BoxRec

coneye wrote:Its amazing how the Muslims who can command media attention , will use it to complain its not fair , i'm a muslim and everyone picks on me . But they don't use it to influence other Muslims on how bad the terrorists really are

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

Media portrays what they want to portray.

They portray Muslims negative and Muslims complaining. If you can't see past that and make your own conclusions, then i really feel sorry for you.

verballistic wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:

SenorPipino wrote:Well it wasn't the Canadians who attacked the U.S. on 9-11.
And it isn't the Aussies who are proudly displaying neanderthal beheading videos.

If Khan has to endure extra scrutiny to enter the U.S., so be it.
If he's got any complaints, maybe he should address his pathetic Muslim brethren who are responsible for so many atrocities. Or has Khan conveniently forgotten this?
Hard to believe that some shed tears for these lunatics, or worry about Khan's sensitivities.

Not this sh!t again. Like America has just been skipping rocks in the ocean in the middle east for all these years & randomly went apesh!t on us. If any country did to us what we've done in the middle east region there would be a lot more buildings collapsed & more heads chopped than anything that's been done to us.

Sorry Reg...have to disagree with you on this one. Brush up on your history, amigo. 9/11 happened before we invaded Afghanistan (or Iraq) & the reason we invaded Taliban-run Afghanistan was because the Taliban was directly aiding, abetting and providing sanctuary for Al Qaeda up to & including the time of WTC attacks. They were direct accomplices in the 9/11 terror attacks that killed 3,000 people.

It's ridiculous to blame US for 9/11. Before 9/11 US military was defending and/or liberating Muslims around the globe:

* 1980s > Arming & helping Afghan Muslims to evict the Soviets after USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1978. (Not saying we didnt have ulterior motives for wanting the Soviets out, but fact is we did Afghan Muslims a major favor by helping them eject USSR invaders.)

* 1991 > Liberating Kuwaiti Muslims after Saddam invaded & took over Kuwait, slaughtering many Kuwaiti Muslims in the process. Some criticized US for not taking Saddam back then, but that was clearly not the mission, which was only to liberate Kuwait from Hussein invasion.

* 1992-93 > Defending Somali Muslims against brutal Somali warlords (The first Al Qaeda-trained rebels were the ones who pulled off the "Blackhawk Down" incident. 1993 was also the year of the original WTC bombings which was botched & only killed 7 people.)

* 1995 > Defending Bosnian Muslims from the genocide campaign of brutal Serbian butcher Slobodan Milosevic

* 1996 > Osama Bin Laden (who received US help with Afghan Mujahadeen to fight Soviets) shows his "gratitude" by declaring war on US.

* 1998 > OBL & Al Qaeda bomb US Embassies in East Africa, killing 200+ people, mostly Africans who worked there.

* 2001 > Al Qaeda hijacks airliners & massacres nearly 3,000 people on 9/11

So please dont make it sound like WE started this thing. Those who try to defend Osama Bin Laden as some kind of noble fighter against "US bullies" are either misinformed, ignorant or just insane. The ISIS barbarians are just the remnant of what remained of Al Qaeda in Iraq before they regrouped & recruited lots of foreign fighters. .

So you think "they hate us for our freedom"?

ReggieDiggs wrote:

verballistic wrote:Sorry Reg...have to disagree with you on this one. Brush up on your history, amigo. 9/11 happened before we invaded Afghanistan (or Iraq) & the reason we invaded Taliban-run Afghanistan was because the Taliban was directly aiding, abetting and providing sanctuary for Al Qaeda up to & including the time of WTC attacks. They were direct accomplices in the 9/11 terror attacks that killed 3,000 people.

It's ridiculous to blame US for 9/11. Before 9/11 US military was defending and/or liberating Muslims around the globe:

* 1980s > Arming & helping Afghan Muslims to evict the Soviets after USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1978. (Not saying we didnt have ulterior motives for wanting the Soviets out, but fact is we did Afghan Muslims a major favor by helping them eject USSR invaders.)

* 1991 > Liberating Kuwaiti Muslims after Saddam invaded & took over Kuwait, slaughtering many Kuwaiti Muslims in the process. Some criticized US for not taking Saddam back then, but that was clearly not the mission, which was only to liberate Kuwait from Hussein invasion.

