the land to put it on. That's a really far cry from doing something
> *yourself*.

Try this example for your railroad: Jay Gould vs all his competitors.


> We live in a complex, highly entangled, society.

Full of people that haven't a clue what the hell their talking about.

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Fifth, you're full of ****.
> ...
> Parasite.

I find that people who rely on name-calling instead of civil, informed,
rational debate do so because they've discovered that their views do not
thrive in the latter sort of contest.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Richard RIley" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
> :Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
estate
> :tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in
> :which success is based on merit rather than inheritance" (NY Times
> :interview, Feb. 14, 2001). "Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax
'would
> :be a terrible mistake,' the equivalent of 'choosing the 2020 Olympic
team
> :by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000
Olympics.'"
> :
>
> Mr Buffet has also said that he would - if he were convinced it was
> possible - invest $1 billion in a time machine so he could go back and
> kill Orville and Wilbur before they invented the airplane.
>
> Apparently he's still bitter about loosing money in American Airlines.

He supported INCREASING income taxes (less that 10% of HIS income) and he
supported cutting Capital Gains taxes.

He's a massive hypocrite.

[George Patterson]

Richard RIley wrote:
>
> Mr Buffet has also said that he would - if he were convinced it was
> possible - invest $1 billion in a time machine so he could go back and
> kill Orville and Wilbur before they invented the airplane.

He would've had to kill hundreds of other people to keep us out of the air.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Dave Stadt]

"Richard RIley" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
> :Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
estate
> :tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in
> :which success is based on merit rather than inheritance" (NY Times
> :interview, Feb. 14, 2001). "Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax
'would
> :be a terrible mistake,' the equivalent of 'choosing the 2020 Olympic
team
> :by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000
Olympics.'"
> :
>
> Mr Buffet has also said that he would - if he were convinced it was
> possible - invest $1 billion in a time machine so he could go back and
> kill Orville and Wilbur before they invented the airplane.
>
> Apparently he's still bitter about loosing money in American Airlines.

And he apparently feels he is above the law and committing multiple murders
to better his financial well being is justified. Not the kind of person we
should be listening to about anything.

[Gary Drescher]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>> Mr Buffet has also said that he would - if he were convinced it was
>> possible - invest $1 billion in a time machine so he could go back and
>> kill Orville and Wilbur before they invented the airplane.
>>
>> Apparently he's still bitter about loosing money in American Airlines.
>
> And he apparently feels he is above the law and committing multiple
> murders
> to better his financial well being is justified. Not the kind of person
> we
> should be listening to about anything.

Apparently you're willing to draw such a conclusion about someone based on
nothing more than a rumor. Do you have a scintilla of evidence that he ever
said any such thing? (He did once quip that investors would have saved a lot
of money if someone had shot down the plane at Kitty Hawk, but that remark
obviously has a very different tone than the one you're willing to accuse
him of making.)

--Gary

[Dave Stadt]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Mr Buffet has also said that he would - if he were convinced it was
> >> possible - invest $1 billion in a time machine so he could go back and
> >> kill Orville and Wilbur before they invented the airplane.
> >>
> >> Apparently he's still bitter about loosing money in American Airlines.
> >
> > And he apparently feels he is above the law and committing multiple
> > murders
> > to better his financial well being is justified. Not the kind of person
> > we
> > should be listening to about anything.
>
> Apparently you're willing to draw such a conclusion about someone based on
> nothing more than a rumor. Do you have a scintilla of evidence that he
ever
> said any such thing? (He did once quip that investors would have saved a
lot
> of money if someone had shot down the plane at Kitty Hawk, but that remark
> obviously has a very different tone than the one you're willing to accuse
> him of making.)
>
> --Gary

The difference is?

[Gary Drescher]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Mr Buffet has also said that he would - if he were convinced it was
>> >> possible - invest $1 billion in a time machine so he could go back and
>> >> kill Orville and Wilbur before they invented the airplane.
>> >>
>> >> Apparently he's still bitter about loosing money in American Airlines.
>> >
>> > And he apparently feels he is above the law and committing multiple
>> > murders
>> > to better his financial well being is justified. Not the kind of
>> > person
>> > we
>> > should be listening to about anything.
>>
>> Apparently you're willing to draw such a conclusion about someone based
>> on
>> nothing more than a rumor. Do you have a scintilla of evidence that he
> ever
>> said any such thing? (He did once quip that investors would have saved a
> lot
>> of money if someone had shot down the plane at Kitty Hawk, but that
>> remark
>> obviously has a very different tone than the one you're willing to accuse
>> him of making.)
>>
>> --Gary
>
> The difference is?

Uh, the difference is between saying in all seriousness that the act should
have been carried out--and that he himself would still do it, if only it
were possible--versus a joke as to what the consequence of the act (or
actually a much lesser act) would have been, but with no advocacy of the act
(and--obviously--no literal belief that the stated consequence would
actually have accrued; no one could seriously believe that a crash of the
Wright brothers' plane would actually have prevented the advent of
aviation).

In other words, it's the difference between harboring a literal desire to
murder (which is what you astonishingly attribute to him) versus harboring a
sense of humor. Does that distinction *really* need to be explained to you?
Has the habit of demonizing people you disagree with become so deeply
ingrained that you will attribute the most outlandish forms of evil to them
without a shred of evidence?

--Gary

[John Galban]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> And he apparently feels he is above the law and committing multiple murders
> to better his financial well being is justified. Not the kind of person we
> should be listening to about anything.

Worry not! Orville and Wilbur are dead. They can't be murdered.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dave Stadt]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > And he apparently feels he is above the law and committing multiple
murders
> > to better his financial well being is justified. Not the kind of person
we
> > should be listening to about anything.
>
> Worry not! Orville and Wilbur are dead. They can't be murdered.

I'm not sure Warren knows that. He's a pretty goofey character.

> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>