FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Interesting Ron Paul Update
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just watched Ron Paul speak here. (you may want to breeze through this entry and see next one below, or compare)

Ron Paul at New Hampshire Fundraising Event Part 1 (of 2)

More informative than his quickies on Colbert and Maher.
In part 2, he praises Friedrich Hayek (who was involved backing Pinochet and pushing Chile into neo-liberal disaster), and Mises.org, and that whole gang.

Of course Ron Paul did not SAY anything about those connections, about the murder of "communists" and leftists and even the murder of anti-neo-liberal Economics Professors who might pollute the thinking of Chileans with false socialist ideas about economic fairness, if not 100% equality. (Harvard economics students once virulently protested a professor who was alleged to have drawn up lists of Leftist Economists to be liquidated. I guess they drew the line at executing professors and college graduates.) That was 40 years of harsh tyranny, as an "experiment". Which ultimately failed, and needed government bailouts.

Ron Paul does not say that Hayek and his ilk were as enthusiastic as Kissinger and the CIA about the murder of the elected president, Allende.

I TRIED to accept what they are saying about free market capitalism, I studied it online (didn't buy their books) but I disagree. My opinion on Ron Paul has not changed by listening to him.

I think that RP would be one to implement "freedom" by force, but ONLY to protect the property rights of those who own the most property. I know that they uphold tax cuts for billionaires, on the GP that any tax cut is a good tax cut. I think that equation would change for the worse. At least Ron Paul seems to be less duplicitous than the others.

Patrick wrote:
There are certainly other alternative candidates to consider:


Ahh, the evils of socialism. Everyone should at very least check this page out and see what they have to say, evaluate that against Ron Paul's message. I did not read this before Patrick posted it, I just found that I generally agree with the vision, far more than Ron Paul's vision for America. I think the key to operating any large bureaucracy is grassroots control over major decisions, with appropriate constitutional limits on things that Stalin instituted, like scapegoating people. I think that any Constitution should at very least codify in writing inalienable rights, though not rights to unlimited acquisition of power and money at the expense of social freedom and everything else. The Details.

These 'big government socialists' seem to be for a lot of decentralization of POWER, except for the power of large corporations which would apparently have their wings clipped. This would naturally lead to the 'punishment' of "capital flight", which highlights the point that political power and economic power are practically synonymous. Albeit, any national programs as such would necessarily be somewhat centralized, though they might want to decentralize the implementation, with oversight.

Some highlights:
A nation whose revolutionary founders proclaimed the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is now led by a cabal of political gangsters who are attempting to abolish “the great writ” of habeas corpus and are conducting massive and illegal spying operations against American citizens. The leaders of the American Revolution proclaimed their “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” The present occupant of the White House and his henchmen unashamedly flaunt their contempt for international law and defend the use of torture. Whereas Lincoln appealed as president to the “better angels of our nature,” the Bush administration appeals to the basest instincts of the most reactionary sections of the population.

Far from opposing the ultra-right Republican administration, the Democratic Party functions as its accomplice. The differences the Democrats have with the Republicans are insignificant when compared to what the two parties agree on—that is, their shared determination to uphold the domestic and global interests of the American corporate and financial ruling elite.

Big business justifies its assault on the working class in the name of global competitiveness. But the global integration of all aspects of economic life is not, in itself, the real cause of deepening social distress. The global expansion and unification of the productive forces have the potential to vastly improve living standards. However, social progress is blocked by the subordination of these powerful economic processes to the private profit interests of the ruling elites in competing national states.

When employers in the US tell workers that they must accept massive wage cuts or lose their jobs to low-wage regions, this only underscores the need for American workers to unite politically with workers internationally in a worldwide struggle for socialism against the economic tyranny of the transnational corporations.

Here's one for the 2nd Amendment folks:
The SEP calls for the abolition of the so-called “Department of Defense,” and with it the standing army, which poses a constant threat to democratic rights. In its place, we advocate the formation of popular militias, organized under the democratic control of the working class.

