Discussion:
How come democracy is more popular among the rich?
Add Reply
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-21 17:30:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

FUN & COLORFUL
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio

THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

#BikeForPeace #HammockForPeace
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-21 17:50:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
----
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to conccern themselves with
the future.

Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you don't see him
favouring democracy.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-21 17:57:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
----
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to conccern themselves with
the future.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you don't see him
favouring democracy.
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Kevrob
2018-05-21 18:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Representative government, constitutional government, civil rights:
these were historically popular among the middle class, not necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it was the
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against royal
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class -
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the local
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to taxes,
without which the king found it difficult to do things like fight
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the great feudal
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the power of
the purse."
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to conccern themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then eliminated,
but those who own property tend to be more politically involved,
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose when things
aren't managed well.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so that
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are analogous
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal times.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's why
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free marketer."
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking lot, he'd
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your property
under "eminent domain."

Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a constitutional
order where those in the minority have their rights protected by the
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional monarchy,"
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.

"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.

Kevin R
TT Liams
2018-05-21 22:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey,
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:50:20 PM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain
popularity.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
these were historically popular among the middle class, not
necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it was the
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against royal
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class -
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the local
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to taxes,
without which the king found it difficult to do things like fight
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the great feudal
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the power of
the purse."
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to conccern themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then eliminated,
but those who own property tend to be more politically involved,
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose when things
aren't managed well.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so that
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are analogous
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal times.
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's why
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free marketer."
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking lot, he'd
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your property
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a constitutional
order where those in the minority have their rights protected by the
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional monarchy,"
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.
Kevin R
Thx for the education, Kevin.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-21 23:45:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey,
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:50:20 PM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve
the truth
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political
system that
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being
justified by
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain
popularity.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind
of a paradox.
these were historically popular among the middle class, not
necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it was the
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against royal
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class -
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the local
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to taxes,
without which the king found it difficult to do things like fight
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the great feudal
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the power of
the purse."
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to conccern
themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then eliminated,
but those who own property tend to be more politically involved,
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose when things
aren't managed well.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you
don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so that
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are analogous
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal times.
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's why
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free marketer."
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking lot, he'd
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your property
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a constitutional
order where those in the minority have their rights protected by the
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional monarchy,"
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.
Kevin R
Thx for the education, Kevin.
Technically speaking, this would be a plutocracy/kleptocracy, but we can always be complacent with Russia being worse.
TT Liams
2018-05-22 21:04:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 21 May 2018 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Mon, 21 May 2018 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise
TibetanMonkey,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:50:20 PM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve
the truth
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
of God in order to replace the old and outdated
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system that
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being
justified by
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain
popularity.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind
of a paradox.
these were historically popular among the middle class, not
necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it was the
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against royal
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class -
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the local
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to taxes,
without which the king found it difficult to do things like fight
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the great feudal
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the power of
the purse."
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to
conccern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then
eliminated,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but those who own property tend to be more politically involved,
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose when things
aren't managed well.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you
don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so that
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are
analogous
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal times.
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's why
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free
marketer."
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking lot, he'd
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your property
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a
constitutional
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
order where those in the minority have their rights protected by the
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional
monarchy,"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.
Kevin R
Thx for the education, Kevin.
Technically speaking, this would be a plutocracy/kleptocracy, but
we can always be complacent with Russia being worse.

Why do you say that???
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 22:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TT Liams
On Mon, 21 May 2018 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Mon, 21 May 2018 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise
TibetanMonkey,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:50:20 PM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and
serve
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the truth
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
of God in order to replace the old and outdated
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system that
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern
day
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without
being
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
justified by
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain
popularity.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor.
Kind
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
of a paradox.
Representative government, constitutional government, civil
these were historically popular among the middle class, not
necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it was
the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against royal
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class -
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the
local
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to taxes,
without which the king found it difficult to do things like
fight
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the great
feudal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the
power of
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the purse."
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to
conccern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then
eliminated,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but those who own property tend to be more politically involved,
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose when
things
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
aren't managed well.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you
don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so that
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are
analogous
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal times.
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's why
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free
marketer."
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking lot,
he'd
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your property
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a
constitutional
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
order where those in the minority have their rights protected
by the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional
monarchy,"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.
Kevin R
Thx for the education, Kevin.
Technically speaking, this would be a plutocracy/kleptocracy, but
we can always be complacent with Russia being worse.
Why do you say that???
Because all I see is massive corruption. It's convenient to find it in other places.
TT Liams
2018-05-22 23:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
On Mon, 21 May 2018 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Mon, 21 May 2018 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise
TibetanMonkey,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:50:20 PM UTC-4, Malcolm
McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:12:36 AM UTC-4, aaa
A newly established political system has to follow and
serve
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our
modern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
day
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
political
system established itself to gain legitimacy.
Without
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
being
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain
popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the
poor.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Kind
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
of a paradox.
Representative government, constitutional government, civil
these were historically popular among the middle class, not
necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it was
the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against royal
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class -
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the
local
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to taxes,
without which the king found it difficult to do things like
fight
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the great
feudal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the
power of
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the purse."
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to
conccern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then
eliminated,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but those who own property tend to be more politically
involved,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose when
things
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
aren't managed well.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you
don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so that
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are
analogous
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal times.
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's why
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free
marketer."
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking lot,
he'd
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your
property
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a
constitutional
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
order where those in the minority have their rights
protected
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
by the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional
monarchy,"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.
Kevin R
Thx for the education, Kevin.
Technically speaking, this would be a plutocracy/kleptocracy, but
we can always be complacent with Russia being worse.
Why do you say that???
Because all I see is massive corruption. It's convenient to find it in other places.
Mostly it's the Republican's that are corrupt & Trump is the worse
one.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-23 01:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TT Liams
On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
On Mon, 21 May 2018 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey,
Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Mon, 21 May 2018 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise
TibetanMonkey,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:50:20 PM UTC-4, Malcolm
McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:12:36 AM UTC-4, aaa
A newly established political system has to follow
and
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
serve
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our
modern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
day
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
political
system established itself to gain legitimacy.
Without
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
being
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would
gain
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the
poor.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Kind
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
of a paradox.
Representative government, constitutional government, civil
these were historically popular among the middle class, not
necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it
was
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against
royal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class
-
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the
local
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to
taxes,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
without which the king found it difficult to do things like
fight
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the
great
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
feudal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the
power of
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the purse."
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to
conccern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then
eliminated,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but those who own property tend to be more politically
involved,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose
when
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
things
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
aren't managed well.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and
you
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so
that
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are
analogous
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal
times.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's
why
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free
marketer."
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking
lot,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
he'd
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your
property
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a
constitutional
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
order where those in the minority have their rights
protected
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
by the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional
monarchy,"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that
Putin
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal
rule.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Kevin R
Thx for the education, Kevin.
Technically speaking, this would be a plutocracy/kleptocracy,
but
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
we can always be complacent with Russia being worse.
Why do you say that???
Because all I see is massive corruption. It's convenient to find it
in other places.
Mostly it's the Republican's that are corrupt & Trump is the worse
one.
I think it's a bipartisan issue. Otherwise the Democrats would expose the Republicans.
%
2018-05-23 01:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
On Mon, 21 May 2018 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey,
Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Mon, 21 May 2018 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise
TibetanMonkey,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:50:20 PM UTC-4, Malcolm
McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:12:36 AM UTC-4, aaa
A newly established political system has to follow
and
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
serve
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our
modern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
day
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
political
system established itself to gain legitimacy.
Without
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
being
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would
gain
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the
poor.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Kind
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
of a paradox.
Representative government, constitutional government, civil
these were historically popular among the middle class, not
necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it
was
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against
royal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class
-
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the
local
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to
taxes,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
without which the king found it difficult to do things like
fight
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the
great
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
feudal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the
power of
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the purse."
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to
conccern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then
eliminated,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but those who own property tend to be more politically
involved,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose
when
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
things
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
aren't managed well.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and
you
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so
that
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are
analogous
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal
times.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's
why
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free
marketer."
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking
lot,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
he'd
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your
property
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a
constitutional
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
order where those in the minority have their rights
protected
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
by the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional
monarchy,"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that
Putin
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal
rule.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Kevin R
Thx for the education, Kevin.
Technically speaking, this would be a plutocracy/kleptocracy,
but
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
we can always be complacent with Russia being worse.
Why do you say that???
Because all I see is massive corruption. It's convenient to find it
in other places.
Mostly it's the Republican's that are corrupt & Trump is the worse
one.
I think it's a bipartisan issue. Otherwise the Democrats would expose the Republicans.
they can't do that because they all work together
TT Liams
2018-05-23 20:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
On Mon, 21 May 2018 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT), "Wise
TibetanMonkey,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Mon, 21 May 2018 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise
TibetanMonkey,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:50:20 PM UTC-4, Malcolm
McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:12:36 AM UTC-4, aaa
A newly established political system has to
follow
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
and
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
serve
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated
political
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our
modern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
day
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
political
system established itself to gain legitimacy.
Without
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
being
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would
gain
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the
poor.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Kind
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
of a paradox.
Representative government, constitutional government, civil
these were historically popular among the middle class, not
necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it
was
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against
royal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class
-
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the
local
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to
taxes,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
without which the king found it difficult to do things like
fight
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the
great
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
feudal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the
power of
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
the purse."
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to
conccern
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then
eliminated,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but those who own property tend to be more politically
involved,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose
when
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
things
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
aren't managed well.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and
you
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so
that
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are
analogous
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
to the nobility who held most of the land back in
feudal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
times.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think
that's
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
why
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free
marketer."
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his
parking
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
lot,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
he'd
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your
property
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a
constitutional
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
order where those in the minority have their rights
protected
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
by the
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
rule of law. It could be a republic or a
"constitutional
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
monarchy,"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that
Putin
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure
personal
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
rule.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Kevin R
Thx for the education, Kevin.
Technically speaking, this would be a
plutocracy/kleptocracy,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
but
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
we can always be complacent with Russia being worse.
Why do you say that???
Because all I see is massive corruption. It's convenient to find it
in other places.
Mostly it's the Republican's that are corrupt & Trump is the
worse
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by TT Liams
one.
I think it's a bipartisan issue. Otherwise the Democrats would
expose the Republicans.

