REH wrote:
> As for Soros, I don't believe in the devil.
Neither do I. But belief in a supernatural force of evil is NOT required
to acknowledge the activities of unethical billionaires.
> The problem is systemic.
That's what Predators claim, to exculpate themselves.
But Soros has been convicted in France for insider trading, so it was a lie
that regulations would stop him. Worse, he contested the conviction up to
the European court of human rights, so he doesn't even admit a mistake after
being caught, but invests all energy into escaping punishment (the typical
psychopath reaction). Philanthropist?
> Change the system and the demons are absorbed back into the society as
> tricksters.
Funny that you imply that Soros is a demon -- so while you don't believe
in the devil, you do believe in demons.
> You constantly worry about wealth. But your wealth is about
> money. I worry about competency and significance (my wealth) and money is
> only necessary if I need to buy a Steinway
You're being superficial again. Unfortunately, money (and lack thereof)
often translates to issues of significance -- you should know, because
you were poisoned with lead __for money__. And the whole genocide of
your people happened for money (for predators, ultimately). And your
complaints that the lack of money in the arts is taking away so much
human potential, also points to the connection between money and significance.
To try to paint me as a materialist, just because I point out these things,
is the height of absurdity. I'm not a materialist, but I have learned the
hard way how much materialists destroy human competency and significance.
That's why predators have to be reigned in.
> That's why I'm for socialized healthcare.
Superficial again. "Obamacare" is a scheme by and for billionaires
(to enrich Big Pharma).
> But I don't have to have money as security except for defense from idiots
> who are neurotic obsessive's about things in the market.
...such as Soros?
> As for drugs, people should be free to have control over their own body and
> life. I would legalize them all but put strict rules on abuse and on
> predators who use them to hurt people.
This is a contradiction in terms. The abuse and hurt is inherent to drugs,
because addiction is the opposite of "having control over their own body",
and because all drugs are harmful.
> I would use the same rules urban
> Native Americans had prior to 1492. Using a drug that causes a loss of
> life or the addiction of a child demands a like return from the family of
> the person who caused it. They can either turn the criminal in to be
> executed or the aggrieved family can choose any member from the other family
> to do with as they wish, as settlement of the debt.
How would that work out in practice with today's tobacco & alcohol industries?
Executing all the executives of the tobacco & alcohol companies, or even their
workers, or their shareholders? You'll end up executing Soros & Co. ...
This is in contradiction to your earlier statement that these people are just
taking advantage of the system, in this case: fulfilling a "market demand".
> We didn't have drug
> abuse and we had a very low crime rate. The Europeans messed all of that
> up with their "Prince of Peace" that causes a war every 25 years or so in
> Europe and around the world.
If you don't like "Europeans with their Prince of Peace", then why did you
work in the US Army? Oh, singing for the killers doesn't kill anyone?
Well, the Swiss bankers didn't kill anyone either...
> Finally the problem with prohibition of substances is that unless the
> substance is administered without a person's knowledge, it is a personal
> decision. I believe in responsibility and that people can only evolve if
> they have responsibility for their own decisions.
Again, you're parroting tobacco industry PR and Soros PR of drug legalization.
"Responsibility" is a double lie, because
(1) most users start to use drugs (legal & illegal ones) in early youth,
i.e. years before being adult = able to take responsibility, so
(2) by the time they would be mature enough for a responsible decision,
they're already addicted (the earlier they started with the drug, the
stronger is the addiction), so again they are not free to make the
responsible decision. Especially since the tobacco and alcohol
industries use special additives that maximize addictiveness.
Drugs are yet another example where Predators have to be reigned in
before they destroy society. The lame Orwellian excuse of "responsibility"
(of the user, instead of the drug pushers!) just blames the victims and
intends to perpetuate the profit maximization.
> For example I would have hung all
> of those Swiss bankers that allowed the Nazis to steal from people they were
> killing and hide that wealth Swiss banks. I believe in responsibility.
So you also advocate the hanging of all of those Israeli Leumi bankers and
American bankers who are still today sitting on dormant bank accounts? Then
good luck with the prosecution... (but don't expect help from the WJC)
Guess what, they don't care about ethics in business, they're just interested
in eliminating the substantial competition by Swiss bankers... The current
US Vice President Biden's state of Delaware alone is hoarding much more
black money than Switzerland, and has much less strict regulations, but
of course that's okay because might is right...
If you believe in responsibility, then why do you defend Soros and other
billionaire speculators who drive whole economies into bankruptcy and have
been involved in civil wars? (Even EU commission president Barroso recently
warned that civil wars could break out in the nearly bankrupt southern EU
countries -- as a former PM of Portugal, Barroso should know.)
It's not "the system" -- it's the Predators that mess up the system --
ANY system.
> Not that you SHOULD be responsible but that the universe MAKES us all
> responsible and the only control we have is by avoiding criminal activities
> that cuts back on the retribution that is inevitable.
Your archaic "an eye for an eye" sort of "tribal justice" actually
_distorts_ responsibility, because the tribe of the victim can kill ANY
member of the tribe of the perp, if the perp himself is not found out.
That means, you kill a person that is NOT responsible for the initial crime,
but is completely innocent. This kind of "logic" led to the Holocaust.
Sippenhaft is not justice. This also applies to Gurstein's slurs against
all Swiss, which you didn't object to.
> I don't expect this to work for a small mountain country filled with so many
> different languages and groups. It would probably create a civil war that
> would destroy the place. But my people are mountain people as well.
If the Swiss don't let themselves pit against each other by warring neighbors,
they get smeared as "war profiteers"...
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
