Romney didn't win Maine......

WaveRyderWaveRyder Posts: 1,128
edited February 2012 in A Moving Train
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,521
    What, you mean an election rigged or stolen. That's never happened before... :roll:

    Bummer- sorry to hear it but not surprised.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • Wow. I knew after the first few primaries, the REAL fishy shit would kick in.
    Up till now it's been mostly MEDIA MANIPULATION that has fucked with Ron Paul.

    THIS IS ELECTION MANIPULATION by the GOP.

    From what I now understand,
    Washington County vote was DELAYED because of "1-3 inches of predicted snow" which never appeared.
    The girl Scouts of Washington County didn't cancel their function, but the GOP canceled the vote.

    THEY WILL HOLD THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VOTE SOMETIME NEXT WEEK,
    BUT THE GOP HAS ANNOUNCED IT WILL NOT COUNT.
    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Seriously?
    PAUL IS LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED VOTES BEHIND.
    Washington County is HEAVILY PRO-RON PAUL.

    Hmm.
    Scratches Head.

    Yeah.
    Go Establishment.
    This WILL Bite You In The Ass,
    Tho.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Republicans stealing an election.

    Wow.

    That's never happened before, has it?

    (there's no way he won CPAC, either. The CPAC crowd are the more vile, extreme right-wing people in the country. There's no way they chose a Pro-social medicine, Smarmy mormon over Rick Santorum.)
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    I hate Ron Paul for one reason. I never believed in conspiracies before following his career. How one man can be so excluded from a party he is attempting to save from itself is sad. He will "win" Maine when they finally do the straw poll of Washington county...but it won't matter...he already more than likely won the delegates in almost every caucus site which means he will end up with the most delegates from states like Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada...as long as he stays in the race. It gets harder and harder to rig county and state conventions, especially when there are so many Ron Paul supporters that will be at those conventions watching EVERYTHING that is done...I know I am a delegate for Paul and will go as far as I can in MN.

    So Romney can win the beauty contest...hopefully those kinds of things can keep happening so Santorum and Newt end their runs before the convention...if it is a choice between Romney and Paul it gets harder and harder to for "conservatives" to support Romney...

    So fuck the GOP establishment for doing this shit so blatantly, ultimately it will be their own undoing...Just like the media's curtain got lifted, so will theirs
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mikepegg44 wrote:
    I hate Ron Paul for one reason. I never believed in conspiracies before following his career.

    What a dick that Ron Paul.
    :roll: :mrgreen: :roll:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353

    What a dick that Ron Paul.
    :roll: :mrgreen: :roll:

    :lol::lol:

    yeah...I am a lost cause now!!
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    http://www.pressherald.com/news/Paul-su ... tally.html

    When they finish the tally in this one sparsely populated county on the border of Canada, Ron Paul may eek out a slight win (I doubt it though), but why does it matter? Either Romney wins 11 delegates and Paul wins 10, or vice versa. The other two candidates didn't spend any time or money in Maine... but where they do spend money, they do okay if not win... and Paul is always a distant 4th.

    So Paul got about 2000 people to vote for him in Maine?

    Can not any Paul supporter understand how laughably insignificant that is?
  • kenny olav wrote:
    http://www.pressherald.com/news/Paul-supporters-cry-foul-over-caucus-tally.html

    When they finish the tally in this one sparsely populated county on the border of Canada, Ron Paul may eek out a slight win (I doubt it though), but why does it matter? Either Romney wins 11 delegates and Paul wins 10, or vice versa. The other two candidates didn't spend any time or money in Maine... but where they do spend money, they do okay if not win... and Paul is always a distant 4th.

    So Paul got about 2000 people to vote for him in Maine?

    Can not any Paul supporter understand how laughably insignificant that is?

    If 2000 votes is equated to nearly first place, dont' you think that your statement would apply to all the other votes for the other candidates as well? Why single out Paul supporters solely?

    Your statement could apply just as well to Romney and would be even more applicable to Santorum and Gingrich.

    I'm not really sure what your whole point is here. Can you not understand that the taking of a state makes news headlines regardless of whether or not the vote count was 2000 or 20,000? That news headlines generates momentum and donations for a campaign?
  • WaveRyderWaveRyder Posts: 1,128

    If 2000 votes is equated to nearly first place, dont' you think that your statement would apply to all the other votes for the other candidates as well? Why single out Paul supporters solely?

