It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Identifying evil people

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Rich Business people built society.

No they didn't they just brought about the separation of classes.

Companies built the roads, cards, cities, hospitals, day cares, computers, phones, airplanes you all benefit from.

You seem to overlook that all of these things comes from inventions of the little people.

Even prior to their massive philanthropy and charity they created much of the world we live in.

And they also destroy much of it in the pursuit of profit.

"Evil" is much more prevalent among the poor. Compare the homicide, rape, infanticide, vandalism, robbery and other crime statistics of the poor with those of the rich.

When was the last time a poor person started a war? Who profits from war the ones who fight in it( usually middle class and poor people) or the ones who don't fight in them (usually the rich) but rake in the profits by selling arms to both sides as well as financing both governments.

And yet, most people blame the rich for all evils, thanks to cultural mass-indoctrination through Academia and Hollywood.

People usually blame the rich because they have eyes and a brain. They see the bad things and see who profits from them.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 02:43 PM
Evil is as it does.
Don't flinch.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 02:57 PM
Obama is pure evil. Look at his face. He is not a socialist. His wife has giant munchers for teeth.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Valhall

One among us should make a billion dollars somehow, come to power, and then totally mess with and root out the real evil lurking at the heart of an evil empire, and bring it all down to naught, since it's all a bunch of worthless nonsense to begin with, born of every manner of evil, from envy and jealousy to the lust and greed for power for nothing but the sake of power.

Personally I don't think anyone, on either the left or the right has the first clue about what's really going on and what truly represents our very best enlightened mutual self interest.

It's all out of control, but in the words of Terrance McKenna "who's control is it out of"? ... ; )

It's out of the control of the arrogant and the narrow minded, and of the evil people in the world who, more often than not are self proclaimed "perfect" people, and among them are certainly those who gravitate to the urge to act in a projected role as a (whitewashed?) pillar of society, when all the while they might be filled, in the words of Jesus "with dead mens bones and all corruption!"

What is righteous, just and worthy always stands the test of time. Let truth come to power.

First things first the restoration of the tree of life and liberty, not with blood, but only a strong accountibility, and a rooting-out process.

Let the evil of the foolish be smashed and left utterly broken - against the rock of reason, of truth, justice, liberty the persuit of happiness, and all that good stuff which "they" the so-called "keepers of the flame" not only hijacked for their own selfishness and narrow special interest, but attempted to rob, all for themselves, leaving the mass hoards grasping around at a much more meager standard of living, while they alone live "above" the fray, that too is wicked - but the question of this thread is, how much money turns a person, evil. Well, it all depends on what you do with it, right?

Just because they dropped the ball doesn't mean that one (and two or more) among us can't pick it back up again and move it forward in the most appropriate manner, to the degree that you can almost breath liberty in the air, and feel the lingering sense of innocence that was once, as it was before that stupid 9/11 event and everything that ensued in its wake what a nightmare it's been for the last 10 years, and I don't think either of them, either left or right have even the first clue what to do to lead the way into the 21st century, it's like EVERYONE's dropped the ball, which also means that everything is still up in the air, as the ball is passed on to the next generation, may they have the courage to come to power for all the right reasons and once there, remain uncorruptible that's my prayer.

That they've all F'd it up so bad might represent the opportunity of all ages to bring about something infinitely better by comparison than what's gone down over the last decade or so.

"All happiness for man must arise exclusively in relation only to some unhappiness already experienced."
~ Gurdjieff

edit on 7-10-2012 by NewAgeMan because: typo

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:13 PM
Hypocrisy is the door through which all evil walks.

These vices are the path to evil.

Indifference - You stop caring about others
Greed - You decide that you have the right to take whatever you can get, irregardless of how it effects others.
Arrogance - You decide that you are better than others.
Hypocrisy - you decide that you get to live by a different set of rules.

Morality exists to establish communal trust, that allows us to live and work together, and build rich and full lives.
edit on 7-10-2012 by poet1b because: Typo

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:57 PM
A little something on evil......

Letter written from London by the Rothschilds to their New York agents introducing their banking method into America: "The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."

As Napoleon pointed out: "Terrorism, War & Bankruptcy are caused by the privatization of money, issued as a debt and compounded by interest "- he cancelled debt and interest in France - hence the Battle of Waterloo.

Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836): "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply."