There trying.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 00:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.
Kevin R
Putin has a much higher approval rating. He may be doing something right or the whole thing is fake.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-22 09:11:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Kevrob
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.
Kevin R
Putin has a much higher approval rating. He may be doing something right or
the whole thing is fake.
Russia's history is very different from ours, and as a result Russians are more
defensive. So it's been easy for Putin to blame everything on The West, and
portray Russia as a fortress surrounded by enemies.

People will put up with a crap ecconomy and any amount of corruption if there
are enemies at the gate. Its a technique that has been well used here too, but
Russian history, and Putin's undouted skill makes it more effective there.

Note that the US has never been invaded, has never fought for survival. (At
least the Eurpopean version of the US). The national trauma of WWII still runs
very deep in the Russian psyche.

And the hostility that Russia feels from us is not without foundation.
Gorbachev and Yeltsin offered us a window of opportunity to bring Russia in
from the cold, but our habit of hostility destroyed that opportunity.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 13:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Putin has a much higher approval rating. He may be doing something right or
the whole thing is fake.
Russia's history is very different from ours, and as a result Russians are more
defensive. So it's been easy for Putin to blame everything on The West, and
portray Russia as a fortress surrounded by enemies.
If America and the UK felt intimidated by Iraq, imagine how Russia feels about NATO. It has been swallowing country after country of the former Soviet bloc until they R really surrounded.

If NATO had dissolved, Russia would probably be different.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 13:36:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Agreed, the rich prefer "managed democracy".
"Managed democracy" gives the people to
think there is democracy in the country.
It gives the UN and the world of policemen in
the UN and other human right agencies to think
there was democracy existed.
On the contrary, the rich prefer not to have democracy,
as it can erode them out of the opportunities to
dominate.
The rich in general prefer "managed democracy." Formally democratic but
functionally autocratic. That is currently America kind of democracy.
Judging by the sympathy the rich have for poor, U would agree that the rich hate democracy.

They only need the poor to lend a hand at voting time.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-22 20:48:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Putin has a much higher approval rating. He may be doing something right or
the whole thing is fake.
Russia's history is very different from ours, and as a result Russians are more
defensive. So it's been easy for Putin to blame everything on The West, and
portray Russia as a fortress surrounded by enemies.
If America and the UK felt intimidated by Iraq, imagine how Russia feels about
NATO. It has been swallowing country after country of the former Soviet bloc
until they R really surrounded.
If NATO had dissolved, Russia would probably be different.
Very different. In charge, in fact.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 22:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Putin has a much higher approval rating. He may be doing something right or
the whole thing is fake.
Russia's history is very different from ours, and as a result Russians are more
defensive. So it's been easy for Putin to blame everything on The West, and
portray Russia as a fortress surrounded by enemies.
If America and the UK felt intimidated by Iraq, imagine how Russia feels about
NATO. It has been swallowing country after country of the former Soviet bloc
until they R really surrounded.
If NATO had dissolved, Russia would probably be different.
Very different. In charge, in fact.
Let me guess: U want Russia to ignore its neighbors joining NATO and surrender all nuclear weapons.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-28 15:42:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
"Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Putin has a much higher approval rating. He may be doing something right or
the whole thing is fake.
Russia's history is very different from ours, and as a result Russians
are
more
defensive. So it's been easy for Putin to blame everything on The West, and
portray Russia as a fortress surrounded by enemies.
If America and the UK felt intimidated by Iraq, imagine how Russia feels about
NATO. It has been swallowing country after country of the former Soviet bloc
until they R really surrounded.
If NATO had dissolved, Russia would probably be different.
Very different. In charge, in fact.
Let me guess: U want Russia to ignore its neighbors joining NATO and surrender
all nuclear weapons.
Under Gorabchev Russia, for a while, looked like they might _join_ NATO.

OF COURSE the former Russian controlled states clamoured to join NATO, because
they knew is was very likely the Russians would return. NATO probably shouldn't
have been so eager to accept.

Hear's the difference: Those nations _chose_ to apply for NATO membership. The
didn't chose to be in the Russian empire.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-28 16:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Let me guess: U want Russia to ignore its neighbors joining NATO and surrender
all nuclear weapons.
Under Gorabchev Russia, for a while, looked like they might _join_ NATO.
OF COURSE the former Russian controlled states clamoured to join NATO, because
they knew is was very likely the Russians would return. NATO probably shouldn't
have been so eager to accept.
Hear's the difference: Those nations _chose_ to apply for NATO membership. The
didn't chose to be in the Russian empire.
The real issue is whether NATO should exist at all. Instead of relying on the opinion of Eastern Europeans, U should be asking Western Europe whether they want to be part of NATO or not. Do a referendum.

NATO 'Should Have Dissolved' Years Ago, But Chose 'Aggressive Expansion' Instead

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201702251051031359-nato-should-have-dissolved/

Who threatens Germany, France or the UK? C'mon, ask the people. Be democratic.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-28 20:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
NATO 'Should Have Dissolved' Years Ago, But Chose 'Aggressive Expansion' Instead
NATO = No Action Talk Only
cold war over
NATO = New Arms To Order
(hey! otherwise won't the defence industries go bust?)
so are you saying that, now
NATO = No Alms, Terminate Oppression
Yeah, and it weakens Russia and Europe in the process.

NATO is bad for people.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-28 21:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
NATO 'Should Have Dissolved' Years Ago, But Chose 'Aggressive Expansion' Instead
NATO = No Action Talk Only
cold war over
NATO = New Arms To Order
(hey! otherwise won't the defence industries go bust?)
so are you saying that, now
NATO = No Alms, Terminate Oppression
Yeah, and it weakens Russia and Europe in the process.
NATO is bad for people.
Unleashing NATO on Afghanistan was an overkill and Eastern Europe was most enthusiastic to participate.