    Your statement could apply just as well to Romney and would be even more applicable to Santorum and Gingrich.

    I'm not really sure what your whole point is here. Can you not understand that the taking of a state makes news headlines regardless of whether or not the vote count was 2000 or 20,000? That news headlines generates momentum and donations for a campaign?

    people dont actually care about the integrity of elections unless their candidate gets screwed.
    RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319

    If 2000 votes is equated to nearly first place, dont' you think that your statement would apply to all the other votes for the other candidates as well? Why single out Paul supporters solely?

    Your statement could apply just as well to Romney and would be even more applicable to Santorum and Gingrich.

    I'm not really sure what your whole point is here. Can you not understand that the taking of a state makes news headlines regardless of whether or not the vote count was 2000 or 20,000? That news headlines generates momentum and donations for a campaign?

    Of course my statement applies to the other candidates, particularly Romney. It's laughable that he only got about 2000 votes as well! The whole Republican field is a joke! But despite all the passion of Ron Paul's supporters, they can't even beat these other clowns. If Ron Paul is so awesome, he should be pulling in way more than 2000 people in a state with a population of 1.3 million... especially in a rural state where people actually still talk with their neighbors.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    kenny olav wrote:
    http://www.pressherald.com/news/Paul-supporters-cry-foul-over-caucus-tally.html

    When they finish the tally in this one sparsely populated county on the border of Canada, Ron Paul may eek out a slight win (I doubt it though), but why does it matter? Either Romney wins 11 delegates and Paul wins 10, or vice versa. The other two candidates didn't spend any time or money in Maine... but where they do spend money, they do okay if not win... and Paul is always a distant 4th.

    So Paul got about 2000 people to vote for him in Maine?

    Cannot any Paul supporter understand how laughably insignificant that is?

    when I still get the question, is he seriously running or just trying to get a spot at the convention?
    when I still get the question, isn't he for isolationism and slashing the military budget?
    when I hear on more than one occasion that his policies will allow corporations to run amok...(which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a free market is by the way)
    when you have Lawrence O'Donnell on national television after he finishes second in New Hampshire, calling him and his campaign a fraud and that he really doesn't want to win the nomination.
    when you still have people that think Iraq had WMD's and that Osama was the president of Afghanistan and that Saddam worked with him...
    when you still have people who think conservative means not wanting gays to marry and for military action all over the globe no matter the cost while we go bankrupt at home...
    when you still have people who think that President Obama is a Kenyan hell bent on turning the US into a marxist communist state...
    I could go on for hours...but an increase in support from 2008 no matter how "insignificant" it is to you, it says a lot to me. That people are wading through all the bullshit and getting out and supporting a candidate in a year when turnout is low and inspiration is even lower. His crowds are enthusiastic and positive...not negative and angry...they are really quite a site if you never have been...i would encourage you to go to one
    what you should worry about is why the same marginalization of candidates who truly represent change to the system we currently have get derailed by the media and their own party...I mean there's....and then of course you cannot forget about...oh and the always outstanding...oh wait...there aren't any...
    You can call Maine insignificant, you can say that it is a measly 2000 votes....you can say it doesn't matter in the end...but let's just remember what happened in 2000, and we may start to realize that one state can make a difference, one county can make a difference in the entire world's future for decades to come...we will never know what a difference winning Maine's straw poll would have made
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    I think Ron Paul is a fraud, and I didn't need that pompous prick Lawrence O'Donnell to figure that out for me. He was a fraud when he ran for President in 2008. No one would be giving him all this attention, and he wouldn't sell nearly as many books if he weren't a perpetual candidate. I think he's smart enough to know that he can never actually win. If he doesn't, then the exuberance he displays after every 4th place finish is even more ridiculous. Even if he's not a fraud, the libertarian philosophy is based on fraudulent claims about society - and it's irresponsible. Any candidate who does not support universal health insurance is irresponsible, for starters. It's also irresponsible for any candidate to support less gun control and not more in my opinion.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    kenny olav wrote:
    I think Ron Paul is a fraud, and I didn't need that pompous prick Lawrence O'Donnell to figure that out for me. He was a fraud when he ran for President in 2008. No one would be giving him all this attention, and he wouldn't sell nearly as many books if he weren't a perpetual candidate. I think he's smart enough to know that he can never actually win. If he doesn't, then the exuberance he displays after every 4th place finish is even more ridiculous. Even if he's not a fraud, the libertarian philosophy is based on fraudulent claims about society - and it's irresponsible. Any candidate who does not support universal health insurance is irresponsible, for starters. It's also irresponsible for any candidate to support less gun control and not more in my opinion.