Rockefeller is reported to have said: "Competition is a sin". "Own nothing. Control everything". Because he wants to centralize control of everything and enslave us all, i.e. the modern Nimrod or Pharaoh.

Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who's Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:15 PM
For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

The biggest secret the PTB, the evil peeps, world bankers and all don't ever want us to realize ? The monetary system is their control. And we don't even need a monetary system. Never did.

If we stop using a currency and just barter at a social level but globally ? And refuse to work under this system ?
Their instantly ruined and reduced right down to our level. Eliminate money for ever and you eliminate most of the evil in this world.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by Valhall

The definition of a psychopath is someone with out a conscious. Also corporations have no conscious, so if they are people they must be evil. Considering that Mitt Romney runs many corporations I think this is Ironic.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by Valhall

If the left believed that wealthy, successful people were "evil" how do you explain left wing presidents?

By definition they are succesful. Did the right vote them in?

Thank you for giving me a good laugh this morning.

edit on 6-10-2012 by BritofTexas because: (no reason given)

....that one is easy. Hypocrisy. ...and yes, there is often enough of it to go around from both sides.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:44 PM
A little more evil......

How much evil can we handle?

Secret meetings and secret agendas...ALL SECRET! haha sssseeeeecccccrrrrrreeeeet

That is not the definition of democracy!

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by Valhall

I'm a liberal and his money has very little to do with my opinion of him. I fear him being our president because his foreign policy sounds like a recipe for ww3, and he seems to think he is beyond foulable yet isn't big on declaring his answers to the problems. He shows a general lack of compasion, and he has lived his life as if it were the 1950s. Having a housewife and five kids at home may work for him, but he no longer represents America accurately and I think his perspective is insanely jaded when compared to the problems facing average Americans. This election is entirely mud slinging and deflection. Very little declaration of anything on either side. He's worse news than Obama, and that's saying something.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:28 PM
The whole "Obama thinks rich people are evil" idea is pretty much limited to this thread, specifically the OP. I've NEVER heard that silly argument outside of ATS, outside of THIS thread. More democrats lean to the left , and more Republicans lean to the right, that is well known (although to be honest, you can have a right leaning dem, or a left leaning repub, anyway). Yet in order to be the President of the US, you HAVE to be healthy. Explain to me, then, why we've had republican AND democrat presidents? If all democrats, or those to the left, HATE rich do you explain so many wealthy and successful people who lean to the left, including many former presidents?

What about the left leaning hollywood and entertainment population? They are BEYOND rich, and yet many of them are as far left as you can go.

I think this thread was just to stir up the pond. It isn't based on anything besides the OP's biased mind.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by MDDoxs

You didn't read my post. It's not my definition. It's the Democrats and Liberals.

Where do they define that?

As far as I can see the OP says it is "apparently" the Dem/Lib definition, but it gives no source.

It seems to me like a "defintion" you have made yuip for them, out of your own head, because it suits you as a means to denigrate them.

It's the current administration's.

Prove it.

Money and prosperity is evil...I didn't make the rules,

I reckon you did.

On my scale of evilness making up stories about people is right up there - so you are evil.

edit on 7-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by pajoly
Am I the only that finds this entire thread absurd? The premise is a nonsensical invention of the OP. I've never heard anyone make the claim that wealth is correlative to evil. It is a ridiculous OP, not worthy of the site.

How DARE YOU sir! How DARE YOU come on this site, reply to this post, and make perfect sense. Release the hounds!!!!

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by Valhall

I'm a liberal and his money has very little to do with my opinion of him. I fear him being our president because his foreign policy sounds like a recipe for ww3, and he seems to think he is beyond foulable yet isn't big on declaring his answers to the problems. He shows a general lack of compasion, and he has lived his life as if it were the 1950s. Having a housewife and five kids at home may work for him, but he no longer represents America accurately and I think his perspective is insanely jaded when compared to the problems facing average Americans. This election is entirely mud slinging and deflection. Very little declaration of anything on either side. He's worse news than Obama, and that's saying something.

Why does he have to be the product of a broken family, possibly raised by his divorced mother and her new girlfriend, in order for him to feel compassion for people that either made mistakes in life or chose an alternative lifestyle? That argument is completely illogical.

If you want to argue about foreign policy, why is the current administration pushing 450 billion in aid two countries recently overtaken by the Muslim brotherhood? Both of which did little to protect our embassies and the people inside of those buildings? You call that great foreign policy?