To establish the economic foundation for the reorganization of economic life in the interests of the working people, we advocate the transformation of all privately owned industrial, manufacturing and information technology corporations valued at $10 billion or more—companies that, taken together, control the decisive share of the US economy—into publicly owned enterprises, with full compensation for small shareholders and the terms of compensation for large shareholders to be publicly negotiated. The SEP also proposes the nationalization of the healthcare and pharmaceutical giants, as well as all large banking and insurance institutions. In addition, the SEP advocates the nationalization of the railroads, airlines, telecommunications and power utilities, and the placement of all critical natural resources under public ownership and control.

(How such a radical change would be accomplished is a question, PLUS the obvious fact that these viewpoints can get NO PLAY WHATSOVER in the MSM.)

The reorganization of the American economy along these lines would make available immense resources to implement programs that would significantly improve the living conditions of the working class.

We call for an extensive program of public works to guarantee employment for all those who are presently unemployed and able to work. The urgent need to raise the income level of millions of working Americans must be tackled by establishing a guaranteed federally funded annual income, indexed to inflation. To create jobs and make possible the increased participation of workers in political and cultural life, the work week should be reduced to 30 hours, at 40 hours’ pay. Full-time workers should receive at least five weeks annual vacation.

We call as well for a massive investment to ensure high-quality public education and access to free higher education for all; universal, comprehensive medical coverage; state-subsidized housing construction to build comfortable and affordable homes; a guaranteed right of workers to join a union and control the union democratically; the outlawing of union-busting tactics and wage-cutting; retirement security at a decent income for all working people; and government support for small and medium-sized businesses.

The social rights outlined here can be realized only on the basis of concrete measures to promote social equality. Tax policy must be stood on its head: from a means of plundering the people to enrich the millionaires and big business, it must become the instrument for a radical redistribution of wealth. This means repealing the tax cuts for the rich enacted under Ronald Reagan, the elder George Bush and George W. Bush, maintaining and raising direct taxes on wealth, such as the estate tax, and abolishing the loopholes and accounting gimmicks that allow most large corporations to pay only a tiny fraction of tax on their profits. Taxes should be reduced for the vast majority of the population and sharply increased for those with the highest incomes and levels of accumulated wealth.

Particular attention must be paid to investigating the speculative activities of the past 25 years and the criminal misappropriation of corporate resources by CEOs at the expense of the workers and small shareholders. This stolen wealth must be returned and used to improve social services and working class living standards.

Property rights must be subordinated to social rights. This does not mean the nationalization of everything, or the abolition of small or medium-sized businesses, which are themselves victimized by giant corporations and banks. Establishing a planned economy will give such businesses ready access to credit and more stable market conditions, so long as they provide decent wages and working conditions.

While fighting all forms of discrimination and all attacks on democratic rights, the Socialist Equality Party opposes the various strains of identity politics, including cultural nationalism and feminism, whose essential role is to obscure the most fundamental division in capitalist society, that between the social classes. We stand firmly in support of integration and the unity of all working people. We oppose racial politics, which are fundamentally inimical to the interests of working people and the need to build a mass international movement against capitalism.

We insist on full and genuine equality of opportunity, within the framework of a massive social investment to guarantee good-paying jobs, quality K-12 and college education, affordable housing and all other social needs.

We support full democratic rights and citizenship for all immigrants, including the estimated 12 million undocumented workers who are branded “illegal aliens.” We demand an end to the anti-immigrant attacks—dragnet-style sweeps, detentions and deportations—that the government has mounted as part of its “war on terror.”

The attack on immigrants is one manifestation of the reactionary and antidemocratic character of the entire nation-state system. Corporations exploit workers throughout the world, while using the national restraints placed on working people to facilitate this exploitation. In opposition to the whipping up of national chauvinism by the ruling elite, we fight for the building of a unified movement of the international working class on the basis of a socialist program.

The program of the Green Party is one of minor reforms and small palliatives for a social and political system that is utterly rotten. It opposes socialism, accepts that “corporations have become the dominant economic institution of the planet,” and urges merely that they become more socially and environmentally responsible.