    fraudulent claims about society

    what would those be?

    actually never mind on the question, I realize now that you don't really care about a discussion. So i am glad you voiced your opinion and I think I got it...disagreeing with Kenny is irresponsible.

    isn't democrats and republicans ruining the dollar through terrible fiscal and monetary management irresponsible? and libertarians are the irresponsible...
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mikepegg44 wrote:

    fraudulent claims about society

    what would those be?

    actually never mind on the question, I realize now that you don't really care about a discussion. So i am glad you voiced your opinion and I think I got it...disagreeing with Kenny is irresponsible.

    isn't democrats and republicans ruining the dollar through terrible fiscal and monetary management irresponsible? and libertarians are the irresponsible...

    No, the only ones irresponsible are those who believe in freedom and personal liberties... :roll:
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    Guys, I'm far from alone in my opinion about universal health insurance. Most polls show that most Republicans support it too. Yes, I think the idea of government that you believe in is irresponsible, but you're free to disagree with me. I have a few friends who are really really supportive of Ron Paul, and I enjoy debating with them, even though it never seems to get anywhere. Maybe I'm being disrespectful here on the board, but the nature of politics in this country can really piss me off. This country is overdue for some major leaps forward and instead we are still debating things that should have been settled years ago... in the case of universal healthcare, it should have been settled 100 years ago.

    I think progressives understand personal liberties far better than conservatives ever have. Libertarianism is a tyrannical wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes dictators out of business owners while stripping away the rights of workers.

    But you guys are losing now. Finally.
  • kenny olav wrote:
    Guys, I'm far from alone in my opinion about universal health insurance. Most polls show that most Republicans support it too. Yes, I think the idea of government that you believe in is irresponsible, but you're free to disagree with me. I have a few friends who are really really supportive of Ron Paul, and I enjoy debating with them, even though it never seems to get anywhere. Maybe I'm being disrespectful here on the board, but the nature of politics in this country can really piss me off. This country is overdue for some major leaps forward and instead we are still debating things that should have been settled years ago... in the case of universal healthcare, it should have been settled 100 years ago.

    I think progressives understand personal liberties far better than conservatives ever have. Libertarianism is a tyrannical wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes dictators out of business owners while stripping away the rights of workers.

    But you guys are losing now. Finally.

    In the same token, I could say that Progressives are tyrant wolves in sheep's clothing. Everything you are stating about libertarianism is a weird distortion of what it actually is and says to me that you don't actually understand what it is about. Progressives believe in using force for the "good of the people". True Libertarians believe in the Non Aggression Principal which doesn't allow for the use of force no matter how delusional you may be about what is right and wrong.

    Furthermore universal healthcare was settled MORE than 100 years ago. Problem is, no one wants to pay attention to the constitution and how if you want to change it there is a process set in place to do just that. As it stand today, universal healthcare is unconstitutional whether you like it or not.

    If you think the message of liberty is losing I'd ask you to pay attention a little closer. While it is entirely possible that Ron Paul may not be the nominee for president, his message is spreading and growing with each day.
  • WaveRyderWaveRyder Posts: 1,128
    you selfish people wanting your freedom.....good grief
    RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    kenny olav wrote:
    Guys, I'm far from alone in my opinion about universal health insurance. Most polls show that most Republicans support it too. Yes, I think the idea of government that you believe in is irresponsible, but you're free to disagree with me. I have a few friends who are really really supportive of Ron Paul, and I enjoy debating with them, even though it never seems to get anywhere. Maybe I'm being disrespectful here on the board, but the nature of politics in this country can really piss me off. This country is overdue for some major leaps forward and instead we are still debating things that should have been settled years ago... in the case of universal healthcare, it should have been settled 100 years ago.

