[mikemike]

Whose the bigger d-bag, ponzi scheme swindler who targeted rich people and hedge funds with too good to be true returns or preacher swindler who targeted ignorant people who wanted to believe in his message of salvation?

It seems like there are story after story of people quitting their jobs and sending this Camping dude their life savings to go out and spread the word about the world ending last weekend. They aren't going to get their money back and thanks to it being a religious donation, camping isn't going to pay taxes on the millions of dollars in donations hes taken in and won't see any legal repercussions for swindling his followers.

This has been the MO for religions for millenia and I guess we can't expect it to stop any time soon as long as their are people stupid enough to believe someone else's stories about magical sky people who control everything and care about you more than anyone else as long as you worship them and send a check to the person who told you about them.

[MRRiley]

Personally, I'd vote for Camping being the bigger d-bag.

As for him getting away with the money. I wouldn't be so sure. Remember the federalis got Al Capone for tax evasion, not the countless murders he was responsible for. I'm sure Camping is going to be under a microscope (assuming he can be found).

[Ratmagiclady]

I don't think they need to be compared: both kind of pin my d-bag meter.

One separated fools from their money to promote fear and some kind of sadistic 'left behind' meme:

Another indirectly separated regular people from their money by appealing to the greed of people who capitalized on the scheme and are still the rich, still demanding to call the shots, and still trying to exploit the situation.

[Parallax]

Whose the bigger d-bag, ponzi scheme swindler who targeted rich people and hedge funds with too good to be true returns or preacher swindler who targeted ignorant people who wanted to believe in his message of salvation?

I see no difference. The fact that Bernie's victims were rich (not all were) is irrelevant. Any suggestion that the fact that they were rich somehow reduces the seriousness of the crime, or affects the victimizer's status within the scumbag hierarchy is ridiculous. It's the exact same argument as saying that a rapist who raped a woman who was wearing a short skirt and low cut blouse walking in a high crime area isn't as vile a person as one who rapes a woman wearing a sweat suit and hair curlers in the Walmart restroom.

[mikemike]

I see no difference. The fact that Bernie's victims were rich (not all were) is irrelevant. Any suggestion that the fact that they were rich somehow reduces the seriousness of the crime, or affects the victimizer's status within the scumbag hierarchy is ridiculous. It's the exact same argument as saying that a rapist who raped a woman who was wearing a short skirt and low cut blouse walking in a high crime area isn't as vile a person as one who rapes a woman wearing a sweat suit and hair curlers in the Walmart restroom.

I think that with businesses you are kind of dealing with equals so it is fair to take some of the safeties off and let them take the risks.

[jeffkrol]

I think that with businesses you are kind of dealing with equals so it is fair to take some of the safeties off and let them take the risks.

Isn't that what got us in this mess.. taking the safeties off derivatives and complex securities???

Ask Clinton..

“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.

[Ratmagiclady]

I see no difference. The fact that Bernie's victims were rich (not all were) is irrelevant. Any suggestion that the fact that they were rich somehow reduces the seriousness of the crime, or affects the victimizer's status within the scumbag hierarchy is ridiculous. It's the exact same argument as saying that a rapist who raped a woman who was wearing a short skirt and low cut blouse walking in a high crime area isn't as vile a person as one who rapes a woman wearing a sweat suit and hair curlers in the Walmart restroom.

I'd say it's *not* the exact same: fact is, the people Madoff took off were by and large gambling with *other people's* money when it comes right down to it, and passed on the losses after taking the gains to and from those *they'd* induced to trust them. (Though I'll mention there were plenty of exceptions that didn't come to mind, there.: some people did directly invest their own futures through Madoff, and no, not being small-potatoes doesn't mean they weren't ripped off, too.)


I still don't see the point in comparing, though: it's not like either deserves to escape accountability.

[reeftool]

Guys like Camping persist because too many people don't actually read the Bible but choose rather to believe someones interpretation of what it says. Much of Camping's teaching includes the 24th chapter of Matthew but even an elementary school reader would quickly see that Camping is doing exactly what Jesus said the false prophets that would come would do. Camping is not the first and won't be the last. Madoff was running a scam and he knew what he was doing but as long as it kept making money, he was in the clear. I don't know whether Camping is a scammer or actually believes he's right. It doesn't matter as he was proven wrong. By Old Testament law, he should be taken out and stoned.

[GeneV]

Guys like Camping persist because too many people don't actually read the Bible but choose rather to believe someones interpretation of what it says.

Funny, I did not read this and posted almost the same thing in response to your post on another thread.