The program of the Greens is best illustrated by what they have done in countries where they have achieved political power. In Germany, the Greens joined a coalition government with the Social Democrats in 1999 after running on the basis of social justice and pacifism. They ended up supporting right-wing economic policies, and Germany’s Green Party foreign minister backed the deployment of German troops to fight in AfghanistanGermany’s first foreign military intervention since the Second World War.

Only at the end when they start to discuss Trotsky vs. Stalin -- a view with which I think I agree in terms of what Stalin actually did -- did the paper start to become questionable.

The Russian Revolution was part of a broader international struggle of the working class for social equality. Every major advance of American workers was associated with socialism and spearheaded by socialist-minded militantsfrom the eight-hour day, to child labor laws, to universal public education, to the formation of mass industrial unions, to the end of Jim Crow racial segregation in the South.

Like many great ideals, socialism has been abused and betrayed. In the Soviet Union, it was betrayed by the bureaucracy that arose under Joseph Stalin. Stalinism was not the continuation of the egalitarian and internationalist legacy of the Russian Revolution. It was a conservative, bureaucratic reaction against the revolution, based on the nationalist program of “socialism in a single country.”

The Stalinist bureaucracy crushed workers’ democracy, imposed dictatorial rule, executed the genuine Marxists and subverted revolutionary struggles of the working class around the world—all while claiming to act in the name of “socialism.” This betrayal of the Russian Revolution and socialism culminated in the direct collaboration of the Kremlin bureaucracy with international imperialism in the breakup of the Soviet Union and restoration of capitalism at the beginning of the 1990s.

For more than 50 years, the American ruling elite has waged an unending propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting socialism in the eyes of American workers. Beginning with the McCarthyite witch-hunt of the 1950s, the political establishment sought to remove all traces of left-wing and socialist influence from the American labor movement. This has had catastrophic results for the working class.

In the US, the struggles of the working class were betrayed by a labor bureaucracy that defended the capitalist system and politically subordinated the workers to American big business and the Democratic Party. Under conditions of globalized production, in which capital can scour the globe in search of cheaper sources of labor, the union bureaucracy, wedded to a nationalist perspective, has proven unable and unwilling to defend the gains made by workers in previous periods. The betrayal of the AFL-CIO bureaucracy has led to the identification of the unions with corporate management and their transformation into instruments to suppress the working class, isolate strikes and enforce concessions.

Other than the obvious lack of political power, the lack of corporate funding, what's so not to like?

Last edited by dilbert_g on Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Now I'm entering a debate with MYSELF. (above)

Louis Kelso's Critique of Karl Marx's Das Kapital

By Louis O. Kelso
American Bar Association Journal, March 1957.

Editor's Note
By labeling his moral-economic concepts as a "universal" or "social" version of "capitalism," Kelso, in the opinion of some supporters, has failed to appreciate the enormous difficulty in communicating with many people around the world who have become disenchanted with the ideological and moral shortcomings of the social system known as "capitalism."

In the classic work Kelso co-authored with the philosopher Mortimer Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto (Random House, 1958), Kelso and Adler constructed their theory of economic justice as the logical "third alternative" to primitive capitalism and primitive socialism. As they pointed out, neither system provides a sufficiently solid moral foundation for guiding social change.

Kelso and Adler justify their use of the term "capitalism" by describing an economy as "capitalistic" when its mode of production shifts from labor-intensive ("laboristic") to capital-intensive processes. However, the term "capitalism" obscures the value system which Kelso and Adler espouse.

Furthermore, the term "capitalist" was coined by socialists as a term of derision, to suggest an ownership class devoid of human values, persons who glorify the vice of greed and live by exploiting others. Adding such qualifiers as "universal," "social," "democratic" and even "worker" to a word that historically has signified monopoly power and special privilege, fails to remove the odious connotations of "capitalism."