I wonder why.
aaa
2018-05-21 22:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
these were historically popular among the middle class, not necessarily
among the nobility. In the instance of Great Britain, it was the
nobles who asserted their rights and privileges against royal
prerogative, and the empowering of the (upper) middle class -
the burgers, the burgesses, the non-noble landowner and the local
gentry - was done as a way of getting them to assent to taxes,
without which the king found it difficult to do things like fight
wars. Power gradually shifted from the monarch and the great feudal
magnates to the emerging middle class because they had "the power of
the purse."
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to conccern themselves with
the future.
Property qualifications for voting were reduced, then eliminated,
but those who own property tend to be more politically involved,
especially on the local level, as they have more to lose when things
aren't managed well.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you don't see him
favouring democracy.
He's an autocrat. Russia's privatization was botched, so that
resources wound up in the hands of "oligarchs," who are analogous
to the nobility who held most of the land back in feudal times.
Privatizing state enterprise is stealing national property no matter how
you do it. Russians realized their mistake. That's why Yeltsin got Putin
out to change and control the national robbery.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Trump has always been a crony capitalist. I think that's why
he and Putin are simpatico. Trump is not a real "free marketer."
If he wanted your cottage as a driveway into his parking lot, he'd
go ask the Atlantic City politicians to condemn your property
under "eminent domain."
Democracy is a good, but only in subservience to a constitutional
order where those in the minority have their rights protected by the
rule of law. It could be a republic or a "constitutional monarchy,"
but it has to be a real system of enforceable rights.
"The Russian Republic" fails that test, to the extent that Putin
and his cronies have gamed the system to ensure personal rule.
Putin is the one who keeps a tab on Russia's crony capitalism. That is
why the US and EU are furious.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7
2018-05-23 07:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
----
The poor, the _real_ poor, are too busy surviving to conccern themselves with
the future.
Putin's probably now the richests man in the world, and you don't see him
favouring democracy.
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-23 13:07:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-23 14:42:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
They are certainly quite different in some ways. Putin is fit, Trump clearly not. Putin thinks, Trump goes with his gut.

But they both focus on their own power.
Melzzzzz
2018-05-23 14:52:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
They are certainly quite different in some ways. Putin is fit, Trump clearly not. Putin thinks, Trump goes with his gut.
But they both focus on their own power.
Putin is dictator, Trump is not...
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-23 16:53:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
They are certainly quite different in some ways. Putin is fit, Trump clearly not. Putin thinks, Trump goes with his gut.
But they both focus on their own power.
Putin is dictator, Trump is not...
A divided Russia --like America-- may be the last thing Russia needs at this point. I think it could be better and it could be worse, a lot worse. I don't think many people disagree that they got something better than communism.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-23 17:10:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
They are certainly quite different in some ways. Putin is fit, Trump clearly not. Putin thinks, Trump goes with his gut.
But they both focus on their own power.
Putin is dictator, Trump is not...
A divided Russia --like America-- may be the last thing Russia needs at this point. I think it could be better and it could be worse, a lot worse. I don't think many people disagree that they got something better than communism.
They learned the democratic game in 25 years. Maybe they'll get better in 200 years.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-29 15:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 14:07:47 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
They are certainly quite different in some ways. Putin is fit, Trump
clearly not. Putin thinks, Trump goes with his gut.
But they both focus on their own power.
Putin is dictator, Trump is not...
A divided Russia --like America-- may be the last thing Russia needs at this
point. I think it could be better and it could be worse, a lot worse. I don't
think many people disagree that they got something better than communism.
They haven't had communism virutally since the beginning. What they had is
feudalism, now maturing into a more technological oligarcy.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-29 17:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 14:07:47 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
They are certainly quite different in some ways. Putin is fit, Trump
clearly not. Putin thinks, Trump goes with his gut.
But they both focus on their own power.
Putin is dictator, Trump is not...
A divided Russia --like America-- may be the last thing Russia needs at this
point. I think it could be better and it could be worse, a lot worse. I don't
think many people disagree that they got something better than communism.
They haven't had communism virutally since the beginning. What they had is
feudalism, now maturing into a more technological oligarcy.
They never had communism and we never had democracy.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-30 09:20:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 14:07:47 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about
himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
They are certainly quite different in some ways. Putin is fit, Trump
clearly not. Putin thinks, Trump goes with his gut.
But they both focus on their own power.
Putin is dictator, Trump is not...
A divided Russia --like America-- may be the last thing Russia needs at this
point. I think it could be better and it could be worse, a lot worse. I don't
think many people disagree that they got something better than communism.
They haven't had communism virutally since the beginning. What they had is
feudalism, now maturing into a more technological oligarcy.
They never had communism and we never had democracy.
The problem is that democracy works, but not in the way most people imagine.

https://soupdragonsite.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/how-democracy-actually-works/

So a sign of a healthy democracy is when the political parties become hard to distinguish.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-30 16:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They never had communism and we never had democracy.
The problem is that democracy works, but not in the way most people imagine.
It depends what kind of animal U R in the political jungle. It doesn't work for the monkey. It does work for the sheep.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
https://soupdragonsite.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/how-democracy-actually-works/
So a sign of a healthy democracy is when the political parties become hard to distinguish.
It may be a sign of complicity too.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-31 09:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They never had communism and we never had democracy.
The problem is that democracy works, but not in the way most people imagine.
It depends what kind of animal U R in the political jungle. It doesn't work for the monkey. It does work for the sheep.
The point is that it pulls all the political parties towards the median position of the electorate. That median position therefore, largely, finds it's way into policy. And that's what democracy is _supposed_ to do, like it or not.

Perhaps it doesn't suit monkeys, but it doesn't suit tigers either.

And if the vast majority of the population are sheep, then it's right and proper that society fit itself, primarily, to the needs of sheep.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-31 23:45:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
It depends what kind of animal U R in the political jungle. It doesn't work for the monkey. It does work for the sheep.
The point is that it pulls all the political parties towards the median position of the electorate. That median position therefore, largely, finds it's way into policy. And that's what democracy is _supposed_ to do, like it or not.
Perhaps it doesn't suit monkeys, but it doesn't suit tigers either.
And if the vast majority of the population are sheep, then it's right and proper that society fit itself, primarily, to the needs of sheep.
I don't share your fatalism. We must bring the mentally fit to the front.

The wolves control the sheep and the sheep feed the wolves. We R doomed to extinction by accepting that.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-01 08:32:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
It depends what kind of animal U R in the political jungle. It doesn't work for the monkey. It does work for the sheep.
The point is that it pulls all the political parties towards the median position of the electorate. That median position therefore, largely, finds it's way into policy. And that's what democracy is _supposed_ to do, like it or not.
Perhaps it doesn't suit monkeys, but it doesn't suit tigers either.
And if the vast majority of the population are sheep, then it's right and proper that society fit itself, primarily, to the needs of sheep.
I don't share your fatalism. We must bring the mentally fit to the front.
That was Hitler's big idea. But in the end "mentally fit" ends up meaning "thinks the way I do".
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The wolves control the sheep and the sheep feed the wolves. We R doomed to extinction by accepting that.
A viable society needs to fit itself to the range of human nature. Otherwise it winds up trying to hammer square pegs into round holes, to the detriment of both pegs and holes.

And that's why nobody ever built a viable society on a _theory_. And, yes, we have to find a way of accommodating even sociopaths because sociopaths are a more or less constant percentage of people being born.

The best societies _evolve_, they aren't a product of "intelligent design".
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-01 15:35:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I don't share your fatalism. We must bring the mentally fit to the front.
That was Hitler's big idea. But in the end "mentally fit" ends up meaning "thinks the way I do".
Yes, yes, Tony Blair is so much better than Hitler by invading Iraq and unleashing hell in the middle east, spreading the damage of mass migrations all over Europe. Democracy is very much manipulated by the foxes, not the sheep.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The wolves control the sheep and the sheep feed the wolves. We R doomed to extinction by accepting that.
A viable society needs to fit itself to the range of human nature. Otherwise it winds up trying to hammer square pegs into round holes, to the detriment of both pegs and holes.
And that's why nobody ever built a viable society on a _theory_. And, yes, we have to find a way of accommodating even sociopaths because sociopaths are a more or less constant percentage of people being born.
The best societies _evolve_, they aren't a product of "intelligent design".
Germany seems like the product of intelligent design --at least compared to the UK. Picture the autobahn where the slow stick to the right and the fast to the left (reverse for the UK) and see how that is the product of intelligent design.
If the roads R chaotic and the communities R falling apart, then democracy is dysfunctional. Sorry.

