The Roots of Violence:
Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice,
Politics without principles.

- Mohandas K. Gandhi

No doubt a wise man said this and if we examine it we find the characteristics of our world today. Come tell me it isn't so, for as I look at each statement I can see where it is resident in the fabric of our societies and in fact has even been esposed as virtue by some contributors here

Well I guess there is no denying it

Your last sentence in the op tells me you are just trying to stir things up on the board.

platitude - definition of platitude by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

and in fact has even been esposed as virtue by some contributors here

---

Hello clete:

I agree with you.. I especially LOVE my science WITH humanity... That way if I don't LIKE it, I can pretend it isn't so.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Commerce without morality,

---

Hello again, clete:

Sounds like the tobacco industry. I think the right wingers LOVE the tobacco industry, no?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Politics without principles.

---

Hello again, clete:

Yes, there's SOME on this board who support torture..

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience

---

Hello again, clete:

Wall Street.

excon

Hi ex I see we have found some common ground and Yes Tom I was trying to stir some into a discussion which might not include the populous politics so prevelent in some places. You see Ex gets it.

The more you look at those statements the more you can fit western society right into them now I'm open to discuss of any one
Let's start with politics without principles, shall we start with Washington or Canberra? no shortage of examples in either place

Quote:

---

The more you look at those statements the more you can fit western society right into them

---

Of course Gandhi was talking about western society. After all.... His is /was so pure.The very example we should emulate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Of course Gandhi was talking about western society. After all.... His is /was so pure.The very example we should emulate.

---

Yes I have no doubt he was but not co0nfined to western society. As to Gandhi's example he didn't see the need to back every move with a gun, a great contrast to some we know

A lot of good that did during the separation civil war .

He took his non-violence views to the extreme . He urged the Brits to surrender to Nazi Germany ;and he criticized Jews who tried to escape the holocaust.

Now he was lucky he was opposing a civilized nation like Britain. Had Britain been ruled by the Mahdi-hatter of Assad do you think his passivity would've freed the nation ?
So although you are pointing the microscope at the west ;there is much worse out there. Note that the nation he helped establish has had to create one of the worlds largest nuclear powers to maintain sufficient security .

Here we go having a little relative morality and trying to justify the unjustifiable again.

Gandhi was a man of principle. That can sometimes mean the solutions are not practical and taken to the extreme can be ridiculous in hindsight. We all know the bully must be opposed, however the independence of India was an idea whose time had come even if it had taken a century since its first murmurings and it doesnot make him any less right.

One thing you are always good for Tom is ducking

Sorry... in a rare moment of agreement ,I think NK's calling Gandhi's words platitudes are right on. To accept them as words he believed in would be to first dismiss all the contradictions of this "saint" .
In many ways he was more cult leader.
You are correct. The Indian Independence movement began long before he came on the scene. Most likely ,given the shrinking fortunes of Britannia ,India was headed towards independence with or without Gandhi.
And of course ,his love of liberation from Britain only extended to India . When it came to South Africa ,during the Boer war ,and the Zulu rebellion ,he was quite the imperial loyalist.You should add some of his more racists quotes to the profound ones already quoted... ones like this :

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”

Or this gem :
“The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the coloured and white races’. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes, more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

sorry....in a rare moment of agreement ,I think NK's calling Gandhi's words platitudes are right on. To accept them as words he believed in would be to first dismiss all the contradictions of this "saint" .
In many ways he was more cult leader.
You are correct. The Indian Independence movement began long before he came on the scene. Most likely ,given the shrinking fortunes of Britannia ,India was headed towards independence with or without Gandhi.
And of course ,his love of liberation from Britain only extended to India . When it came to South Africa ,during the Boer war ,and the Zulu rebellion ,he was quite the imperial loyalist.You should add some of his more racists quotes to the profound ones already quoted ....ones like this :

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”

or this gem :
“The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the coloured and white races’. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes, more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?”

---

Racist? What would you do if called a Kaffir, knowing its connotations? That concept exists in many places in the world even if the term used is different and in any form it is demeening and intentionally condecending.

As to the Indian preserving racial purity, I think it is a great pity many more races don't emulate them, It might reduce some of the problems in the world since it is easily seen that the half cast is a source of problem due to low acceptance. Gandhi conveninently forgot the anglo many of whom were forced to leave India at independence, which proves that no one is perfect.