Damn that Mitt - he's successful, good-looking, and a family man. How dare he try to lead this country. We need someone who wasn't vetted in the first place, was 5 years outside of being a "community organizer" and who's had some shady citizenship issues to say the least. (Whether he was or wasn't born on US soil, Obama himself approved a PR pamphlet which plainly stated he was NOT born in the US). His father wasn't born here, and it's widely accepted Obama maintains a dual citizenship. I'm not making this stuff up.

We should be so lucky to live in the prosperity, responsibility, and respect for others that was the 1950's. Outside of civil rights issues, this country wasn't facing the knuckleheads that are about to START WW3 in the name of Allah and or Yaweh. Not Mitt's fault, not Barry's fault. But apologizing for the idea of American exceptionalism IS totally on Barry. Inviting Israel's Prime Minister to the White House and attempting to demand that his country change it's boarders, then getting SCHOOLED in front of the public - you're trying to tell me this guy knows his foreign policy? Just like with Solyndra and the other 90 billion he peed away in green energy, the Obama administration tried to pick the winners and losers in the Arab spring. He missed a MAJOR opportunity in Iran, chose Libya and Egypt, but ignored Syria. He promised Russia (on a hot mike) "just wait till after the election" to go into bed with them.

ANYTHING would be better than 4 more years of this nonsense.

I would argue your first sentence is false. It should be more like "I am liberal and I dislike Mitt Romney because he was successful in business and in his life and therefor can't ever lead this nation". Your supporting comments basically void your opening sentence. I respect your right to be liberal, but come on - you absolutely resent Mitt Romney.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by dogstar23
reply to post by flashtrum

I thought Romney was the only one who believed that lie about "$90B in failed green energy investments.". C'mon people, this kind of stuff is so easy to research to avoid being duped by these scumbags. "they" think we're a bunch of gullible idiots, and all-too-often, we prove them right. Link below (if it works right, I don't think i've ever posted links on ATS) is a brief summary on how blatant of a "mis-application of facts" Romney's ridiculous $90B line of B.S. Is. If the link doesn't work, any source with a shred of credibility is all you need to find the truth:

Kinda like Obama floating the 5 trillion tax cut "proposed" by Mitt.

Whatever the numbers, this administration ABSOLUTELY attempted to pick winners and force green energy onto the American people when the technology isn't there - nor is the price. We do still live in a free market society. I'm allowed to burn all of the gas and coal I can afford. Until green energy makes sense, I will happily continue to live the way I live.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by ValhallI'd like to thank you for taking multiple posts and hundreds of words to succinctly lay out just how economically horrendous the redistribution of wealth via government regulations did a splendid job. The income tax rate for a couple earning $250,000 is 33%. That's $82,500. That's the equivalent of this couple paying the salaries of two average income workers in their taxes. They are already paying in (to break even at the end of the year) $6875/month in taxes. And, no matter, how you slice it, this couple is working for only two-thirds of their actual earnings, since 33 cents of every dollar they make is going to the government in taxes. This does not include sales tax, state tax, property tax, gasoline tax, or any of the other myriad of taxes we all get levied. And they want to raise the taxes on this couple more.

I cut most of your quote to save room. Here's the thing, increases in expenses for a nicer lifestyle drop off and you have MUCH more disposable income as you get higher on the income ladder. That's the entire theory behind progressive taxes. Those with more money can afford to pay more. Someone making 250k/year doesn't have 5x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year, they have more along the lines of 15x the disposable income. Asking them to pay a little more in taxes causing them to only have 12x as much income to spend on whatever they want is done so that people in much lower income brackets can afford to live. Purchasing power in lower income brackets has been declining for decades while at the same time the top 1% or so has seen 10 fold increases in it's wages.

MSN Money came out with a great comparison of what was bought in 1950 compared to now earlier this year. The page it's on doesn't seem to work so here's a summary of it:

Excluded from the study were food prices which have also been rising steadily for a long time now. The end result is that the working poor don't have the money for basics in life without assistance programs anymore. If companies stopped paying executives quite as much and increased their prices for the lower level positions that wouldn't be the case, but it is what it is. And that means if the money won't come from the employer it has to come from the government, when money comes from the government it has to come from people. The middle class already has the highest tax burden, taxing the poor (who have no money to tax) to pay for programs for the poor simply won't work. By default that means those with lots of money have to be taxed.