We would have a revolution George Orwell would be happy with. All the animals will have their own space, but not all will the be same. And we will have real democracy. The foxes will be exposed and chased away. No space for them in politics. Let's apply the lessons of Animal Farm.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-01 15:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
We would have a revolution George Orwell would be happy with. All the animals will have their own space, but not all will the be same. And we will have real democracy. The foxes will be exposed and chased away. No space for them in politics. Let's apply the lessons of Animal Farm.
Lesson #1: The chicken should be running the farm, not the pigs. The foxes R stealing their young.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-01 16:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
We would have a revolution George Orwell would be happy with. All the animals will have their own space, but not all will the be same. And we will have real democracy. The foxes will be exposed and chased away. No space for them in politics. Let's apply the lessons of Animal Farm.
Lesson #1: The chicken should be running the farm, not the pigs. The foxes R stealing their young.
https://imgflip.com/i/2bfgyv
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-04 09:56:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I don't share your fatalism. We must bring the mentally fit to the front.
That was Hitler's big idea. But in the end "mentally fit" ends up meaning
"thinks the way I do".
Yes, yes, Tony Blair is so much better than Hitler by invading Iraq and
unleashing hell in the middle east, spreading the damage of mass migrations all
over Europe. Democracy is very much manipulated by the foxes, not the sheep.
I actually supported British involvement in Iraq, even though I was against the
invassion itself. Because, for the most part, Blair wasn't a fool, and I
counted on him to force the Americans to give some actual thought to
post-invassion planning, as the quid-pro-quo for his involvement. What I hadn't
reckoned with is that Blair was secretly religious. He got sucked into the
Whitehouse group-think, probably grabbed by his religious handles.

Oh the propaganda was crude and obvious, but there was a genuine reason for
getting rid of Saddam, especially since he was partly a monster of our creation.

But the truth is, whatever system you chose, those that rise to the top of it
have some degree of sociopathy. Up to that point Blair had done a lot of good.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The wolves control the sheep and the sheep feed the wolves. We R doomed to
extinction by accepting that.
A viable society needs to fit itself to the range of human nature. Otherwise
it winds up trying to hammer square pegs into round holes, to the detriment of
both pegs and holes.
And that's why nobody ever built a viable society on a _theory_. And, yes,
we have to find a way of accommodating even sociopaths because sociopaths are a
more or less constant percentage of people being born.
The best societies _evolve_, they aren't a product of "intelligent design".
Germany seems like the product of intelligent design --at least compared to
the UK. Picture the autobahn where the slow stick to the right and the fast to
the left (reverse for the UK) and see how that is the product of intelligent
design.
We, more or less, do that too. Obviously with the difference that we drive on
the correct side of the road (I blame Napolion).
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If the roads R chaotic and the communities R falling apart, then democracy is
dysfunctional. Sorry.
I think of that line from a song about cars (the line, not the song):

And there's even romance
in the way that they dance
to the beat of the lights.

People are far better at driving than seems reasonable. We didn't evolve to
drive, or ride bikes for that matter. You get the occasional idiot, of course,
as in all human activities.

I also think back to what it was like in the post-war period where "community
cohesion" was aledgedly so much higher. When girls who fell pregnant, usually
through deep ignorance of such matters, would wind up spending the rest of
their lives in mental institutions diagnosed as morally defective. When the
curtains were always twitching.

And I think there's a high price to pay for that kind of cohesion.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
We would have a revolution George Orwell would be happy with. All the animals
will have their own space, but not all will the be same. And we will have real
democracy. The foxes will be exposed and chased away. No space for them in
politics. Let's apply the lessons of Animal Farm.
Trouble is: Chickens are not very bright.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-04 12:25:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
On Friday, 1 June 2018 00:45:08 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I don't share your fatalism. We must bring the mentally fit to the front.
That was Hitler's big idea. But in the end "mentally fit" ends up meaning
"thinks the way I do".
Yes, yes, Tony Blair is so much better than Hitler by invading Iraq and
unleashing hell in the middle east, spreading the damage of mass migrations all
over Europe. Democracy is very much manipulated by the foxes, not the sheep.
I actually supported British involvement in Iraq, even though I was against the
invassion itself. Because, for the most part, Blair wasn't a fool, and I
counted on him to force the Americans to give some actual thought to
post-invassion planning, as the quid-pro-quo for his involvement. What I hadn't
reckoned with is that Blair was secretly religious. He got sucked into the
Whitehouse group-think, probably grabbed by his religious handles.
Oh the propaganda was crude and obvious, but there was a genuine reason for
getting rid of Saddam, especially since he was partly a monster of our creation.
But the truth is, whatever system you chose, those that rise to the top of it
have some degree of sociopathy. Up to that point Blair had done a lot of good.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The wolves control the sheep and the sheep feed the wolves. We R doomed to
extinction by accepting that.
A viable society needs to fit itself to the range of human nature. Otherwise
it winds up trying to hammer square pegs into round holes, to the detriment of
both pegs and holes.
And that's why nobody ever built a viable society on a _theory_. And, yes,
we have to find a way of accommodating even sociopaths because sociopaths are a
more or less constant percentage of people being born.
The best societies _evolve_, they aren't a product of "intelligent design".
Germany seems like the product of intelligent design --at least compared to
the UK. Picture the autobahn where the slow stick to the right and the fast to
the left (reverse for the UK) and see how that is the product of intelligent
design.
We, more or less, do that too. Obviously with the difference that we drive on
the correct side of the road (I blame Napolion).
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If the roads R chaotic and the communities R falling apart, then democracy is
dysfunctional. Sorry.
And there's even romance
in the way that they dance
to the beat of the lights.
People are far better at driving than seems reasonable. We didn't evolve to
drive, or ride bikes for that matter. You get the occasional idiot, of course,
as in all human activities.
The UK got the right cars but drive on the wrong side of the road. ;)
Post by Malcolm McMahon
I also think back to what it was like in the post-war period where "community
cohesion" was aledgedly so much higher. When girls who fell pregnant, usually
through deep ignorance of such matters, would wind up spending the rest of
their lives in mental institutions diagnosed as morally defective. When the
curtains were always twitching.
And I think there's a high price to pay for that kind of cohesion.
Sad, very sad. And the British ladies that married the American marines and followed them. Many ended up not liking America and going back, I hear.