    I think progressives understand personal liberties far better than conservatives ever have. Libertarianism is a tyrannical wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes dictators out of business owners while stripping away the rights of workers.

    But you guys are losing now. Finally.

    not sure what you mean by losing...when have libertarian ideals ever been embraced by the masses?
    Libertarianism does not make dictators out of business owners...like I said earlier that is a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets. Also, the states are still around. Limited FEDERAL government, limited by the constiitution to perform its actual duties would benefit everyone. I should be paying more taxes to my state and local municipality than I ever should to a federal government. The difference between people who support a larger federal government and those who would want it limited by the constitution comes down to the name of the country.

    Either you would like it to be called the United States of American where the feds are limited and the states have the right to offer things like healthcare if they so choose, or you would like it to be called the United STATE of America where the feds walk all over the constitution and its enumerated and implied powers. There is a process to change it. I suggest anyone who wants federal universal healthcare to go ahead and start a drive to amend the constitution, because without that, the federal government cannot mandate the purchase of any product like health insurance....that is up to the states.
    but you can be glad we are losing...but I would suggest taking the dollar you currently have in your pocket out, look at it, say goodbye and tear it in half...because that is what it will be worth if we continue down this awful path of spending our way out of debt. Solid monetary policy and fiscal sanity is not irresponsible in any measure. you cannot add programs to an already bloated fed budget without first fixing your fiscal house. We will end up like greece, and then we are fucked. Dollar first, military second, and then and only then is it responsible to talk about a state take over of about 1/6th of our economy.



    as an aside, I am glad you have good debates with your friends, sometimes on a message board things can come across a lot harsher than you meant to say them. But if you think libertarianism is irresponsible, I suggest you read a little bit more. It isn't the free-for-all you think it is
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    mikepegg44 wrote:

    not sure what you mean by losing...when have libertarian ideals ever been embraced by the masses?
    Libertarianism does not make dictators out of business owners...like I said earlier that is a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets.


    What I mean that is that economic libertarianism has long had a foothold in America, particularly in the Republican Party. America has never been a libertarian country on social issues, but economically speaking, there has always been a libertarian axe ready to hack away at progressive economic reforms that have been implemented over the years. A lot of the New Deal has been undermined, and I think we are in need of a modern New Deal. Conservatives won't like it... they'll think it's tyranny, but really it's about creating a more fair society... And may I be clear that I do not mean an equal society... because it's a lie to say we were all created equal. We're clearly not. Some of us are more talented than others. Some of us will naturally fall into leadership positions, and deserve to better compensated. But we all deserve equal protection and treatment under the law. Conservatives love the myth that we are all equal, because therefore they can blame poverty on the individual and not on the corruptions of the free market, which, when the libertarian ethos is applied, is really a tyrannical market.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    kenny olav wrote:


    What I mean that is that economic libertarianism has long had a foothold in America, particularly in the Republican Party. America has never been a libertarian country on social issues, but economically speaking, there has always been a libertarian axe ready to hack away at progressive economic reforms that have been implemented over the years. A lot of the New Deal has been undermined, and I think we are in need of a modern New Deal. Conservatives won't like it... they'll think it's tyranny, but really it's about creating a more fair society... And may I be clear that I do not mean an equal society... because it's a lie to say we were all created equal. We're clearly not. Some of us are more talented than others. Some of us will naturally fall into leadership positions, and deserve to better compensated. But we all deserve equal protection and treatment under the law. Conservatives love the myth that we are all equal, because therefore they can blame poverty on the individual and not on the corruptions of the free market, which, when the libertarian ethos is applied, is really a tyrannical market.
    But we all deserve equal protection and treatment under the law.

    agree. and when you let a government make laws that benefit some over the many you are undermining that principle. What you are talking about is crony capitalism. It is government protection of corporations without protecting the individual rights of the people. That is the difference it what you think is a free market and what actually is...in a free market, corporations would be free to do what they want to the extent that they do not violate individual rights of every person in the process. It isn't the job of the federal government to do anything but protect an individuals rights from being violated. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets to think that the government would simply allow tyranny or that we have had free markets without government intervention and manipulation. There would be no bail outs, there would be no corporate welfare and handouts, there would be no subsidies...the best ideas would come to the top and the rest would fall by the wayside, all the while the rights of the individual and private property would be strictly enforced. Do you think wanting the federal powers limited by the rules that set up the federal government is really that ridiculous? A mistrust of the markets is natural I suppose when they have been corrupted and abused for hundreds of years, but to say it would lead to tyrannical corporations is nothing short of demagoguery.
    give the government less room for control and there is less room to corrupt...
    Do not get what modern neo-conservatives say about free markets confused with what they truly should be...I think most conservatives who rail on and on about free markets do not understand them and even worse, think that they are hampered by democratic supported policies only...
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • kenny olav wrote:
    I think we are in need of a modern New Deal. Conservatives won't like it... they'll think it's tyranny, but really it's about creating a more fair society...