* 1992-93 > Defending Somali Muslims against brutal Somali warlords (The first Al Qaeda-trained rebels were the ones who pulled off the "Blackhawk Down" incident. 1993 was also the year of the original WTC bombings which was botched & only killed 7 people.)

* 1995 > Defending Bosnian Muslims from the genocide campaign of brutal Serbian butcher Slobodan Milosevic

* 1996 > Osama Bin Laden (who received US help with Afghan Mujahadeen to fight Soviets) shows his "gratitude" by declaring war on US.

* 1998 > OBL & Al Qaeda bomb US Embassies in East Africa, killing 200+ people, mostly Africans who worked there.

* 2001 > Al Qaeda hijacks airliners & massacres nearly 3,000 people on 9/11

So please dont make it sound like WE started this thing. Those who try to defend Osama Bin Laden as some kind of noble fighter against "US bullies" are either misinformed, ignorant or just insane. The ISIS barbarians are just the remnant of what remained of Al Qaeda in Iraq before they regrouped & recruited lots of foreign fighters. .

So you think "they hate us for our freedom"?

Damn, Verballistic really believes network news ... good for you son!

I am neither Muslim nor a fan of Islam but the ignorance in this thread scares me. At the very base level, a minority of people belonging to a certain religion/ethnic group have committed heinous acts. Since when does it become okay to discriminate against every single person in said group?

stevedoc wrote:It was something to do with a recent criminal investigation actually. And as Muslims are committing every terrorist attack for the last few years, it's perfectly reasonable that they should be under more scrutiny

funny how i never got my visa rejected or turned away on landing and i have a lot worse past than amir .as for the muslim being under more scrutiny i agree with especially on such a date ....

They don't turn you away for having been a rent boy in the past, it's usually for more serious crimes or terrorism reasons.[/quote][/quote]

i prefer the term gigolo myself and tell your dad he still owes me for letting him rim me and he never gave back the bullyboy dildo he up his rectum at the time ..[/quote]


I have no idea what you are on about...bullyboy, my god Steve you are a strange kid

SenorPipino wrote:Well it wasn't the Canadians who attacked the U.S. on 9-11.
And it isn't the Aussies who are proudly displaying neanderthal beheading videos.

If Khan has to endure extra scrutiny to enter the U.S., so be it.
If he's got any complaints, maybe he should address his pathetic Muslim brethren who are responsible for so many atrocities. Or has Khan conveniently forgotten this?
Hard to believe that some shed tears for these lunatics, or worry about Khan's sensitivities.

Brutal enslavement of Africans,Decades of Racism endured by freed slaves, Brutal Massacre and near Extinction of Native Americans, Dropped Nukes on Humans, Holocaust, Bogus Search for Wmds War... Who is responsible for these inhumane acts?

I hope Khan has balls enough to take on someone like Thurman, Brook, or Porter to actually earn a fight with Floyd, but we will instead watch him either fight someone that is totally safe. Even Guerrero would be decent. Instead he may just take off again like a moron until next spring because he doesn't have the confidence to win against any top ranked welter. I can't stand that phony arrogant piece of crap.

Badhusker wrote:I hope Khan has balls enough to take on someone like Thurman, Brook, or Porter to actually earn a fight with Floyd, but we will instead watch him either fight someone that is totally safe. Even Guerrero would be decent. Instead he may just take off again like a moron until next spring because he doesn't have the confidence to win against any top ranked welter. I can't stand that phony arrogant piece of crap.

He isn't exactly known for ducking big fights. He has the best CV of any Brit bar Froch.

scallum wrote:

SenorPipino wrote:Well it wasn't the Canadians who attacked the U.S. on 9-11.
And it isn't the Aussies who are proudly displaying neanderthal beheading videos.

If Khan has to endure extra scrutiny to enter the U.S., so be it.
If he's got any complaints, maybe he should address his pathetic Muslim brethren who are responsible for so many atrocities. Or has Khan conveniently forgotten this?
Hard to believe that some shed tears for these lunatics, or worry about Khan's sensitivities.

Brutal enslavement of Africans,Decades of Racism endured by freed slaves, Brutal Massacre and near Extinction of Native Americans, Dropped Nukes on Humans, Holocaust, Bogus Search for Wmds War... Who is responsible for these inhumane acts?