Irrespective of Gandhi's mistakes the point made in my original post is valid

I fail to see any advantage in racial or ethnic purity. It is interesting and revealing that Gadhi failed to mention that type of intollerance as one of the roots of violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I fail to see any advantage in racial or ethnic purity. It is interesting and revealing that Gadhi failed to mention that type of intollerance as one of the roots of violence.

---

Perhaps one of his failings was inabilty to rhyme

There is a great deal of advantage Tom since the customs of various races are not easily understood and a source of difficulties, Just for you we will add
Race without reason

Got one for you.
Commerce without morality/
Politics without principles.

When the private sector runs a ponzi scheme it's an immoral and illegal act that gets that person locked up when caught.
When the government runs a massive ponzi scheme that in comparison makes the business guy look like he stole from a dime store ,it's considered a moral and principled social program .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...er-293241.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Got one for ya.
Commerce without morality/
Politics without principles.

When the private sector runs a ponzi scheme it's an immoral and illegal act that gets that person locked up when caught.
When the government runs a massive ponzi scheme that in comparison makes the business guy look like he stole from a dime store ,it's considered a moral and principled social program .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...er-293241.html

---

Look Tom, insurance is a ponzi scheme and definitely commerce without morality, health insurance is a ponzi scheme and definitely commerce without morality endorced by politics without principles yet you cling to the idea this is good while decrying social security as a ponzi scheme. Unfunded schemes are destined to fail if for no other reason than government fails to control inflation and has no control over the birth rate

Quote:

---

yet you cling to the idea this is good while decrying social security as a ponzi scheme.

---

Nope... would prefer to make my commerce directly with the doctor.
I did not set up the private or public insurance system. I know that I don't need it to pay for routine care... only for catastrophic care . But I'm not given that choice either .
The biggest problem with the private insurance system however is not the insurance companies... it is the mandates they operate under. How can I shop around when all health insurance in my State requires the same coverage ? Why can't I make my deal with the insurance company to only get the coverage I think I need ? Because the government dicates otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Nope ...would prefer to make my commerce directly with the doctor.
I did not set up the private or public insurance system. I know that I don't need it to pay for routine care .... only for catastrophic care . But I'm not given that choice either .
The biggest problem with the private insurance system however is not the insurance companies ...it is the mandates they operate under. How can I shop around when all health insurance in my State requires the same coverage ? Why can't I make my deal with the insurance company to only get the coverage I think I need ? Because the government dicates otherwise.

---

Then Tom you have no choice but to change the government. Very difficult when you have only two political parties who basically uphold that policy. It seems the lack of choice extends to places where you might prefer it didn't.
So much for freedom and democracy, it's all relative

Just so you know, we may have only two politcal parties, but they both are coalitions of smaller self interest groups.Just easier to keep score, sometimes??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Just so you know, we may have only two politcal parties, but they both are coalitions of smaller self interest groups.Just easier to keep score, sometimes?!??!

---

Yes Tom we both know that self interest often gets in the way. Very difficult to register a protest vote and yet stay true to your principles

Apparently in Canada the roots of violence is hockey.

Rioting in Vancouver

Saw that this morning, and in contrast the victors came home to cheering crowds, in Boston and, no violence, and at the same time they didn't burn Miami down when they lost to the Mavericks, who came home to cheering crowds as well.

Maybe losers like to tear stuff up in Canada? Or maybe Canadians are lousy losers. Naw, I also remember they tried to burn down Chicago (again?! ), when the Bulls won the NBA championship years back, so I guess we learned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Saw that this morning, and in contrast the victors came home to cheering crowds, in Boston and, no violence, and at the same time they didn't burn Miami down when they lost to the Mavericks, who came home to cheering crowds as well.

Maybe losers like to tear stuff up in Canada?? Or maybe Canadians are lousy losers. Naw, I also remember they tried to burn down Chicago (again??!!), when the Bulls won the NBA championship years back, so I guess we learned.