    What part of the New Deal do you think was fair, and also, what part do you think was good policy?

    Was it the part that where government mandate prevented "disastrous overproduction"?

    Or the part where the government interfered to restrict "unfair competition"?

    Was it the part that said "We recognize the right of the individual to seek and to obtain his own fair wage, his own fair profit, in his own fair way — just so long as in the doing of it he does not push down or hold down his neighbor", or was it the part that actually slowed down a broader economic recovery by endorsing and licensing cartels and monopolies, hitting the consumer up with universally higher prices as a result?

    Or maybe it was the part that brought criminal charges against poultry producers for allowing customers to PICK THEIR OWN CHICKENS. I mean, of COURSE that was "cutthroat competition", unfair, evil, and clearly indicated your were a selfish non-public-spirited person. Want to pick your own chicken out at the butcher so you don't end up with a sick bird and end up killing your entire family through disease? You are Un-American, and are part of the problem!

    Restrict honest competition.
    Restrict production.
    But encourage mega-business collusion\cooperation & Cartels\Monopolies,
    and most importantly, restrict consumer choice, while providing him with higher prices at the store for it.
    all under the guise of Freedom and FAIRNESS.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • WaveRyderWaveRyder Posts: 1,128
    RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319

    What part of the New Deal do you think was fair, and also, what part do you think was good policy?

    Was it the part that where government mandate prevented "disastrous overproduction"?

    Or the part where the government interfered to restrict "unfair competition"?

    Was it the part that said "We recognize the right of the individual to seek and to obtain his own fair wage, his own fair profit, in his own fair way — just so long as in the doing of it he does not push down or hold down his neighbor", or was it the part that actually slowed down a broader economic recovery by endorsing and licensing cartels and monopolies, hitting the consumer up with universally higher prices as a result?

    Or maybe it was the part that brought criminal charges against poultry producers for allowing customers to PICK THEIR OWN CHICKENS. I mean, of COURSE that was "cutthroat competition", unfair, evil, and clearly indicated your were a selfish non-public-spirited person. Want to pick your own chicken out at the butcher so you don't end up with a sick bird and end up killing your entire family through disease? You are Un-American, and are part of the problem!

    Restrict honest competition.
    Restrict production.
    But encourage mega-business collusion\cooperation & Cartels\Monopolies,
    and most importantly, restrict consumer choice, while providing him with higher prices at the store for it.
    all under the guise of Freedom and FAIRNESS.


    1st, sorry for the late response... I just kinda forgot about this discussion...

    and maybe the discussion has moved on (although results from Washington Country will be here tomorrow, right?) but I should reply to this...

    In my opinion we should be doing A LOT more to prevent overproduction, which has been extremely disastrous for our environment, and for our mental and physical health.

    We don't need all this plastic shit piling up in landfills and the ocean. We also don't need it to be produced by people who are essentially slaves, especially given the conditions in China and other parts of the world. I think we can still have all of the same modern technology without exploiting people. American workers are generally exploited too, but not to the same horrible extent as in some other countries.

    Labor conditions within the U.S. used to be atrocious as well. The New Dealers brought us the Fair Labor Standards Act which created a minimum wage and the 40 hour per week maximum at base pay. They brought us Social Security so that workers would at least have a basic pension at the end of their lives. Unfortunately they never succeeded at bringing us universal health insurance.

    A modern New Deal should include not only Medicare-for-all and wipe out private health insurance, but also wipe out the need for private life insurance and retirement funds.