And since Kelso defines "capital" as "things" used in production (in contrast to people or "labor"), the term "capital-ism" also suggests an ideology or value system which elevates material values above the higher spiritual and moral values of mankind. "Economic justice," "free markets," and "private property" rest on a much more attractive semantic base. Semantics aside, anyone who reads their book will find that Kelso and Adler explicitly describe a just form of "free market" society that aims at fulfilling the highest human values.

England of the mid-nineteenth century, in the throes of the industrial revolution, was not a pleasant place to work. Anyone who entertains the contrary idea need merely consult the writings of the economists of that period, or its historians, or even its novelists, such as Dickens.

It was against a background of the disintegration of the agricultural economy of England, and the human chaos incident to the industrialization of production that Karl Marx set himself the task of improving the lot of the factory worker. [...] continues

This is a carefully considered critique on social justice praises Marx for meaning well, but criticizes him on several errors. Kelso is mentioned by Harold Chandler on another topic in a different forum, around Buckminster Fuller.

Kelso's point is that not just labor, but capital itself (machines), create value. OK, we know that, but Marx ignored it. Non-communists tend to ignore it, he says, at least in 1957. His conclusion that STATE-ownership of capital is not the solution, but rather widely-decentralized WORKER-ownership of capital is the only just and moral solution. However, he also differentiates between half-hearted worker-ownership plans, including some of the weak Clinton/Blair proposals, Scandanavia, etc., which are not really the Third Way he is speaking of.

Error No. 2:
Marx's Failure To Understand the Political Significance of Property

Marx, however mistaken he was in his program for achieving the economic changes he thought were needed, cannot be charged with having intended to worsen the economic and political condition of modern man. The facts of his life and character permit us little doubt that his intention was to eliminate suffering by substituting a fairer distribution of economic goods and services, and through this, a more equitable distribution of leisure and the opportunity to lead a good life. Marx was rightly, if also vehemently, critical of the exploitation of the many by the few.

Had Marx seen that the socialization of capital (i.e., its ownership by the state) would of necessity place the control of capital in the hands of those currently wielding political power, thereby unifying economic and political power, the two basic sources of social power, we can assume that Marx would not have advocated the destruction of private property in capital instruments. If the factory owners of the nineteenth century, having political influence but not unlimited political power, were in a position to exploit the workers, the bureaucrats of the twentieth century in a socialized state, possessing not only unlimited political power, but also unlimited economic power through ownership (i.e., control) of the instruments of production, are infinitely better equipped to exploit workers and other non-bureaucrats.
Marx's second great error prevented him from seeing that the ideal "classless society", of which he dreamed, is not one in which a political group in power has the function of distributing wealth. It is rather the political economy in which the individual ownership of property--particularly capital instruments--is spread over the entire population. Only such a broad distribution of private economic power can guarantee individual freedom and the power of the people as a whole to limit or turn out at will a political group in power.

Marx was actually on the verge of recognizing that so long as men are what they are, capitalism is the only possible classless society. His failure to do so derives from his failure to understand the political significance of private property. He consequently also failed to understand the political significance of state ownership in a socialist state. To concentrate control over the means of production in a political group is to establish that administration as a class--an all powerful class--and to remove all possibility, so long as such a group exercises its power fully and ruthlessly, to overthrow such despotism by means other than force.

Marx recognized that the men who were the owners of productive property also enjoyed "individuality", leisure and opportunities for culture and education. (Ibid., page 581). This being so, it is nothing short of fantastic that he brought himself to these illogical conclusions: (1) Destroy private ownership of productive property. (2) Make all men workers. (3) Appropriate all wealth produced in excess of that required to sustain workers, and let it be distributed by the state as its political leaders see fit.
Had Marx started with an objective analysis of production and a deeper insight into the property-freedom relation, he might well have concluded with a declaration of war against capitalists for hoarding capitalism.
Man as a non-scientific and non-managerial subsistence-laborer is, from the standpoint of economics (aside from his separate nature and position as the consumer), a primitive, low-horsepower engine, relatively clumsy and of brief durability, for the production of economic goods. Man the worker, except in the fields of science and management, has grown steadily less impressive since the onset of the industrial revolution. He can work eight, ten or twelve hours at a stretch and then must rest. His strength and speed of action are quite limited. He is subject to numerous ailments, often adversely affected by climate, temperamental and not infrequently lazy. He makes many mistakes. As a factor in the production of wealth, man is progressively less successful in competing with capital instruments, except, again, as a scientist or as manager.

