henry the 8th was all about divorce.. So it is okay to steal what is freely given to the church and use it to line you pockets or royal treasury.. what you are saying is it is okay to steal as long as you can blame others for your wrong doing.. there is a great litany of excuses the rich use for stealing ... wonder if these excuses work with God as you understand him..
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, rigs <rigs117@gmail.com> wrote:
The wealth and lands of the Church were part of papal wealth. The
royal treasury was empty. Yes- the British navy took off under the
Tudors. The divorces came later along with his "solutions". (I did
take a 2 quarter course in Tudor history but request some slack for
facts.) One could also point to the later Enclosure act that ended the
common lands and set up the British aristocracy leading to slum-cities
and the ills of the Industrial Revolution. It's musical chairs. The
greedy still create their own enviornment but change the nouns and
verbs - they still need power to attain their ends: politics or wars.
On Mar 29, 3:30 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rigsy Henry the 8th got his navy on the backs of the poor.. not the
> Papacy .. all he did was destroy a bunch of monasteries.. but there
> was never enough money there to fiance his navy.. get real.. stole
> from church because they would not let him have his way with
> divorces.. how many did he go through either by divorce or killing
> them.. one thing for sure he is no hero.. more of a cowering thief.
>
> the greedy created their own environmental and fears and then created
> and taught people to fulfill their fears so they can scream they are
> right and point fingers.. all signs of the cult of the golden calf.
>
>
>
> ...> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's not a myth- it's a fact. One you don't like along with zillions
> > of others. And the rich do create opportunities for others. There are
> > misers, of course, but the poor can also be miserly. Let's get our
> > moral judgements on a realistic plane as human nature has its good and
> > bad points in all economic spheres. The main slavers were Arabs,
> > Africans and nations with a robust shipping trade plus colonizing
> > nations needing human labor prior to machines- though wages may be
> > argued as another form of enslavement. We are hooked into a perpetual
> > game of economic musical chairs; a class is ousted and the ousters
> > take on the same qualities of the ousteed. Some do not define
> > themselves by money or stuff- even if they have them.//The Cypus event
> > of the week is deja vu a la GM,etc. Lagarde reminds me of a former
> > Sacred Heart nun- but no matter. Don't underestimate the lure of greed
> > fueled by envy- again, back to the Garden of Eden.// I have been
> > watching the sun melt the ice- it's going well on the north side but
> > had the roofer out today and he will install a heat wire this summer
> > so I don't have to worry each spring. Also cooking a lot. Company for
> > Easter.//How do you think Henry VIII got his navy???By robbing the
> > Papacy!!! :-)
>
> > On Mar 12, 8:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The big myth is that rich people have worked hard for their wealth and
> >> deserve it (pace rigs). Even the slavers were paid off in huge
> >> amounts and one can trace such money to the present day - much the
> >> same true of Nazi businesses. We are hooked into a control fraud.
>
> >> On Mar 11, 8:35 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I know what you mean Neil,, Seems that change is starting.. the
> >> > Doctors over here started a web page against tobacco.. and they are
> >> > revealing those legislator that are being influenced by the tobacco
> >> > lobby.. it seems like light is beginning shine in the darkness..
> >> > I support the Light.
>
> >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > The madness of it is they got us thinking their interests were our
> >> > > interests. Adam Smith warned against that at some length.
>
> >> > > On Mar 8, 2:16 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> You would think that over the centuries man would learn.. actually I
> >> > >> think it is starting to happen with the new banking laws coming into
> >> > >> play. hand shake deals will becoming to an end and taxes where the
> >> > >> rich like it or not will have to be paid.. off shore banks will be
> >> > >> finding it much more difficult to transfer money..
>
> >> > >> Oddly before long there will be more careful examination ass to where
> >> > >> wealth came from and how it was created.. there appear to be grass
> >> > >> root changes taking place.. Neil that is where sound direction is
> >> > >> needed .. a place for these roots to grow and better society.
>
> >> > >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:50 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> > There have been many good points made in what has been said here. Yet I do
> >> > >> > believe that at this stage of our evolution we must know our past by heart
> >> > >> > and keep on acting with/on a common forward orientation. What I see being
> >> > >> > described as a phenomenon at the top, I see happening at the grassroots
> >> > >> > level also. Heaven and Hell meet where the airspace allows for dust
> >> > >> > particles to form clouds and where the earth evaporates conceivable amounts
> >> > >> > of sulfuric gasses. After all that has been freed from a Pawlowian drooling
> >> > >> > reflex and is being seen as potentially deconstructable, Connectivism is the
> >> > >> > new tribalism operating at both ends. Goethe's "Wahlverwandschaften" being
> >> > >> > read through the chemist's glasses. There is no back to family visits when
> >> > >> > you are busy building your tribe. The foam carpet is not being exposed by
> >> > >> > highlighting its most spectacular and fluorescent bubbles.