A few points here regarding slaves: the Africans that were slaves in America were captured and sold by other Africans. It still goes on in parts of Africa today. In the US there were freed slaves who owned slaves themselves. Africans were not the only people sold as slaves in the US. In the 1650's over 50,000 Irish men, women and children were sold as slaves in Barbados and Virginia.

JMac wrote:A few points here regarding slaves: the Africans that were slaves in America were captured and sold by other Africans. It still goes on in parts of Africa today. In the US there were freed slaves who owned slaves themselves. Africans were not the only people sold as slaves in the US. In the 1650's over 50,000 Irish men, women and children were sold as slaves in Barbados and Virginia.

This point is often misrepresented in history. It was perpetuated by racists and European/American apologists to make it seem like slavery was just a normal business transaction between Africans and Europeans ...

FALSE!!!

Africans sold other Africans into slavery to protect themselves. Go find out what happened to all the African "slavers" once they didn't have anymore slaves to sell.

Also, just think realistically about 95% of European contact with the rest of the world during that time. Do you honestly think that they respected any African as equals? Come on man. Damn, we'd believe any lie or half truth out there in order to avoid the crippling guilt that so much of the wealth we enjoy was created by a human rights and ecological disaster much bigger than the Holocaust.

Just accept the evil ... because once you do, you can move on towards a more truthful and positive life.

PS - Slavery in Africa at the time was MUCH DIFFERENT than what went on in America and other parts of the world. If you really did your research, you would begin to see your point as extremely misinformed and purposely ignorant of the suffering caused by GREED and EVIL. Thanks Europe!

PS2 - Also, the Jews weren't the only ones killed during the Holocaust ... but the VAST majority were Jews. The point of others who suffered doesn't diminish that the vast majority were form one people. Also, how difficult was it to integrated for those Irish to assimilate after their slavery ended? Were they marching up to the 60's for their rights?

PS3 - Anymore woefully inaccurate "white man" history for me to debunk?

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

JMac wrote:A few points here regarding slaves: the Africans that were slaves in America were captured and sold by other Africans. It still goes on in parts of Africa today. In the US there were freed slaves who owned slaves themselves. Africans were not the only people sold as slaves in the US. In the 1650's over 50,000 Irish men, women and children were sold as slaves in Barbados and Virginia.

This point is often misrepresented in history. It was perpetuated by racists and European/American apologists to make it seem like slavery was just a normal business transaction between Africans and Europeans ...

FALSE!!!

Africans sold other Africans into slavery to protect themselves. Go find out what happened to all the African "slavers" once they didn't have anymore slaves to sell.

Also, just think realistically about 95% of European contact with the rest of the world during that time. Do you honestly think that they respected any African as equals? Come on man. Damn, we'd believe any lie or half truth out there in order to avoid the crippling guilt that so much of the wealth we enjoy was created by a human rights and ecological disaster much bigger than the Holocaust.

Just accept the evil ... because once you do, you can move on towards a more truthful and positive life.

PS - Slavery in Africa at the time was MUCH DIFFERENT than what went on in America and other parts of the world. If you really did your research, you would begin to see your point as extremely misinformed and purposely ignorant of the suffering caused by GREED and EVIL. Thanks Europe!

PS2 - Also, the Jews weren't the only ones killed during the Holocaust ... but the VAST majority were Jews. The point of others who suffered doesn't diminish that the vast majority were form one people. Also, how difficult was it to integrated for those Irish to assimilate after their slavery ended? Were they marching up to the 60's for their rights?

PS3 - Anymore woefully inaccurate "white man" history for me to debunk?

Don't worry, you have enough crippling guilt for everyone

Just accept that your crippling guilt is unnecessary, because once you do you you can move on to a more truthful and positive life.

Every now and then someone around here gets to "Schooling" boxrec posters on life and the common polorizing issues, and it always makes me laugh.

Hey, look over there! It's the Slayer of Lies/Champion of Truth! The enemy of all misinformation!
.
.
.
.
Oh wait, no it's not. It's just another Boxrec poster.
Nevermind.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

JMac wrote:A few points here regarding slaves: the Africans that were slaves in America were captured and sold by other Africans. It still goes on in parts of Africa today. In the US there were freed slaves who owned slaves themselves. Africans were not the only people sold as slaves in the US. In the 1650's over 50,000 Irish men, women and children were sold as slaves in Barbados and Virginia.