It is not as a worker that man is master of the earth. It is as the intelligence behind all production and as the consumer--the reason for production and the destiny of the things produced--that he is supreme.

If labor alone is a creator of wealth, there must be, as Marx and Engels said in the Communist Manifesto, equal liability of all to labor. But if capital is a creator of wealth, one may participate in the production of wealth either as an owner of labor or as an owner of capital. Similarly, if land is a source of wealth, one may participate in the production of wealth as an owners of land. But this basic capitalistic principle goes further. If, as we know, the productivity of capital is increasing in relation to that of non-managerial and non-scientific labor, and if the right to participate in the distribution of the proceeds of production follows from the fact of participation in production, the social justice which Marx sought lies in regulating the capitalistic economy so that there emerges an ever-increasing proportion of capitalists.

A friend called me to remind me about Norm Kurland who has this CESJ site, Center for Economic and Social Justice. He's put his long resume online. He's apparently having some conference in St. Louis coming up. Don't know that I could go now if I wanted to.

I don't know what to make of him. He seems sincere and energetic. He's in his 70s. He's met with conservatives and liberals alike, worked with USAID (CIA front), met with pukes like Rich Santorum.
He left welfare and education law to become a government civil rights lawyer from 1962 to 1964. Kurland became deeply involved in the Mississippi campaign for "one-person, one-vote," a goal that many in post-World War II America believed would take another 200 years to achieve. He was a key Washington contact person for such civil rights leaders as Medgar Evers and Aaron Henry of the NAACP and Bob Moses of SNCC.

He promotes fair credit opportunities globally, and promotes a "Third Way" synthesis of capitalism and socialism, a form of capitalism combined with monetary policies that promote social justice. He's helped transform failing businesses into various forms of ESOPs, where machines and factories can create revenue streams for a wide variety of owners, instead of all such profit streams going to a ruthless few. This involves restructuring banking to favor ESOP-type systems rather than traditional lassez faire capitalism.

It sounds as though where his policies have been implemented, things have worked out well. I have not seen evidence, nor do I know about what kind of enthusiasm exists for this in Washington and other circles of power. I'm more interested now than when this was first mentioned. I'm thinking that this is not merely some new clever right wing spin.

chart: http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/comparison3rdway.htm

Economic Vision for the 21st Century

But Americans have also seen harbingers of troubles to come: the disappearance of entire sectors of labor as robots, artificial intelligence, and advanced office machines enter the work place. Globalization has encouraged the flight of jobs and capital to lower-wage regions of the world. Blue-collar workers and middle management alike have become targets for corporate downsizing. Today, six Ph.D. computer scientists from India can be hired over the Internet for the price of a comparable American. Thousands of jobs have been lost to a computer chip. Even in the midst of our prosperity most of us feel powerless to control our own futures or unable to find meaning in our current condition.

Seeing through the chaos of our rapidly changing world, one post-scarcity visionary of the 20th Century, lawyer-economist Louis Kelso, understood the power of technology either to liberate or dehumanize people. Popularly known as the inventor of the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), Kelso observed that modern capital tools and their phenomenal power to "do more with less" have offered people an escape from scarcity to shared abundance.

As a lawyer Kelso also saw that the design of our "invisible" institutional environment and social tools determines the quality of people’s relationship to technology. Intangibles, such as our laws and financial systems, determine which people will be included or excluded from sharing of access to equal economic opportunity, power and capital incomes.

Access to capital ownership, asserted Kelso, is as fundamental a human right as the right to the fruits of one’s labor. Furthermore, Kelso argued, the democratization of capital credit is the "social key" to universalizing access to future ownership of productive wealth, so that every person, as an owner, could eventually gain income independence through the profits from one’s capital.