>
> >> > >> > 2013/3/8 archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
>
> >> > >> >> We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth
> >> > >> >> concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. (Justice
> >> > >> >> Louis Brandeis)
> >> > >> >> The rich are independent of the rest of us. Obviously they are
> >> > >> >> materially independent so long as their property rights remain
> >> > >> >> recognized. They can achieve what they want by themselves, that is by
> >> > >> >> buying it from others or paying someone else to do it for them. But
> >> > >> >> this power of command also generates a social distance from society
> >> > >> >> that allows them to become 'ethically independent'. Since they don't
> >> > >> >> depend on the goodwill of others to succeed - for example, few of them
> >> > >> >> have recognisable jobs - they may become less concerned in general
> >> > >> >> about whether they deserve goodwill.
> >> > >> >> That means that the rich don't have the same political interests as
> >> > >> >> the rest of us. They aren't worried about crime (their gated
> >> > >> >> communities come with private security) or the quality of public
> >> > >> >> education (their kids go to the fanciest schools money can buy) or
> >> > >> >> affordable accessible health care, job security, public parks, gas
> >> > >> >> prices, environmental quality, or most of the other issues that the
> >> > >> >> rest of us have no choice but to care about, and to care about
> >> > >> >> politically since they are outside of our individual powers to fix.
> >> > >> >> The political concerns of the rich do not lie in the provision of
> >> > >> >> public goods, but in furthering their private interests, whether their
> >> > >> >> personal wealth and power or their political whimsies. This is why
> >> > >> >> Adam Smith warned us so vehemently to be suspicious of their self-
> >> > >> >> serving rhetoric (e.g. WN I.11.264).
> >> > >> >> It is sometimes thought that the rich are necessary to the flourishing
> >> > >> >> of a free market economy, that because they have more wealth than they
> >> > >> >> need for their own consumption it is their investment of capital that
> >> > >> >> makes the economy spin around and create jobs. Thus the claim that
> >> > >> >> there is a trade-off between democracy and material prosperity. But
> >> > >> >> that 'job creator' thesis is out of date and back to front.
> >> > >> >> First, while in Adam Smith's time it might have been true that
> >> > >> >> economic development required capitalists to reinvest their profits
> >> > >> >> this was because everyone else was too poor. But these days the
> >> > >> >> economies of democratic societies are characterized by a broad middle-
> >> > >> >> class whose savings are quite sufficient for funding business
> >> > >> >> development and expansion (such as through the share-ownership of our
> >> > >> >> pension funds or the bank loans backed by our deposits).
>
> >> > >> >> Second, the greater the wealth inequality, the worse we may expect the
> >> > >> >> economy to perform. A flourishing economy requires customers as well
> >> > >> >> as investors. If the gains of economic productivity are overwhelmingly
> >> > >> >> transferred to some small group (as profits) that means that they
> >> > >> >> don't go to ordinary people (as wages). (For example, since 1979 all
> >> > >> >> the productivity gains of America's economy have gone to the richest
> >> > >> >> 1%.) The implications are, first, that economic growth does not
> >> > >> >> increase national prosperity because it does not increase the economic
> >> > >> >> command of ordinary people to satisfy our wants (which is how Smith
> >> > >> >> defined the wealth of nations). And, second, economic growth itself
> >> > >> >> will eventually suffer since high inequality limits the extent of the
> >> > >> >> market (fewer customers) and thus the scope for innovation.
> >> > >> >> Hence my modest proposal. We should first identify with some precision
> >> > >> >> the category of what it seems reasonable to call the rich i.e. those
> >> > >> >> people whose capabilities for independence from and command over the
> >> > >> >> rest of us crosses the threshold between enviable affluence and
> >> > >> >> aristocratic privilege. Then, when anyone in our society lands in the
> >> > >> >> category of the problematic rich we should say, as at the end of a
> >> > >> >> cheesy TV game show, "Congratulations, you won the economy game! Well
> >> > >> >> done." And then we should offer them a choice: give it away (hold a
> >> > >> >> potlatch, give it to Oxfam, their favourite art museum foundation, or
> >> > >> >> whatever) or cash out their winnings and depart our society forever,
> >> > >> >> leaving their citizenship at the door on their way out. Since the rich
> >> > >> >> are, um, rich, they have all the means they need to make a new life
> >> > >> >> for themselves elsewhere, and perhaps even inveigle their way into
> >> > >> >> citizenship in a country that is less picky than we are. So I'm sure
> >> > >> >> they'll do just fine. Still, we can let them back in to visit family
> >> > >> >> and friends a few days a year - there's no need to be vindictive.
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
Of course I talk to myself,
Sometimes I need expert advice..
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário