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

DriftingByTheStorm

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.

WaveRyder

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hp ... 4152_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hp ... 3561_n.jpg

mikepegg44

WaveRyder wrote:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/426606_361888413834965_315345085155965_1315994_1261684152_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hp ... 3561_n.jpg

that first one is fantastic

kenny olav

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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.

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 Silvia

must be nader's fault........

SweetChildofMine

*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

DriftingByTheStorm

SweetChildofMine wrote:

*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.

Sludge Factory

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?

WaveRyder

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

SweetChildofMine wrote:

*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.

like i said over on another Ron Paul thread, we'd be best to ignore SweetChildofMine.

DriftingByTheStorm

WaveRyder wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

SweetChildofMine wrote:

*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.

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.

mikepegg44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiOGvM4z ... e=youtu.be

DriftingByTheStorm

mikepegg44 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiOGvM4zOzM&feature=youtu.be

So not only did they CANCEL (reschedule) the caucus for one of the counties,
they also ... JUST NOW "ADMITTED" (found out) ...
that they WROTE IN "SCRATCH" FOR TWO COUNTIES RON PAUL ACTUALLY WON?
???

and FOX Local Affiliate
is the one breaking the story
???

Double what.
WhAT?

kenny olav

Sludge Factory wrote:

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?

perhaps there's no hope for common sense then...

if people would come together (rather than compete against each other) then there would be no bureaucracy. it would be neighbors looking out for neighbors, ensuring that everyone has a decent life in a real community.

kenny olav

i should add that there is a place for healthy competition, but currently it's a dog eat dog world.

Sludge Factory

kenny olav wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

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?

perhaps there's no hope for common sense then...

if people would come together (rather than compete against each other) then there would be no bureaucracy. it would be neighbors looking out for neighbors, ensuring that everyone has a decent life in a real community.

What you just explained there is essentially what I, and many liberty minded people, would like. I just view the more humantarian approach to this is to not use government to force that view on everyone. Instead, let people come together and benefit together because they want to instead of being forced together.

Once you start getting the government involved there really isn't any way to not have bureacracy which is why I strongly oppose government forcing its views onto people such as restricting competition. When the government is allowed to restrict competition it inherently is forcing a view upon people. I simpy do not believe that anyone knows what is best for everyone and that a "real community" can be had if you are forcing people into it.

SweetChildofMine

kenny olav wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

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?

perhaps there's no hope for common sense then...

if people would come together (rather than compete against each other) then there would be no bureaucracy. it would be neighbors looking out for neighbors, ensuring that everyone has a decent life in a real community.

common sense is not so common

that would be the ideal it works like that in some communities like the one I live you can leave you door open at night kinda of thing...

thats funny you should say that coming together VS the pitting of competitors


see thats one of the rat races this society wants you to run, for what means or to what ends and for whom? I dont get it? Never have never will. Keeps us separated for sure, vain and pompous pursuits for what ...and even if you win this race are you happy? Did your kids suffer? Are you happy with this accumaltion and by what means or ends did you actually get it?

Simple life is always the best way to go in my eyes. Who is to say what is wealth? My idea of abundance or wealth is being surrounded by family, friends good food and drink with some passionate rosy glow on my cheeks pursuing things in life that matter to me other than money? What are the things that matter to you, in the end really will it be about the stocks, pension plan and the like... IDK efforts to obtain such things are out of control. Even to the detriment to the planet and people who live.\, love and work upon this planet. Its my opinion. Im a simple person. Sad thing is out of greed makes it impossible to obtain simple these joys anymore, so where and what is the will for obtaining such simple things that you have to slave for a minute piece of happiness in a simple life even??? Making it a chore to even have nothing? IDK this world is completely fucked. But we keep on though... we keep on with the rat races and the human greed. Nobody seems to want to change such policies.


I dont think you can force community. Besides who the hell has time to be a community member when your a step away being forced from your house or fighting to keep food on the table.

Community is something inside yourself. You can try to revamp them give them inspiration to become partners in something bigger than themselves , but like I said its all in the pursuit of simple happiness of have a roof over your head or putting food on the table is such a huge chore to make ends meet, who the hell has time for being part of the community?

kenny olav

To respond to the last two posts:

It's good to see that we're all somewhat on the same page, maybe just not on how to get to the kind of society we want.

The neighborhood I grew up in was very much a community. I knew all of my immediate neighbors, and I also knew a lot of my neighbors who were blocks away. Kids ran freely through yards, and adults would treat neighborhood kids pretty much like their own kids. If my mom needed flour or sugar or a few eggs to bake something, she would send me to a neighbor's house to ask for it... it was normal. None of these things seem to be normal anymore. I think it's still normal in some places in America, but it's not as widespread as it used to be. It was common to see hitchhikers when I was a kid (I was born in 1976 btw), and my dad used to hitchhike from Boston to Cape Cod every weekend when he was a teenager (early 1960's)... that is unimaginable now. I also remember a time when a neighborhood girl was missing, and the entire neighborhood was out searching for her for hours (they found her hiding in her own house, just so you know). Nowadays, I think people would just call the police and let them worry about it. I'm not sure how we got to this mentality, or how we lost our old mentality.

I've been thinking large-scale, and I'll try to tie it in with community. Social Security... Medicare... these are nationwide programs of course... but such programs can be financed Federally and locally managed... I don't think we'd fear "unelected bureaucrats" if they were our neighbors. And I don't hear many complaints about these programs... if we focus our attention on them, we can make them even better programs. I know that we can have an effective Medicare-for-all program. Something like our health cannot be left to the whims of the market.

WaveRyder

kenny olav wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

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?

perhaps there's no hope for common sense then...

if people would come together (rather than compete against each other) then there would be no bureaucracy. it would be neighbors looking out for neighbors, ensuring that everyone has a decent life in a real community.

hear hear...... that's why im a lib........ a libertarian

kenny olav

i'm a libertarian socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

maybe you could be one too?

WaveRyder

kenny olav wrote:

i'm a libertarian socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

maybe you could be one too?

i believe in property rights.....sorry.