Regarding Ron Paul, to me this is a FAR CRY from the simplistic threoretically-based MISES type prescription RP seems to advocate.

more strong critique of capitalism and socialism here:
A New Vision for Providing Hope,
Justice and Economic Empowerment
A Different Perspective on Economic Globalization
Control over money and credit (i.e., financial capital) largely determines who will own and control productive capital in the future. Indeed, Baron Rothschild was right

When the subject of money and money creation comes up, we sometimes forget that money is a man-made thing, and it is morally neutral. Its goodness or badness depends solely on how it is created and how it is used. Like the secret ballot in politics, money is a uniquely "social good," an invention of modern civilization, a means for measuring economic values and enabling people to participate in a market economy.

And that is the crux of the matter. Money is created and credit extended these days in ways that keep the rich wealthy, and the poor in their place. Consumer credit, for example, is available virtually to everyone, while access to capital (or "productive") credit is restricted to use by those who meet the universal requirement for collateral, i.e., the rich. Thus, the poor and middle-class get the most risky and highest cost credit, while the rich get the lowest-cost and least risky kind of credit.

Let us focus on the $1 trillion of growth assets added each year in the US public and private sectors, consisting of new technology, plant and equipment, physical infrastructure and rentable space. Amounting to a growth increment of $4,000 for every man, woman and child, these productive assets will be financed in ways that add no new owners. If capital credit were to become as universally accessible as the political ballot, capital assets could become a growing source of independent capital incomes for all persons and their families.

Why Free Market Solutions Alone Fail

Encouraged in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan’s and Margaret Thatcher’s powerful advocacy of privatization initiatives to counter socialism and the Welfare State, academicians and investment bankers have rushed into advanced, transforming and developing economies to promote traditional Wall Street capitalist solutions. All these solutions, however, sound dismally the same: "shock therapy," more foreign investment, a Wall Street-style stock exchange, top-down money and credit markets, and numerous tax breaks and special privileges to mirror the labyrinthine US tax system.

Surely these "privatization experts" can do better than to sell an already-failed and incomplete model. Why saddle the rest of the world with a tendency to recession and more class division? Why should experts promote grossly concentrated ownership of corporate equity, over-dependence on foreign investment to fuel the economy, increasing marginalization of the labor force, and institutionalized gambling on a national stock exchange?

Before their future is decided for them on a permanent basis, people should ask whether the prescriptions being touted will really build a better society for every citizen—or will the Wall Street capitalist model, once again, merely empower a small elite? Is capitalism the only logical alternative for rebuilding, transforming, or revitalizing an economy? Is it possible to conceive of a globalized free enterprise alternative to the wage/welfare systems of capitalism and socialism, one consistent with the vision of America's founding fathers—a truly revolutionary and just "Third Way"
For years the capitalist world has guarded against socialism. In this rare moment in history and to protect their citizens against the loss of economic sovereignty under the Wall Street capitalist model for economic globalization, all nations of the world have a chance to implement for their citizens a new and bloodless economic revolution, one consistent with the unrealized ownership vision and ideals of America's founding fathers. As they search for a better life, the citizens of developing and transforming economies—as well as those living in the developed countries themselves—need something better than the outmoded and dehumanizing systems of traditional socialism and capitalism. Nations now have the power to create new property for the poor, without taking existing property from the rich. There is another model for economic globalization, a true third way forward.

Binary economics states that in a genuinely free market economy, people should be able to contribute to and gain their incomes from the economic process, based on both their labor and their capital inputs. Most neo-classical and Keynesian economists would dismiss this postulate as absurd, asserting that this condition exists already under capitalism.

Because of artificial institutional barriers to broad-based ownership under current economic policies, however, most people can only expect to legitimate their incomes through their labor alone. Consequently the market system breaks down, as government is forced to interfere with the market mechanism and redistribute incomes to non-owning working people and the unemployed.

