f95736e0
f01156ce
XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore
From: thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com
On Mar 13, 1:13 pm, Tim <8.tim.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Mar, 08:56, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher" wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 5:58 pm, Stan Pierce wrote:
>
> > > On 13/03/2013 3:15 AM, Hell Stomper wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 11:35 am, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
> > > > Philosopher" wrote:
> > > >> On Mar 11, 11:16 pm, jigo wrote:
>
> > > >>> His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>
> > > >>>> On Mar 11, 1:09 am, Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On Mar 10, 6:21 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Humble
> > > >>>>> Philosopher" wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> There are courts. One of the problems with corruption, of course,
is
> > > >>>>> that it's easy to talk about. Not just in government but in any
walk
> > > >>>>> of life. Just about any rich person these days is presumed corrupt,
> > > >>>>> but showing the actual corrupt deed is harder. There are systems in
> > > >>>>> place that allow one to bring charges of corruption, to present
> > > >>>>> evidence and to have that tested.
>
> > > >>>> And what happens when they are caught red-handed? They serve 20
years
> > > >>>> or 2 years? Is all their property confiscated and his family left to
> > > >>>> struggle?
>
> > > >>>>>> They are certainly lower than terrorists to me.
>
> > > >>>>> That's plain stupid. Moral equivalence is always a dodgy subject,
and
> > > >>>>> weighing one crime against another is difficult, but you can hardly
> > > >>>>> equate a corrupt businessman or even government official to the
guys
> > > >>>>> who flew planes into the WTC or planted bombs in Church Square.
>
> > > >>>> Oh sure I do. A greedy banker is worse than a terrorist. A terrorist
> > > >>>> often immolates himself in the process while a corrupt greedy banker
> > > >>>> is more of a selfish pig. They do more damage to society --100 times
> > > >>>> more-- than terrorists. We put an orange suit on them and ship them
to
> > > >>>> Guantanamo.
>
> > > >>> Well, I agree with the PP that they're not equivalent crimes, but we
> > > >>> would not be the object of such terrorism if we didn't get involved
in
> > > >>> other peoples' conflicts in the first place. And it is politicians
who
> > > >>> are responsible for that. As Harry Browne wrote after 9/11--
> > > >>> "Stand back and ask how this could have happened. Ask how a
prosperous
> > > >>> country isolated by two oceans could have so embroiled itself in
other
> > > >>> people's business that someone would want to do us harm. Even sitting
> > > >>> in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist
attacks,
> > > >>> because the Swiss mind their own business."
> > > >>> --Harry Browne
>
> > > >> True, there's a CAUSE & EFFECT RELATIONSHIP.
>
> > > >> I'd also argue that corruption doesn't happen in a vacuum. The system
> > > >> must be permissive, often accompanied by countries that harbor them
> > > >> and their money. It's a network that takes POLITICAL WILL & AGGRESSIVE
> > > >> ACTION to dismantle.
>
> > > > In other words, take money from some at the point of a gun and give it
> > > > to those YOU see as more deserving?
>
> > > Excuse please. That doesn't neccesarily follow. Political Will and
> > > Aggressive Action doesn't have to be a redistibuting mechanism. But it
> > > does mean violence or the certainty of it at some point to stop
> > > corruption.
>
> > > The Christian mind never contemplated corruption on the scale that has
> > > evolved since Banking developed so never dwelled on it in sermons. It
> > > never became a point of contemplation by church leaders and early
> > > writers and so never got political traction. There has to be a view of
> > > right and wrong to get a law passed.
>
> > > Laws to control something vaguely understood were never demanded so
> > > never implimented. Banking corruption is a modern phenomenom created
> > > mainly by Keynes...but with good intentions.
>
> > The Christian mind is not capable of understanding the modern world.
> > It can not understand CLIMATE CHANGE or PREDATORY LENDING. It's even
> > incapable to apply the metaphor of Jesus charging at the money
> > changers.
>
> > The only hope is the new Pope. (it rhymes, doesn't it?)
>
> it sure does monkey... but it doesn't jive... here is a perfect
> example of you shooting your revolution in the foot... so then, the
> monkey mind understands the modern world, such big and important words
> like climate change and predatory lending and the metaphor of Jesus
> and the money changers... yet, he puts his hope in a symbol... and
> symbol that has existed since even before monkeys.
>
> Lucifer
Sorry that you are NOT fulfilling your role. You are supposed to get
every IRONY that I throw at the world... "the hope is the Pope." Yeah
sure, the Pope preaches against CORRUPTION and the Christians --some 1
billion of them-- turn against corruption. I'm sorry to say it won't
happen. The Pope may preach against war or pray for peace, but nothing
deeper. We won't expect neither him nor the Christians to fix the
world.
That's why we are here, right?
Yes, "x" got it right. That's his pen name anyway though I see nothing
to be ashamed of. We are all supposed to be a pope, and have our own
mind. We know about the CAUSE & EFFECT LAW, which explains WHY we got
so much corruption. In other words, we should be preventing
corruption, war and mosquito bites before it's too late. Have you
noticed corruption is like malaria? That could be the topic for some
Sunday preaching. But that's not my job anyway.
Is the revolution still alive?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