This point is often misrepresented in history. It was perpetuated by racists and European/American apologists to make it seem like slavery was just a normal business transaction between Africans and Europeans ...

FALSE!!!

Africans sold other Africans into slavery to protect themselves. Go find out what happened to all the African "slavers" once they didn't have anymore slaves to sell.

Source? I can give you plenty of sources that does mention anything of a kind and shows how Africans had been in the slave trade of other Africans before Europeans ever showed up: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41431 and http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/07/0 ... o-slavery/

Also, just think realistically about 95% of European contact with the rest of the world during that time. Do you honestly think that they respected any African as equals? Come on man. Damn, we'd believe any lie or half truth out there in order to avoid the crippling guilt that so much of the wealth we enjoy was created by a human rights and ecological disaster much bigger than the Holocaust.

Why wouldn't Europeans treat the slave traders as equals if they were supplying them with a means to make money? I doubt the Europeans wanted to be out catching people to make them slaves when they had someone else doing it for them.

Just accept the evil ... because once you do, you can move on towards a more truthful and positive life.

Whatever

PS - Slavery in Africa at the time was MUCH DIFFERENT than what went on in America and other parts of the world. If you really did your research, you would begin to see your point as extremely misinformed and purposely ignorant of the suffering caused by GREED and EVIL. Thanks Europe!
I'm not sure your point here. Slavery is wrong no mater what the purpose or how the person captured was used for. My point was that America had slaves but they weren't the ones capturing the slaves and selling them, it was other Africans who had slavery long before the Portuguese ever showed up followed by the Spanish and other Europeans.

PS2 - Also, the Jews weren't the only ones killed during the Holocaust ... but the VAST majority were Jews. The point of others who suffered doesn't diminish that the vast majority were form one people. Also, how difficult was it to integrated for those Irish to assimilate after their slavery ended? Were they marching up to the 60's for their rights?

If you knew American history, you would know that the Irish did not have an easy time assimilating into America. They may have been the same race as the majority but they lived in horrendous conditions when the majority of the Irish showed up in the 1840's mostly living in Boston and New York. They could not get jobs except menial hard labor jobs. They worked hard to overcome their adversity as did many other ethnic groups who came to America. I have a book called "Ethnic America" written by Thomas Sowell, a black university economics professor. The book traces the history of nine American ethnic groups—the Irish, Germans, Jews, Italians, Chinese, African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans. In the book, Sowell says the Irish had it worst than any other group coming into America including the Africans.

PS3 - Anymore woefully inaccurate "white man" history for me to debunk?

Please do since you know everything.

uptconnect wrote:Every now and then someone around here gets to "Schooling" boxrec posters on life and the common polorizing issues, and it always makes me laugh.

Hey, look over there! It's the Slayer of Lies/Champion of Truth! The enemy of all misinformation!
.
.
.
.
Oh wait, no it's not. It's just another Boxrec poster.
Nevermind.

observer1 wrote:

coneye wrote:Its amazing how the Muslims who can command media attention , will use it to complain its not fair , i'm a muslim and everyone picks on me . But they don't use it to influence other Muslims on how bad the terrorists really are

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

Media portrays what they want to portray.

They portray Muslims negative and Muslims complaining. If you can't see past that and make your own conclusions, then i really feel sorry for you.

Ok then Mr smart arse ,,, Show me or inform me of any high profile muslims who regular come out and PUBLICLY condemm terrorism ,, and we will see if we cannot double, treble , or even quadruple , Muslims who constantly complain there being picked on .

Its weekly the muslim groups who complain , but they don't march against terrorism .

You can't tell me that down at the mosque on pray days , they don't know who is who, and who the activists are , they just choose to ignore . with most of them its called , sitting on the fence ,, hedging your bets .

The muslim community are a lot tighter than most think .

It's not so much that he is looking for a way out, its just that he is looking to keep his name in the media.