Maybe the UK wasn't that bad after all.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
We would have a revolution George Orwell would be happy with. All the animals
will have their own space, but not all will the be same. And we will have real
democracy. The foxes will be exposed and chased away. No space for them in
politics. Let's apply the lessons of Animal Farm.
Trouble is: Chickens are not very bright.
Well, maybe they have a special sense to keep the fox out. Sheep R very bad at that.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-04 12:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Yes, yes, Tony Blair is so much better than Hitler by invading Iraq and
unleashing hell in the middle east, spreading the damage of mass migrations all
over Europe. Democracy is very much manipulated by the foxes, not the sheep.
I actually supported British involvement in Iraq, even though I was against the
invassion itself. Because, for the most part, Blair wasn't a fool, and I
counted on him to force the Americans to give some actual thought to
post-invassion planning, as the quid-pro-quo for his involvement. What I hadn't
reckoned with is that Blair was secretly religious. He got sucked into the
Whitehouse group-think, probably grabbed by his religious handles.
I think people high up R only religious for public acceptance. They fake it.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Oh the propaganda was crude and obvious, but there was a genuine reason for
getting rid of Saddam, especially since he was partly a monster of our creation.
I forgot this point. Not only were they lying, but they also made a fatal strategic mistake in taking out Iraq, resulting in Iran and the terrorists in general becoming much stronger while stretching the American forces in the region. They R still very busy in Afghanistan and will remain so forever. Corruption is still their worst enemy. Well, the corrupt have always been part of the game. Maybe it was all about corruption.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-04 13:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Oh the propaganda was crude and obvious, but there was a genuine reason for
getting rid of Saddam, especially since he was partly a monster of our creation.
I forgot this point. Not only were they lying, but they also made a fatal strategic mistake in taking out Iraq, resulting in Iran and the terrorists in general becoming much stronger while stretching the American forces in the region. They R still very busy in Afghanistan and will remain so forever. Corruption is still their worst enemy. Well, the corrupt have always been part of the game. Maybe it was all about corruption.
"In 16 years, the Afghan War has cost 2,400 American lives and $1 trillion. But with the country's capital under siege, the end still seems far away"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kabul-afghanistan-capital-under-siege-while-americas-longest-war-rages-on-60-minutes/
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-04 15:21:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I forgot this point. Not only were they lying, but they also made a fatal strategic mistake
what stategic mistake?
I thought the whole idea was to suck yoU asS dry while enriching
themselves with sweet deals and kickbacks?
no?
How many millions it takes to bring democracy
what democrazy? it's about drugs and money, isn't it?
Is it different from Mexico?
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-06 14:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Yes, yes, Tony Blair is so much better than Hitler by invading Iraq and
unleashing hell in the middle east, spreading the damage of mass migrations all
over Europe. Democracy is very much manipulated by the foxes, not the sheep.
I actually supported British involvement in Iraq, even though I was against the
invassion itself. Because, for the most part, Blair wasn't a fool, and I
counted on him to force the Americans to give some actual thought to
post-invassion planning, as the quid-pro-quo for his involvement. What I hadn't
reckoned with is that Blair was secretly religious. He got sucked into the
Whitehouse group-think, probably grabbed by his religious handles.
I think people high up R only religious for public acceptance. They fake it.
In England its the other way around. Our electorate are very suspicious of overt religion, and especially Catholicism which involves obedience to the Pope. Our history shows how badly religion and politics mix.

Blair's government once announced "We don't do God". Blair avoided the whole issue while he was in power.

Oh, they show up to the occasional CofE shindig, but that's not real religion.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Oh the propaganda was crude and obvious, but there was a genuine reason for
getting rid of Saddam, especially since he was partly a monster of our creation.
I forgot this point. Not only were they lying, but they also made a fatal strategic mistake in taking out Iraq, resulting in Iran and the terrorists in general becoming much stronger while stretching the American forces in the region. They R still very busy in Afghanistan and will remain so forever. Corruption is still their worst enemy. Well, the corrupt have always been part of the game. Maybe it was all about corruption.
They did, but I think, had the US actually carried out the elaborate post-invasion plan that the State Department had been working on for a couple of years, and had not tried to do the invasion on the cheap, it could have gone OK.

In short had the invasion been directed by professionals, rather than the Whitehouse cabal.

It had been obvious from the moment The Shrub took office that he'd attack Iraq. Right from the start he was looking for a reason. When I saw the footage of 9/11 my first thought was "Now Bush will invade Iraq". Not that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, of course. Iraq, I think, was mostly about The Shrub's relationship with his far more competent father.

It was also obvious that the Bush Whitehouse would make a pig's ear of it. Bush was not a person to take advice from anyone who actually knew stuff.

So I wanted Blair in the loop because the minor military adventures under Blair had been reasonably well handled. But he didn't seem to accomplish anything.

As to the propaganda, I don't think many of us took it seriously. The media trashed it from the start.

And I suspect Blair believed every word of his lies.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-01 01:54:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
Putin is just as narcissistic as Trump. He's just smarter. He's using the
idiot. I wonder what he has on Trump. Surely it's not just Trump's weird
sex life.
%
2018-05-31 16:58:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
How about Trump? Better than Putin?
Since when does Swampy Trump like democracy? He only cares about himself.
He's about to throw his own stupid son under the bus.
Putin sounds less inflated than Trump.
Putin is just as narcissistic as Trump. He's just smarter. He's using the
idiot. I wonder what he has on Trump. Surely it's not just Trump's weird
sex life.
yea you said this yesterday and so on
aaa
2018-05-21 22:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FUN & COLORFUL
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
#BikeForPeace #HammockForPeace
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Lucifer Morningstar
2018-05-22 01:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
aaa
2018-05-22 02:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 06:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
Lucifer Morningstar
2018-05-22 07:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 21 May 2018 23:39:04 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. ?
If he lived in Metropolis he would worship Superman.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-22 09:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Mon, 21 May 2018 23:39:04 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. ?
If he lived in Metropolis he would worship Superman.
Nah. God has to be ineffable. Superman would have his own, real opinions. An
ineffable God is something you can project your own opinions on.
aaa
2018-05-22 12:34:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 16:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If America and the UK felt intimidated by Iraq, imagine how Russia feels
about NATO. It has been swallowing country after country of the former Soviet
bloc
Yes, and remember this is after the James Baker - Secretary of State at the
time, visited Moscow and informed Gorbachev the US wished for Germany to be
reunified. In return for not opposing the move, Baker promised that NATO
would not expand "one inch eastwards” towards the Soviet Union's borders.
NATO either lied through their teeth, or broke their promise; so why
shouldn’t Russia do likewise?
Now imagine that Russia had promised not to expand “one inch” westwards,
but then went on to “democratically” convert Holland, Belgium and France
to their form of communism?
Geddit?
Yep, Gorbachev was naive about the West. The wolf was disguising as grandmother.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
until they R really surrounded.
If NATO had dissolved,
Unfortunately, you can’t dissolve the 33 deg freemasons.
How about a public referendum in each country?
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 16:13:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
That doesn't show in the world. Maybe he gives moral support.
aaa
2018-05-22 19:33:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
That doesn't show in the world. Maybe he gives moral support.
That's according to Jesus. Something about an eye of needle and a camel.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-22 20:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
Don Martin
2018-05-22 21:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 20:46:46 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
The omnipotent need no pockets.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 22:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
I know: Broke but not Broken.
aaa
2018-05-23 04:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
That's not really my point. The physically poor is often spiritually
rich instead.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-23 05:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
That's not really my point. The physically poor is often spiritually
rich instead.
The pedestrian guy doesn't have a chance against the guy in the SUV. He'll be lucky to get a woman or a job.
aaa
2018-05-23 11:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
That's not really my point. The physically poor is often
spiritually rich instead.
The pedestrian guy doesn't have a chance against the guy in the SUV.
He'll be lucky to get a woman or a job.
That's why he is less attached to the worldly things and more willing to
pursue the spiritual things. He can't afford the worldly things, but
God's spiritual things are always free of charge.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-27 14:07:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to manipulate the
truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as well
because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God because we need
God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
That's not really my point. The physically poor is often spiritually
rich instead.
--
There's nobody more wedded to materialism than the woman trying to work out
where her child's next meal is coming from.