Furthermore I'm going to repeat again that those programs exist for 3 reasons:
1. So lower class citizens have a minimum quality of life on par with other developed nations (actually our poor are worse off, but whatever)
2. So the poor are more content with their lives and less likely to commit major crimes. Just like with health care it's cheaper to prevent crime than to repair the damage afterwards.
3. Economic stimulus. When the poor get money they can't afford to save it, instead they spend it. When the rich get money they use it to make more money. They don't actually spend it on goods an services. When the poor spend money it results in multiplier effects and grows the economy. It's the same idea as Bush's tax rebates.

Originally posted by ecossiepossie
Super wealthy people like Bill Gates the mega heavy weights in todays market..Worked incredibly hard to amass the buisnesses they run today,An they deserve to reap the rewards of ther endevours,And if that means cutting them some slack with taxes to entice them to keep there buisness plants factorys ect in the country as oppose to off shore tax havens give them the insentives theve earned it an then some.Thease sucsesfull buisness titans employ thousands of workers Directors Managers sales people secreterys engineers manufacture also knock on effect to local buisnesses feeder industrys creates even more jobs So each of thease Wealthy buisness titans is responsable for creating all of thease employees each paying income tax into the Nations coffers

Or we can say employ Americans or you don't get access to our markets. One benefits the country the other doesn't. For all the tax breaks we've given Microsoft they're still based in Ireland where they pay 0% tax. They only transfer just enough money into their US division to pay payroll. We lose out on corporate income taxes from them. Trying to compete by giving large corporations the lowest tax rates is doomed to failure because companies will base themselves in countries which give them 0% or negative tax rates. Many countries are starting to jump onto the 0% tax bandwagon, with 1 or 2 offering negative rates (the country pays the corporation to set up it's HQ there)


posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by just showed the ignorance on the left. "Harvesting" does not mean that he made his money off of doing anything that negatively impacted anybody. It is a standard investment term used by capital investment companies. They invest either at start up, or they invest at an expansion time for a business. They retain their investment in the business, possibly even increasing that investment to assist along the way, with the goal of the business becoming profitable and self-sustaining at the target size. Once the business becomes profitable, they "harvest" their original investment from the company and move on to invest in another venture.

You just proved my point. You think people who make money are evil. You don't even take the time to learn what you're talking about, you just use a word in a WRONG and negative connotation to present a business transaction in an evil light.

It's all a matter of how they made that business profitable. Did they send all the jobs overseas? Did they contribute to the lowering of US worker wages? Making money for honest work isn't evil, making money on the back of modern day slave labor and gutting employee compensation while giving massive bonuses to those at the top is evil.

Originally posted by Valhall
And that you argue for multiple posts that the way to fix things is just tax the crap out of someone who makes a little more than you so that...what??? Exactly what? I want to hear what you think you get out of it, other than the satisfaction their earned income gets whittled down to closer to where you are. I want to hear what you THINK you get out of it.

Let's review the economics of the "enviable"...because that's what fuels the entire democratic redistribution of wealth philosophy. Effing envy. So let's review it:

Cut the quote again so there's room to respond. First of all there's no envy involved. There's just the expectation that when someone works 40 hours a week they should be able to afford rent, food, medical treatment, and a small entertainment budget. There's not envy saying "they get to go on a cruise so I should too". Rather there's the expectation of basic human services. The other part of taxes is to offset the inherent privileges of wealth and level the playing field. In better schools you get better teachers, in higher tuition colleges you make contacts for the future, these are things that cause the land of opportunity to give much less opportunity to poor people. Some taxes and social programs don't eliminate those issues but they do ensure the poor have an opportunity to goto a college and that they can have an education.

What you're missing in your example of how much the person takes home after taxes, is the percentage of a persons income that those taxes hit. Sales tax, gas tax, and so on are regressive taxes they hit everyone equally. In the case of the poor the gas tax can hit them the hardest as they usually have the oldest cars with the lowest MPG. The poor for example will spend about 61.5% of their income on rent (higher/lower depending on where in the country you live, but that's average... 800 rent) and another 15.4% on food. Of their remaining 23.1% or $300, all $300 of that will be subject to gas and sales tax. Someone who's bringing in $10,000 for the month on the other hand will have say $6000 to spend however they want and only $2000 of that will find itself subject to gas and sales taxes. Yes the rich person is paying more in tax in raw dollars but the tax has a dramatically lower impact on their purchasing power.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in