The more he does that the more likely a fight with Floyd will happen, because as it stands now by the time Khan gets to a stage where Floyd has to fight him, Mayweather could have already retired.

competitive fight - Kell or Manny are more likely than Amir

danamba7 wrote:

Badhusker wrote:I hope Khan has balls enough to take on someone like Thurman, Brook, or Porter to actually earn a fight with Floyd, but we will instead watch him either fight someone that is totally safe. Even Guerrero would be decent. Instead he may just take off again like a moron until next spring because he doesn't have the confidence to win against any top ranked welter. I can't stand that phony arrogant piece of crap.

He isn't exactly known for ducking big fights. He has the best CV of any Brit bar Froch.

Let me guess, you have actually believed the crap that comes out of Khan's mouth? In the last 3 years, he has two losses, one by KO, followed by fighting a feather fisted lightweight, an over the hill guy that he made cut to 142 and still got knocked on his ass, followed by Collazo, who has one good win in the last 7 years over a guy that was off for a year and a half.

He "turned down" the Alexander fight so he wouldn't risk a loss hoping to get a Mayweather fight. He claims he will fight anyone, and has never turned down anyone, but he turned down Alexander, Guerrero, and Thurman. He wouldn't fight Porter but said he would fight the winner between him and Brook. He wants a low risk fight so he doesn't get "upset" on his quest to hopefully get the big fight he doesn't deserve.

I could give a crap if he is muslim, chinese, black, etc, etc. OR from the UK. He needs to earn a shot at a title, and establish himself at welter to do that.

Not ducking big fights? He wants one big fight, and wants to avoid everything else that would make him earn it. Arrogant, over-rated piece of shit.

I could give a crap if he is muslim, chinese, black, etc, etc. OR from the UK. He needs to earn a shot at a title, and establish himself at welter to do that.

Not ducking big fights? He wants one big fight, and wants to avoid everything else that would make him earn it. Arrogant, over-rated piece of poo.[/quote]

It called Buisness ,, why fight them guys and risk getting beat , when he can fight the Man get paid more , and who knows Floyd is'nt excatly renowned has a big puncher , ,Khan is notably faster than Flods opponents to date , and if Floyd does'nt ko him Khans speed might give him more of a chance of getting over the line .

All this other stuff is just keeping it in the peoples minds , good tactics actualy

coneye wrote:I could give a crap if he is muslim, chinese, black, etc, etc. OR from the UK. He needs to earn a shot at a title, and establish himself at welter to do that.

Not ducking big fights? He wants one big fight, and wants to avoid everything else that would make him earn it. Arrogant, over-rated piece of poo.

It called Buisness ,, why fight them guys and risk getting beat , when he can fight the Man get paid more , and who knows Floyd is'nt excatly renowned has a big puncher , ,Khan is notably faster than Flods opponents to date , and if Floyd does'nt ko him Khans speed might give him more of a chance of getting over the line .

All this other stuff is just keeping it in the peoples minds , good tactics actualy[/quote]

Good tactics? More like an over-rated chicken shit looking to cash out before he gets exposed again. It amazes me that people don't want to see Floyd fight the guy that knocked Khan out instead of Khan. (Garcia)

All aboard the WAAAAAAHHHHHHmbulance.

Jmac

1. Why would Europeans mistreat the Africans if they were doing business with them?
Have you ever read anything about the interaction between the European "explorers" and the "natives"? Most of the people on the ground doing these deals were the poor people from the poverty stricken European cities looking for some wealth outside of the restrictive economic system they grew up in. Why did the Spanish cook women and children after they had surrendered and promised to be slaves? You have some nerve trying to add some humane logic to what was a terrible time for many people.

2. All slavery is wrong!
Very tricky statement considering the meaning of the word was terribly changed by what the Europeans did to natives all over the world. Then, a drastic rewrite of history occurred to make it seem like the treatment of slaves and natives in the new world was the norm throughout history. This has been done to justify so many atrocities that were relatively new as wide scale practices. Most modern historians have even claimed that the "struggles" described by the Israelite "slaves" in Egypt was a drastic over exaggeration. In 99% of the world and history, even a "slave" won after war was treated more like what we'd call a servant. They weren't stripped of their past and customs. Also, in almost every case, they weren't slaves for life. They served (without being whipped) a predetermined debt time. They were even given assistance after their "slavery" term was over. Most "slaves" around the world lived a better life than Europeans in their "Dark Ages" and indentured servants during the "Age of Exploration". So please don't confine a term that meant something different for thousands of years to the straight evil done by Europeans who lived and died A LONG TIME AGO. (So why keep trying to make them seem less evil?)