When you're secure at the basic economic level, then you can start to concern
yourself with higher things.
aaa
2018-05-27 21:52:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
On 2018-05-22 02:39 AM, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
On Mon, 21 May 2018 18:48:05 -0400, aaa
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to
manipulate the truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a
country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular
as well because God doesn't need human worship. We worship
God because we need God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
That's not really my point. The physically poor is often
spiritually rich instead.
--
There's nobody more wedded to materialism than the woman trying to
work out where her child's next meal is coming from.
That's why she needs to rely on God to give her all the strength and
support. She has no one else rely on. So she will have a working
relationship with God to become a strong mother in raising her child.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
When you're secure at the basic economic level, then you can start to
concern yourself with higher things.
When in physical comfort, we already have all the things we need. We
have no need to rely on God for anything anymore. We will have
intellectual debates to argue philosophical issues. We will talk about
God all day and all night, but we will never be with God for a second.
We will not have any relationship with God at all. Before we know it, we
have already been abandoned by God. All the things we have talked about
will have no use and no meaning to us if we can't even find God.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-28 15:44:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
On 2018-05-22 02:39 AM, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by aaa
On Mon, 21 May 2018 18:48:05 -0400, aaa
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to
manipulate the truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a
country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular
as well because God doesn't need human worship. We worship
God because we need God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
That's not really my point. The physically poor is often
spiritually rich instead.
--
There's nobody more wedded to materialism than the woman trying to
work out where her child's next meal is coming from.
That's why she needs to rely on God to give her all the strength and
support. She has no one else rely on. So she will have a working
relationship with God to become a strong mother in raising her child.
The birds of the field, does not the father feed them? Answer, often not and
they die.
aaa
2018-05-29 13:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
On 2018-05-22 02:39 AM, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
On Mon, 21 May 2018 18:48:05 -0400, aaa
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to
manipulate the truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a
country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular
as well because God doesn't need human worship. We worship
God because we need God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
--
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
That's not really my point. The physically poor is often
spiritually rich instead.
--
There's nobody more wedded to materialism than the woman trying to
work out where her child's next meal is coming from.
That's why she needs to rely on God to give her all the strength and
support. She has no one else rely on. So she will have a working
relationship with God to become a strong mother in raising her child.
The birds of the field, does not the father feed them? Answer, often not and
they die.
If life is easy, who needs God?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Smiler
2018-05-29 22:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
On 2018-05-22 02:39 AM, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by aaa
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by aaa
Democracy is failing because it has become a tool to
manipulate the truth instead of serving it.
The truth being that religion is no way to run a country.
I'm not talking about religion or theocracy. God is secular as
well because God doesn't need human worship. We worship God
because we need God's protection and guidance.
God is neutral. He doesn't care about the poor. 😞
God himself is poor. That's why the poor is closer to God.
There's a difference between being poor, and having no money.
That's not really my point. The physically poor is often spiritually
rich instead.
There's nobody more wedded to materialism than the woman trying to
work out where her child's next meal is coming from.
That's why she needs to rely on God to give her all the strength and
support. She has no one else rely on. So she will have a working
relationship with God to become a strong mother in raising her child.
The birds of the field, does not the father feed them? Answer, often
not and they die.
If life is easy, who needs God?
Yep. Who needs a god?
Not atheists, only the deluded and insane.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-30 01:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Unleashing NATO on Afghanistan was an overkill and Eastern Europe was most enthusiastic to participate.
I wonder why.
I wonder too.
Is it something to do with Opium?
Is it something to do with money?
Follow the money trail to the foxhole.
duke
2018-05-22 21:34:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, the poor want the free stuff.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-22 22:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, the poor want the free stuff.
the dukester, American-American
Like free fish, bread and wine.

Jesus taught them.
duke
2018-05-27 22:31:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:33:41 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, the poor want the free stuff.
the dukester, American-American
Like free fish, bread and wine.
Jesus taught them.
Jesus died on the cross to give it to them.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
MarkA
2018-05-24 13:23:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified
by the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Speaking from the perspective of someone born and raised in the USA, the
USA was founded by people who rejected monarchies, and established a
democratic form of government. Evolution being what it is, the
wealthiest figured out how to manipulate the system in their favor, so we
now have a system where the ultra-wealthy are reaping huge profits,
everyone else is just squeeking by, and the voters are pawns in a game
they don't even know is being played.
--
MarkA

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. -- Mark Twain
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-24 13:54:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MarkA
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified
by the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Speaking from the perspective of someone born and raised in the USA, the
USA was founded by people who rejected monarchies, and established a
democratic form of government.
The founding fathers too were rich.
Post by MarkA
Evolution being what it is, the
wealthiest figured out how to manipulate the system in their favor, so we
now have a system where the ultra-wealthy are reaping huge profits,
everyone else is just squeeking by, and the voters are pawns in a game
they don't even know is being played.
--
MarkA
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. -- Mark Twain
Which shows this is hardly a novel situation.

When you look at the figures it's actually the relative equality of the 20th century which is out of line. Wealth in most of the West is actually less concentrated now than it was at the start of the 20th century. Yes, it's getting more concentrated, but from a historically low level.

The seem to be two primary reasons for the relative equality in the middle of the 20th. The shocks of the great depression and the two world wars, and redistribution through progressive taxation.

Ford/Taylor probably contributed by sparking off the virtuous circle of mass production and mass consumption.

All these factors are now on the wain.

It's useless to blame rapacious capitalism. Capitalism is no more rapacious than its always been; government no more corrupted by it. Capitalism is, believe it or not, a big improvement one what went before.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-24 14:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by MarkA
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified
by the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Speaking from the perspective of someone born and raised in the USA, the
USA was founded by people who rejected monarchies, and established a
democratic form of government.
The founding fathers too were rich.
So maybe it was intended to be a mind game anyway.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by MarkA
Evolution being what it is, the
wealthiest figured out how to manipulate the system in their favor, so we
now have a system where the ultra-wealthy are reaping huge profits,
everyone else is just squeeking by, and the voters are pawns in a game
they don't even know is being played.
--
MarkA
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. -- Mark Twain
Which shows this is hardly a novel situation.
What I really think is new the overwhelming corruption being played across cities and communities. Cities like Copenhagen have indeed democratized. Portland in America has something to show too. Gated communities R the opposite, making the rich and middle class live in an anti-democratic bubble.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
When you look at the figures it's actually the relative equality of the 20th century which is out of line. Wealth in most of the West is actually less concentrated now than it was at the start of the 20th century. Yes, it's getting more concentrated, but from a historically low level.
The seem to be two primary reasons for the relative equality in the middle of the 20th. The shocks of the great depression and the two world wars, and redistribution through progressive taxation.
Ford/Taylor probably contributed by sparking off the virtuous circle of mass production and mass consumption.
All these factors are now on the wain.
And Reagan/Thatcher sent capitalism back to the primitive stages.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's useless to blame rapacious capitalism. Capitalism is no more rapacious than its always been; government no more corrupted by it. Capitalism is, believe it or not, a big improvement one what went before.
Rapacious enough to kill life on the planet.
Kevrob
2018-05-24 15:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by MarkA
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified
by the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Speaking from the perspective of someone born and raised in the USA, the
USA was founded by people who rejected monarchies, and established a
democratic form of government.
A more democratic form of government than the UK of the mid-to-late
18th century was, but it was always a "mixed constitution." The
reason people squabble over "The US is a democracy" v "The US is a republic"
is because it was always, from the Constitutional Convention on, meant to
be a republic with democratic elements, but ones restrained by a
constitutional order. The Convention occurred in the aftermath of
state governments under the Articles getting a little "too democratic"
for the men who set about first amending, then replacing the AoC.
Consider Shay's Rebellion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

There had been a spate of laws on the state level promoting
debt relief, and there was a fear than unchecked democracy
would, at the extreme, redistribute property from those with
it, to those without.

Some would day this is what the income tax does, now.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The founding fathers too were rich.
Post by MarkA
Evolution being what it is, the
wealthiest figured out how to manipulate the system in their favor, so we
now have a system where the ultra-wealthy are reaping huge profits,
everyone else is just squeeking by, and the voters are pawns in a game
they don't even know is being played.
--
MarkA
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. -- Mark Twain
Which shows this is hardly a novel situation.
When you look at the figures it's actually the relative equality of the 20th century which is out of line. Wealth in most of the West is actually less concentrated now than it was at the start of the 20th century. Yes, it's getting more concentrated, but from a historically low level.
The seem to be two primary reasons for the relative equality in the middle of the 20th. The shocks of the great depression and the two world wars, and redistribution through progressive taxation.
Ford/Taylor probably contributed by sparking off the virtuous circle of mass production and mass consumption.
All these factors are now on the wain.
It's useless to blame rapacious capitalism. Capitalism is no more rapacious than its always been; government no more corrupted by it. Capitalism is, believe it or not, a big improvement one what went before.
Comparing our current economic situation to the years just after WWII
is always an unfortunate benchmark. Most of the US's international
trade competitors and partners were either destroyed by the war or
severely weakened by it. Paradoxically, Germany and Japan, who lost,
rebuilt themselves into more modern, higher tech societies than the
UK, which won, but nearly exhausted itself in so doing. It was only
natural that US % of world production would decline as the rest of the
world rebuilt from the devastation of WWII.