    Yes, absolutely I think we should restrict competition, and to an ever greater extent. The best and brightest among us shouldn't be encouraged to participate in a market which values how much one can produce, but in a system that produces what is actually valuable. Our highest salaries should be paid to our teachers as well as our doctors. The highest paid jobs should in general be those that serve the public, and it should be a challenge to get those jobs, so that only the best minds will be in charge of our affairs.

    We could all work in friendly work environments 25-30 hours per week and have everything we all need. We could all be employed (unless disabled of course) and have the leisure time we all deserve. Everyone would know someone, a family member or at least a friend, who works in government... it would no longer be anything to fear, or be suspicious of.
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    must be nader's fault........
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • *cough* part of the Prout Model of Society refers to exactly what you are saying... kinda blends socialism and democracy communism... kinda leaving off putting together societites where those models have fallen short.


    I dont agree with "all" of it but most of it for me makes sense. It is the intent to adopt at least some of the ideas.


    http://prout.net/an-overview.html
  • *cough* part of the Prout Model of Society refers to exactly what you are saying... kinda blends socialism and democracy communism... kinda leaving off putting together societites where those models have fallen short.


    I dont agree with "all" of it but most of it for me makes sense. It is the intent to adopt at least some of the ideas.


    http://prout.net/an-overview.html

    WOWY WOW WOW!
    I've NEVER heard of PROUT before, but the LAST thing in your link:

    "- Prama' (dynamic equilibrium and equipoise) is to be established in the physical, psychic and spiritual spheres of life."

    had me wondering what the fuck was really going on here.
    I mean the whole model reads as "sort of Zeitgeist (the movie) ish" ... then i looked to the sidebar for PROUT and saw links on Vegetarianism, Meditation, and Neo-Humanism.
    Then i said, "MMM HMMM".

    Then i did a google search, and found the following PDF of a PROUT Book:
    http://www.prout.org.au/books/Batra%20-%20Concept%20of%20Politics%20and%20Economy.pdf

    LOOK AT THE TITLE PAGE PICTURE.

    What's up, Esoteric Economy!
    This is some sort of outwards economic manifestation of Occultism.
    CRAZY SHIT.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • kenny olav wrote:

    Yes, absolutely I think we should restrict competition, and to an ever greater extent. The best and brightest among us shouldn't be encouraged to participate in a market which values how much one can produce, but in a system that produces what is actually valuable. Our highest salaries should be paid to our teachers as well as our doctors. The highest paid jobs should in general be those that serve the public, and it should be a challenge to get those jobs, so that only the best minds will be in charge of our affairs.

    Who gets to determine what is actually valuable? You? Me? Some unelected bureaucrat?
  • WaveRyderWaveRyder Posts: 1,128

    WOWY WOW WOW!
    I've NEVER heard of PROUT before, but the LAST thing in your link:

    "- Prama' (dynamic equilibrium and equipoise) is to be established in the physical, psychic and spiritual spheres of life."

    had me wondering what the fuck was really going on here.
    I mean the whole model reads as "sort of Zeitgeist (the movie) ish" ... then i looked to the sidebar for PROUT and saw links on Vegetarianism, Meditation, and Neo-Humanism.
    Then i said, "MMM HMMM".

    Then i did a google search, and found the following PDF of a PROUT Book:
    http://www.prout.org.au/books/Batra%20-%20Concept%20of%20Politics%20and%20Economy.pdf

    LOOK AT THE TITLE PAGE PICTURE.

    What's up, Esoteric Economy!
    This is some sort of outwards economic manifestation of Occultism.
    CRAZY SHIT.

    like i said over on another Ron Paul thread, we'd be best to ignore SweetChildofMine.
    RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
  • WaveRyder wrote:

    like i said over on another Ron Paul thread, we'd be best to ignore SweetChildofMine.
    Oh.
    I don't think that is the case.
    I was just exclaiming because someone posted something of economic relevance to the discussion, but when I went to check it out it had deliberate Occult symbolism tied to it.

    In otherwords PROUT is some sort of organization putting forward an agenda very much like the Zeitgeist Movement. It's intentions are arguably NOBLE, but YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF WHAT LIES BACK OF THE PLATFORM -- Occultism\Illuminism\New Age etc ... for fucks sake, it is a goddman image of a Swastika in a Rising Sun with Obelisk Shaped Rays ... how much more do you need to see the connection.