More than some "Jonesian" mantra that capitalism and socialism are two sides of the same coin, and the capitalists created socialism as an experiment in totalitarianism.

While the Fed is mentioned, as the core of banking and credit policies which favor those with collateral and don't provide reasonable credit reinsurance, and disempower distributed capital acquisition, it's NOT a cartoon discussion about conspiracy theories and the Rothschilds, just banking as existed at the time of development of capitalism, and the refusal of govt to regulate this inherently public function. However, a refusal by money interests to embrace more equitable and potentially more profitable opportunities, with a preference to keeping things rotten, that will be evidence of a class-based decision to maintain existing class relations.
Back to top

Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of Elaine Brown lately>


The P.I.C. is her main passion, specifically incarceration of children.

She ran for mayor of Brunswick. GA.. if they did this to her as a mayoral candidate...(in my dream vision for the U.S. she'd already be president..but then we'd also have solved these horrific problems..)



On November 15, 2005, Brunswick mayoral candidate Elaine Brown filed a petition in the Glynn County Superior Court to contest the results of the November 8, 2005, municipal election. The grounds were fraud and misconduct by the Glynn County Board of Elections and that mayor-elect Bryan Thompson was ineligible to hold office because of the irremediable conflict of interest with his being CEO and President of Blueprint Brunswick, Inc.

After a December 1, 2005, hearing before Judge Tom Pope was continued to December 19, 2005, Brown also filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Pope. This was based on what Brown characterized as Pope's inappropriate communications with Brunswick attorney Austin Catts, who represents Thompson, and because it had been the same Judge Pope who had erroneously upheld the Board of Elections' decisions to remove her name from the municipal ballot and the voting rolls.

Given that Pope refused to recuse himself, and that a host of powerful lawyers, led by Catts, had lined up forcefully for Thompson and the Board, filing myriad motions to dismiss the case and sanction Brown, Brown capitulated. On December 16, 2005, Brown filed a Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice in the case, thus ending it.-Relatedly, other contestants did the same, including Zack Lyde and Betsy Bean.

Pretty good interview...i think it was 2005..before she quit the mayoral race. Alot of talk about rap and hip hop musicians selling out.

More here>

More of her music here (passionate vocalist / pianist)>

The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As for Ron Paul... i now really think there is no separation between a politician and a liar...pander and lie, lie and pander. I'm just feeling like we're gonna have to stop putting our faith in these salesmen and put it back in ourselves. We've lost faith in our own selves. We've been beaten down to such a state of self loathing..we can get our esteem back..you have to fight for it..it can come back.
The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
Louis Kelso's Critique of Karl Marx's Das Kapital

It is rather the political economy in which the individual ownership of property--particularly capital instruments--is spread over the entire population. Only such a broad distribution of private economic power can guarantee individual freedom and the power of the people as a whole to limit or turn out at will a political group in power.

That's the kind of utopian theme which people used to develop during the Cold War, a vision of capitalism where private property and economic power is spread among everyone in a nice stable way. That really reflects a harkening back to the days of early entrepreneurial capitalism before the growth of late monopoly capitalism. During the days of the Cold War the ruling class of America had a strong interest at stake in fostering the image of a capitalist society where everyone could plan on buying their own house and living in comfortable middle class style. That went out the window with the end of the Cold War.

Marx in his day had made the point that capitalism has a logical tendency to convert towards centralized production as a way of reducing costs and increasing profits and that this should be accepted a priori as a stage in social development. The picture of a sustained capitalist society where property and wealth are all spread out and held in roughly equitable balance is a chimera. Every effort to build such a "third way" was always dependent upon being able to invoke a Communist menace as the dreaded second way when seeking concessions from the ruling class. It was politically promotable during the days when the prospect existed that people might turn to some form of socialism, but it went out the window a long time ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brief Video
Back to top

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:54 am    Post subject: Amazed Reply with quote

I'm amazed by the level of resistance to RP's ideas on this forum, given that his campaign slogan is Full Spectrum Liberty.

Just thought I'd mention that.