Distribution of wealth and income equality/inequality is only one
measure of how an economy is doing, and far from the most important
one. What about the standard of living of the poorest people, of the
folks who work, but make the least? Of those with median incomes?
If those are high, in comparison to other countries, who cares if
the rich are ultra-rich? If the average Joe and/or Jane can't find
employment that allows them more than a subsistence lifestyle, then
the country has a problem. I'm assuming we are talking about people
who are healthy enough to work, and aren't alcoholics or drug addicts,
or developmentally disabled.*

I really don't care how much money Warren Buffet has, or Bill Gates
has. I actually am glad Elon Musk has made a pile, because he is
using it to build infrastructure that could conceivably be of great
benefit to humanity. But even if he "wasted" it on wine, women
and song, it's his money, he made it, and the vintners and musicians
and party girls will get paid, and then they'll invest the dough or
squander it as they please.

Kevin R

* Even though organizations like Goodwill often place people with
DD diagnoses and they can be very good workers.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-24 17:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Distribution of wealth and income equality/inequality is only one
measure of how an economy is doing, and far from the most important
one. What about the standard of living of the poorest people, of the
folks who work, but make the least? Of those with median incomes?
If those are high, in comparison to other countries, who cares if
the rich are ultra-rich? If the average Joe and/or Jane can't find
employment that allows them more than a subsistence lifestyle, then
the country has a problem. I'm assuming we are talking about people
who are healthy enough to work, and aren't alcoholics or drug addicts,
or developmentally disabled.*
Democracy is BS if it doesn't translate into quality of life. Maybe this city is progressive enough to qualify for real democracy.



I like the idea of "no sales taxes," but I like even better that they R investing in public transportation and bike facilities. I mean for real, not to feed corruption such as here in Miami. Sad this is considered the "capital of Latin America," which means all the big money flows here and goes to build towers upon towers on top of the water, waiting for the big hurricane to strike. Then the whole country will be deep shit.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-24 23:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Kevrob
Distribution of wealth and income equality/inequality is only one
measure of how an economy is doing, and far from the most important
one. What about the standard of living of the poorest people, of the
folks who work, but make the least? Of those with median incomes?
If those are high, in comparison to other countries, who cares if
the rich are ultra-rich? If the average Joe and/or Jane can't find
employment that allows them more than a subsistence lifestyle, then
the country has a problem. I'm assuming we are talking about people
who are healthy enough to work, and aren't alcoholics or drug addicts,
or developmentally disabled.*
Democracy
is it real democracy?
Maybe not. What matter is not how it gets there, but how well it functions.
i thought it is kleptocracy? or plutocracy? or CRONY-OCRACY
(money-is-the-real-vote-cracy)?
Yes but maybe some places rely on meritocracy as opposed to generalized corruption. Maybe the politicians and engineers live in the communities they run and design.
is BS if it doesn't translate into quality of life.
given the fact that at least 62.8% of people are STUPID STUPID STUPID,
would democracy work even if we had real democracy?
We can't deny the fact that some cities and/or countries enjoy a quality of life under democracy. Maybe the leaders R not nearly as corrupt as those in crappy places because the culture demands functionality.

The solution is to put a program in place that even the stupid can understand. It's not that difficult. Anyone understands what "walkable communities" are. Anyone understands what corruption means.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-25 00:17:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
given the fact that at least 62.8% of people are STUPID STUPID STUPID,
would democracy work even if we had real democracy?
We can't deny the fact that some cities and/or countries enjoy a quality of life under democracy. Maybe the leaders R not nearly as corrupt as those in crappy places because the culture demands functionality.
The solution is to put a program in place that even the stupid can understand. It's not that difficult. Anyone understands what "walkable communities" are. Anyone understands what corruption means.
To prove me wrong you would have to show me that cities in China, Saudi Arabia or some other non-democratic system work better than in equivalent democratic places. We would have to compare apples with apples, of course. For example, the city of Curitiba, Brazil sets the standard in quality of life among third world countries. That country sounds kind of dysfunctional, but a pioneering mayor set the city on the right path.

I believe any country can reach a quality of life, independent of the political system. If democracy doesn't deliver the goods, then it's no good. If it does, then beautiful. I believe China used to shoot the corrupt, but that was a long time ago. What's going on?
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-25 08:31:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Comparing our current economic situation to the years just after WWII
is always an unfortunate benchmark. Most of the US's international
trade competitors and partners were either destroyed by the war or
severely weakened by it. Paradoxically, Germany and Japan, who lost,
rebuilt themselves into more modern, higher tech societies than the
UK, which won, but nearly exhausted itself in so doing. It was only
natural that US % of world production would decline as the rest of the
world rebuilt from the devastation of WWII.
But the after effects of the world wars, an the great depression, seem to have dominated the economic situation in the West up to about the 1980s. That period is the norm by which the older generations judge the present. That was why Trump's appeal to many was to turn back the clock to the '70s.
Post by Kevrob
Distribution of wealth and income equality/inequality is only one
measure of how an economy is doing, and far from the most important
one. What about the standard of living of the poorest people, of the
folks who work, but make the least? Of those with median incomes?
If those are high, in comparison to other countries, who cares if
the rich are ultra-rich? If the average Joe and/or Jane can't find
employment that allows them more than a subsistence lifestyle, then
the country has a problem. I'm assuming we are talking about people
who are healthy enough to work, and aren't alcoholics or drug addicts,
or developmentally disabled.*
When the top 10% own, say, 40% or so of the capital, that leave only 60% for the rest of us, however we distribute it.

The problem is that the natural tendency, given that return on capital usually exceeds rate of growth, is that wealth becomes ever more concentrated. It's not the top handful that are the issue.

The most notable feature of the 20th century is probably the emergence of a middle class. The first time that anyone but the top 10% held significant capital.
Post by Kevrob
I really don't care how much money Warren Buffet has, or Bill Gates
has. I actually am glad Elon Musk has made a pile, because he is
using it to build infrastructure that could conceivably be of great
benefit to humanity. But even if he "wasted" it on wine, women
and song, it's his money, he made it, and the vintners and musicians
and party girls will get paid, and then they'll invest the dough or
squander it as they please.
There's a difference between fortunes made by entrepreneurial efforts, and inherited fortunes.

I think we could actually do with a progressive _wealth_ tax. That would effectively reduce the very high return on capital at the top end, while providing more resources for social services and redistribution.

Not easy to do, I'll grant you.

There's a lot of talk at the moment about "Intergenerational fiarness" which is the perception that "baby boomers" like me are hanging on to too much of the wealth, and the notion that we've "had it easy". Actually its normal for people to have more capital the older they are. It's depressing that this is always cast in terms of age, rather than wealth.
Smiler
2018-05-26 02:05:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Kevrob
Comparing our current economic situation to the years just after WWII
is always an unfortunate benchmark. Most of the US's international
trade competitors and partners were either destroyed by the war or
severely weakened by it. Paradoxically, Germany and Japan, who lost,
rebuilt themselves into more modern, higher tech societies than the UK,
which won, but nearly exhausted itself in so doing. It was only
natural that US % of world production would decline as the rest of the
world rebuilt from the devastation of WWII.
But the after effects of the world wars, an the great depression, seem
to have dominated the economic situation in the West up to about the
1980s. That period is the norm by which the older generations judge the
present. That was why Trump's appeal to many was to turn back the clock
to the '70s.
Not as ambitious as Pol Pot's 'year zero'.
Would that have been even more popular with the idiots?
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-27 14:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Kevrob
Comparing our current economic situation to the years just after WWII
is always an unfortunate benchmark. Most of the US's international
trade competitors and partners were either destroyed by the war or
severely weakened by it. Paradoxically, Germany and Japan, who lost,
rebuilt themselves into more modern, higher tech societies than the UK,
which won, but nearly exhausted itself in so doing. It was only
natural that US % of world production would decline as the rest of the
world rebuilt from the devastation of WWII.
But the after effects of the world wars, an the great depression, seem
to have dominated the economic situation in the West up to about the
1980s. That period is the norm by which the older generations judge the
present. That was why Trump's appeal to many was to turn back the clock
to the '70s.
Not as ambitious as Pol Pot's 'year zero'.
Would that have been even more popular with the idiots?
No. From where many of them are now the '70s seems about when they were
happiest. They probably think of that as the time when America was Great.