---

It's those mad scotsmen it is no different in Scotland

Speaking of Commerce without morality, Kia seems to think using pedophile teachers is a great way to sell vehicles. And so does the Cannes Lion Awards, which bestowed the Silver Press Lion for the ad.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/296211/KIA-SPORTAGE-AD.jpg

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

Kia's response:

Quote:

---

Kia Motors America (KMA) has become aware of an offensive piece of advertisin­g material that was created by an ad agency in Brazil that KMA has no business relationsh­ip with and has never worked with. This ad was not created in the U.S. by Kia Motors America or any of its marketing partners and does not reflect the opinions or values of KMA or Kia Motors Corporatio­n. The ad is undoubtedl­y inappropri­ate, and on behalf of Kia Motors we apologize to those who have been offended by it. We can guarantee this advertisem­ent has never and will never be used in any form in the United States, and our global headquarte­rs in Seoul, South Korea is addressing the issue with the independen­t Brazilian distributo­r.

---

Viral marketing attempt = success.

What they should've said is they were pulling the ad from all markets regardless of the nation. They should use any law available to them to have the ads blocked ,and they should sue the agency that created the ad if indeed they have no working relationship with them.

But there isn't any pedophilia, it's just poor taste.

FYI to any interested person::

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.

This fits the criteria:

Where do you see the sexual interest in a prepubescent child in those images?

Ignoring the blindness to the pedophilia in this ad for a moment and returning to Pleasure without conscience and Politics without principles, the President in his presser yesterday condemned his own private jet tax breaks.

Quote:

---

The chief economic culprit of President Obama’s Wednesday press conference was undoubtedly “corporate jets.” He mentioned them on at least six occasions, each time offering their owners as an example of a group that should be paying more in taxes.

“I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well,” the president stated at one point, “to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.”

But the corporate jet tax break to which Obama was referring – called “accelerated depreciation,” and a popular Democratic foil of late – was created by his own stimulus package.

Proponents of the tax break lauded it as a means to spur economic activity by encouraging purchases of large manufactured goods (planes). So the president’s statement today – and his call to repeal that tax break generally – is either a tacit admission that the stimulus included projects that did not, in fact, stimulate the economy, or an attempt to “soak the rich” without regard for the policy’s effects on the economy.

---

Anything to get re-elected...

Yeah he complained about Congress not showing leadership. He's doing his part . "I've been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis". He should've gone on in that tone with.. I've been doing golf ...I've been doing lunch.

His biggest problem is that he's not running against the GOP ;he's running against the GDP ,and he's already played all the cards in his hand. He has no answer except more of the same... more class division and envy... more failed stimulus programs.. more spending .

Edit... forgot to add that the stimulus was a bad idea ;and included in the bad idea was the private airplane provision. If that is considered a "tax increase " then in a effort at bipartisanship ,the GOPer should agree to it in the negotiations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

edit ....forgot to add that the stimulus was a bad idea ;and included in the bad idea was the private airplane provision. If that is considered a "tax increase " then in a effort at bipartisanship ,the GOPer should agree to it in the negotiations.

---

And while they're doing away with the jet tax break, maybe they can find a way to make rich Senators pay taxes on their yachts.

That would be a start for the GOP, that they agree to something. The whole country is tired of no way, and crazy talk about the job creators, and their money. What about the common man and his money? That's their job, not destroying a safety net, to protect people from greed, and manipulated markets, gone crazy, not making every freakin' thing a business for a rich man to make even more money, not some third world nation, where the king tells the slaves what to do, not some power hungry social agenda imposed on everyone. The GOP's efforts to turn a great nation into some type of oligarchy will ruled by greedy rich folks will fail, because their only agenda and focus is on obstructing anything that helps the middle class thrive and survive so they can return to power, and take the rest of the loot, they haven't STOLEN already!

You repubs better take back control of your own party, before you end up suffering like the rest of us when the repubs get what they want. And just so we all know, the stimulus worked despite effort by the GOP to water it down, would have worked much better if the GOP would have kept there 2 cents to themselves. They don't want anything this president does to work, no matter who suffers from their actions.

That's why middle class repubs are joining middle class Dem's to push back on the new repub governors mad power grab, and more wealth transfer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The GOP's efforts to turn a great nation into some type of oligarchy will ruled by greedy rich folks will fail, .

---

It reached that stage a long time ago, look at Greece and riots in the streets as even the little you have is taken away, that is the future, BO talks about a lazy Congress, but what about the lazy President who doesn't have a plan for what to do next? Increase the cap, what about stop spending?