3. The Irish had the roughest time in America.
The irish were abused no doubt. But please, please, please prove to me that the Irish had it rougher than the African slaves or the "Native Americans". The Irish came in droves well after the "Natives" were decimated and Africans had been slaves in the New World for 200+ years. Was it because they were forced into joining the war? Let's see ... were "Natives" and Africans forced into wars? Was it because they were only allowed access to low paying jobs? Let's see, were most Africans and Natives allowed to have jobs? Look into the formation of unions as a way to keep the freed African slave unemployed after emancipation. Research what was done to the prosperous black cities that formed after slavery ended.

Whatever, you already have your mind made up. I've been fighting people like you who keep defending this traditional view of history. However, that American textbook history is about as fake as it comes. Hopefully one day you will understand that.

FYI Bad,

When it is too much to read, it means nothing. :idea:

verballistic wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote: So you think "they hate us for our freedom"?

Absolutely amigo...a very high % of the people these sick bastards kill are other Muslims. If a moderate, Westernized Muslim like Amir Khan (with his hot cars & flashy lifestyle) lived in the areas ISIS now controls they'd have done him in long ago, just like the thousands of other Muslims & "infidels" they slaughter routiinely. They treat women like animals & slaughter all the men & boys who dont agree with them.

So their doing "normal" sh!t like every other country cept maybe instead of being in the Iphone 6 era they are in the home phone with a dial era or f#ck lets be real probably in the smoke signals era in regards to their history in comparison to where we are in our history? Just look @ the horrific history of the United States & than tell me about how bad these guys are really. They just aren't living in our 2014 is the real issue. We have done terrible terrible unforgivable things in the United States but because that stuff is more in the past (& lets be real its not all in the past, we do horrific sh!t on a daily basis in other countries ourselves & there are still bad things happening to people here although all of us aren't experiencing those things) & its in the present in some of these other countries.

Now maybe the things their doing now aren't even acceptable for our past, but you gotta understand this is a different culture too. They don't believe the same sh!t you or I might believe & they didn't grow up in the same society you or I grew up in. Mainly though with a history like ours we shouldn't be judging other societies & cultures so harshly. If what this country did to the native Americans or did during the slavery era was done in a different era the United States might not exist on a map if other countries have intervened against us. Within reason we shouldn't be intervening into other countries struggles & battles imho. They need to define their own direction.

We are interested in the money game & specifically in this region the oil game so we got our hands in a power struggle we have no true business in outside of the business angle. Thats our problem with these people. Dudes are cutting off chicks clits in some countries. There is mass genocide happening in other countries. Why aren't we spending billions of dollars a month in these countries if we are the worlds Superman? Cuz there isn't that much money in a womans clit or in certain types of people existing. Oil though is another story. Don't believe this white knight bs the news is throwing on us. The US government doesnt really give a f#ck about whos living or dying in other countries or who's getting what cut off they ultimately give a f#ck about what for us would basically be a bank account.

ReggieDiggs wrote:The US government doesnt really give a f#ck about whos living or dying in other countries or who's getting what cut off they ultimately give a f#ck about what for us would basically be a bank account.

People still act like this statement is a matter of opinion. However, it is not. This is true and can be verified by overwhelming statistical evidence.

However, in America, people believe that their political and religious views are somehow as valid as the evidence.

Or maybe, it's just denial in some cases. It's hard to come to terms that your country might be the bad guys ... or at the very least ONE OF the bad guys.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:The US government doesnt really give a f#ck about whos living or dying in other countries or who's getting what cut off they ultimately give a f#ck about what for us would basically be a bank account.

People still act like this statement is a matter of opinion. However, it is not. This is true and can be verified by overwhelming statistical evidence.

However, in America, people believe that their political and religious views are somehow as valid as the evidence.

Or maybe, it's just denial in some cases. It's hard to come to terms that your country might be the bad guys ... or at the very least ONE OF the bad guys.

And it's even harder for some people to come to terms that people with power and money got that way because they wanted power and money. "Good guys" and "bad guys" is a simple concept, so I'm not surprised that you use that analogy. The truth is, greedy people always want more. They usually end up in power, and then it just becomes a dick measuring contest to see who winds up with the fattest wallet.