Millenials didn't vote for Trump in any numbers. Most of _their_ lives has been
slow progress.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-05-24 14:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MarkA
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified
by the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Speaking from the perspective of someone born and raised in the USA, the
USA was founded by people who rejected monarchies, and established a
democratic form of government. Evolution being what it is, the
wealthiest figured out how to manipulate the system in their favor, so we
now have a system where the ultra-wealthy are reaping huge profits,
everyone else is just squeeking by, and the voters are pawns in a game
they don't even know is being played.
Democracy makes U impotent ;)

https://imgflip.com/i/2ax1qx
duke
2018-06-04 19:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-04 21:36:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.

They just move money around.
duke
2018-06-05 21:24:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:36:47 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.
The rich pay for the poor to work. Yet many don't.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They just move money around.
It's their money. They can move it if they want.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-06 20:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:36:47 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.
The rich pay for the poor to work. Yet many don't.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They just move money around.
It's their money. They can move it if they want.
Jesus was a bum. He said no heaven for the rich.
duke
2018-06-07 12:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:36:47 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.
The rich pay for the poor to work. Yet many don't.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They just move money around.
It's their money. They can move it if they want.
Jesus was a bum. He said no heaven for the rich.
No, he didn't. There is nothing wrong with being rich......unless you treat
money and goods as your god.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-07 13:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Jesus was a bum. He said no heaven for the rich.
No, he didn't. There is nothing wrong with being rich......unless you treat
money and goods as your god.
That's the true god nowadays. Jesus is consolation for the poor.
duke
2018-06-08 18:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 06:34:16 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Jesus was a bum. He said no heaven for the rich.
No, he didn't. There is nothing wrong with being rich......unless you treat
money and goods as your god.
That's the true god nowadays. Jesus is consolation for the poor.
Jesus is the one that told us to never make money our god.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-06 14:58:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.
Some of them get rich by working pretty hard. But even those tend to wind up living mostly off their capital.

But there are some of the rich I quite admire. Musk. Gates. Branson. Some of them finally realise they have more money than they can ever spend.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They just move money around.
Many of them only when tax haven status changes.
Alex W.
2018-06-06 16:17:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey,
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve
the truth of God in order to replace the old and outdated
political system that has failed to serve the truth. That was
how our modern day political system established itself to
gain legitimacy. Without being justified by the truth, no
political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.
Some of them get rich by working pretty hard. But even those tend to
wind up living mostly off their capital.
As does anyone with a decent job who has earned enough during their
working life not to have to rely on basic state pensions....

Nor is this the worst way to organise matters. It is not oil or
electricity or hard work that makes the world go round. It is capital.
One person's billion dollar fortune is what maintains jobs and
livelihoods for many families, is what funds new firms which create new
jobs, is what supplies existing companies with the wherewithal to
survive, compete and even expand. Even those rich folk who live off
their capital, whether earned or inherited, still have to manage their
wealth, still make those investment decisions that ensure food on the
table for millions.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
But there are some of the rich I quite admire. Musk. Gates. Branson.
Some of them finally realise they have more money than they can ever
spend.
I think most of them realise as much.

The difference is when they realise that money is only a means to an
end, rather than an end in itself. It comes when they look at
themselves and their lives and realise that they do not need to prove
themselves to anyone anymore, that their reputation as an
entrepreneurial gorilla is unassailable.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They just move money around.
Many of them only when tax haven status changes.
Not so many. Most have tax advisors clever enough to make full use of
tax laws that have more holes than Swiss cheese.
duke
2018-06-07 12:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.
Some of them get rich by working pretty hard. But even those tend to wind up living mostly off their capital.
But there are some of the rich I quite admire. Musk. Gates. Branson. Some of them finally realise they have more money than they can ever spend.
Do they help the needy?
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They just move money around.
Many of them only when tax haven status changes.
Do they help the needy?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-07 13:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.
Some of them get rich by working pretty hard. But even those tend to wind up living mostly off their capital.
But there are some of the rich I quite admire. Musk. Gates. Branson. Some of them finally realise they have more money than they can ever spend.
Do they help the needy?
Well, Gates has gone the charity route. Branson, Musk have spent their money on space. Soros on trying to improve governance.

They've all switched from trying to make money to trying to improve the future according to their own vision.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-07 13:35:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Do they help the needy?
Well, Gates has gone the charity route. Branson, Musk have spent their money on space. Soros on trying to improve governance.
They've all switched from trying to make money to trying to improve the future according to their own vision.
They will never shoot themselves in the foot. Empowering people is not their priority.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-07 13:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Do they help the needy?
Well, Gates has gone the charity route. Branson, Musk have spent their money on space. Soros on trying to improve governance.
They've all switched from trying to make money to trying to improve the future according to their own vision.
They will never shoot themselves in the foot. Empowering people is not their priority.
Well, some people may feel empowered by Teslas. It's nice to be able to laugh at ever increasing fuel prices (as I know from experience).

And aren't the Gates foundations efforts at improving health care in poor countries somewhat empowering?

Space clearly won't be interesting to you until you can get there on a bicycle.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-07 18:14:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They will never shoot themselves in the foot. Empowering people is not their priority.
Well, some people may feel empowered by Teslas. It's nice to be able to laugh at ever increasing fuel prices (as I know from experience).
And aren't the Gates foundations efforts at improving health care in poor countries somewhat empowering?
And so R the Christian efforts to help the poor. Good PR, mind control, etc.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Space clearly won't be interesting to you until you can get there on a bicycle.
Clearly interacting with people is more interesting than contacting aliens.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2018-06-08 03:21:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They will never shoot themselves in the foot. Empowering people is not their priority.
Well, some people may feel empowered by Teslas. It's nice to be able to laugh at ever increasing fuel prices (as I know from experience).
And aren't the Gates foundations efforts at improving health care in poor countries somewhat empowering?
And so R the Christian efforts to help the poor. Good PR, mind control, etc.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Space clearly won't be interesting to you until you can get there on a bicycle.
Clearly interacting with people is more interesting than contacting aliens.
https://twitter.com/tibetan_monkey/status/1004924728140804097
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-08 07:47:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
They will never shoot themselves in the foot. Empowering people is not their priority.
Well, some people may feel empowered by Teslas. It's nice to be able to laugh at ever increasing fuel prices (as I know from experience).
And aren't the Gates foundations efforts at improving health care in poor countries somewhat empowering?
And so R the Christian efforts to help the poor. Good PR, mind control, etc.
Why would Bill Gates want to control minds? Now when he's left Microsoft?

I asked the question on here a while back "What would you do with $1B.". Well, what would _you_ do?
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Space clearly won't be interesting to you until you can get there on a bicycle.
Clearly interacting with people is more interesting than contacting aliens.
I guess aliens will have to come to us. But space colonisation interests me, not so much planets but space habitats. The human race is Gaea's reproductive organ.

Not just humans, but the Earth's whole biosphere currently has all its genetic eggs in one somewhat fragile basket.
duke
2018-06-08 18:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 06:16:32 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by duke
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified by
the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
No, they're the ones the government steals form to pay the poor.
The poor feed the rich. The rich do very little work.
Some of them get rich by working pretty hard. But even those tend to wind up living mostly off their capital.
But there are some of the rich I quite admire. Musk. Gates. Branson. Some of them finally realise they have more money than they can ever spend.
Do they help the needy?
Well, Gates has gone the charity route. Branson, Musk have spent their money on space. Soros on trying to improve governance.
They've all switched from trying to make money to trying to improve the future according to their own vision.
Is their vision in accordance with God?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Loading...