    Again, i'm not JUDGING the PROUT movement for this.
    Just calling it for what it is.
    It is an attempt in some form or another at an "Externalization of the Hierarchy"

    Externalization of the Hierarchy

    Section:
    The Coming World Order
    --- Some Problems Solved
    The Economic Problem
    The Economic Problem
    This problem is basically far less difficult of solution. Sound common sense can solve it. There are adequate resources for the sustenance of human life, and these science can increase and develop. The mineral wealth of the world, the oil, the produce of the fields, the contribution of the animal kingdom, the riches of the sea, and the fruits and the flowers are all offering themselves to humanity. Man is the controller of it all, and they belong to everyone and are the property of no one group, nation or race. It is solely due to man's selfishness that (in these days of rapid transportation) thousands are starving whilst food is rotting or destroyed; it is solely due to the grasping schemes and the financial injustices of man's making that the resources of the planet are not universally available under some wise system of distribution. There is no justifiable excuse for the lack of the essentials of life in any part of the world. Such a state of lack argues short-sighted policy and the blocking of the free circulation of necessities for some reason or other. All these deplorable conditions are based on some national or group selfishness and on the failure to work out some wise impartial scheme for the supplying of human need throughout the world.

    What then must be done, apart from the education of the coming generations in the need for sharing, for a free circulation of all the essential commodities? The cause of this evil way of living is very simple. It is a product of past wrong educational methods, of competition and the facility with which the helpless and weak can be exploited. [197] No one group is responsible as certain fanatical ideologists might lead the ignorant to suppose. Our period is simply one in which human selfishness has come to its climax and must either destroy humanity or be brought intelligently to an end.

    Three things will end this condition of great luxury and extreme poverty, of gross over-feeding of the few and the starvation of the many, plus the centralization of the world's produce under the control of a handful of people in each country. These are: first, the recognition that there is enough food, fuel, oil and minerals in the world to meet the need of the entire population. The problem, therefore, is basically one of distribution. Secondly, this premise of adequate supply handled through right distribution must be accepted, and the supplies which are essential to the health, security and happiness of mankind must be made available. Third, that the entire economic problem and the institution of the needed rules and distributing agencies should be handled by an economic league of nations. In this league, all the nations will have their place; they will know their national requirements (based on population and internal resources, etc.) and will know also what they can contribute to the family of nations; all will be animated by the will to the general good - a will-to-good that will probably at first be based on expediency and national need but which will be constructive in its working out.

    Certain facts are obvious. The old order has failed. The resources of the world have fallen into the hands of the selfish, and there has been no just distribution. Some nations have had too much, and have exploited their surplus; other nations have had too little, and their national life and their financial situation have been crippled thereby. At the close of this war all the nations will be in financial difficulties. All nations will require rebuilding; all will have to attend actively to the settlement of the future economic life of the planet and its adjustment upon sounder lines.

    This period of adjustment offers the opportunity to effect drastic and deeply needed changes and the establishing [198] of a new economic order, based on the contribution of each nation to the whole, the sharing of the fundamental necessities of life and the wise pooling of all resources for the benefit of everybody, plus a wise system of distribution. Such a plan is feasible.

    The solution here offered is so simple that, for that very reason, it may fail to make an appeal. The quality required by those engineering this change of economic focus is so simple also - the will-to-good - that again it may be overlooked, but without simplicity and goodwill little can be effected after the world war. The great need will be for men of vision, of wide sympathy, technical knowledge and cosmopolitan interest. They must possess also the confidence of the people. They must meet together and lay down the rules whereby the world can be adequately fed; they must determine the nature and extent of the contribution which any one nation must make; they must settle the nature and extent of the supplies which should be given to any nation, and so bring about those conditions which will keep the resources of the world circulating justly and engineer those preventive measures which will offset human selfishness and greed.

    Can such a group of men be found? I believe it can. Everywhere there are deep students of human nature, scientific investigators with wide human sympathies, and conscientious men and women who have for long - under the old and cruel system - wrestled with the problem of human pain and need.

    The new era of simplicity must come in. The new world order will inaugurate this simpler life based on adequate food, right thought, creative activity and happiness. These essentials are only possible under a right economic rule. This simplification and this wise distribution of the world's resources must embrace the high and the low, the rich and the poor, thus serving all men alike.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sign In or Register to comment.