On another note, while it is true we need courage and strength in ourselves, we need good leaders also. It seems to me that cynicism has grown so deep that it's become a type of learned helplessness.

Last edited by paradox on Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:30 am    Post subject: Re: Amazed Reply with quote

paradox wrote:
I'm amazed by the level of resistance to RP's ideas on this forum, given that his campaign slogan is Full Spectrum Liberty.

Just thought I'd mention that.

I'm pretty sure the FSL is from Navari who is doing the rponline web site.

Is that where you got the idea that 'Full Spectrum Liberty' is RP's campaign slogan?
paradox wrote:
On another note, while it is true we need courage and strength in ourselves, we need good leaders also.

Pardon me, but there is no such thing as a good leader - only good followers.

A leader can lead anyone anywhere they want to go;

No leader can lead anyone anywhere they do not want to go.

A talented leader can lead anyone anywhere they do not know they want to go.

A pathologically narcissistic leader can lead anyone anywhere they do not want to go by the psychological integration of deception and denial.

Today we have leaders so skilled in deception and denial they have convinced themselves they are not leading us to where we all know we do not want to go.

I don't need anyone to lead me anywhere I am not already going.

Leadership in the sense of the government we have now is simply an illusion of progress under a cloud of distorted corrupted priorities and two-faced ideologies that mask the truth about the purpose of our government.

Lead your self. Think for your self. No matter how much it hurts.

The mind is like any other living organism - it either grows or dies.

Keep the power you have & grow. Give it away & die.

Relying on other people to make decisions we do not like to make gives them power that will overpower their judgement and in the long run ends up (again) where we are now.

How many times have we been here already throughout history, in the same circumstances and ignoring the same signs until it is far too late?

Rome, obviously, is the most relevant example that also has the most similarities with today - but all cycles of any sort all have patterns - patterns we refuse to learn from and live by which is the only way to avoid the problem.

As they say, you can't get a little bit pregnant.
paradox wrote:
It seems to me that cynicism has grown so deep that it's become a type of learned helplessness.

Is is resistance to RP's ideas or simply cynicism about everything and anything to with mainstream politics (by mainstream I mean anyone on 'the box')?

From my point of view 'learned helplessness' is how I would describe anything to do with mainstream politics.

Either that or idiocy is the only way to describe

Back to top

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All your ideas about leaders are correct. You forgot one thought.

A good leader is helping people lead themselves.

A paraphrase from Miller which I heartily agree with.

Last edited by paradox on Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paradox wrote:
A good leader is helping people lead themselves.

A paraphrase from Miller which I heartily agree with.

Sorry - people DO NOT lead themselves!

That is a good oxymoron!

How about "effective" instead of "good?"

I reject the term 'good' because it is easily misinterpreted, based on the following definition:


1. to be desired or approved of : we live at peace with each other, which is good | a good quality of life.
pleasing and welcome : she was pleased to hear good news about him.
• expressing approval : the play had good reviews.

2. having the qualities required for a particular role : the schools here are good.
• functioning or performed well : good health | either she was feeling chastened or she was doing a good act.
• appropriate to a particular purpose : this is a good month for planting seeds.
• (of language) with correct grammar and pronunciation : she speaks good English.
strictly adhering to or fulfilling all the principles of a particular cause, religion, or party : a good Catholic girl.
• (of a ticket) valid : the ticket is good for travel from May to September.

3. possessing or displaying moral virtue : I've met many good people who made me feel ashamed of my own shortcomings | [as plural noun] (the good) the rich and the good shared the same fate as the poor and the bad.
• showing kindness : you are good—thank you.
obedient to rules or conventions : accustom the child to being rewarded for good behavior.
• used to address or refer to people, especially in a patronizing or humorous way : the good people of the city were disconcerted.
• commanding respect : he was concerned with establishing and maintaining his good name.
belonging or relating to a high social class : he comes from a good family.

4. giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying : the streets fill up with people looking for a good time.
pleasant to look at; attractive : you're looking pretty good.
• (of food and drink) having a pleasant taste : the scampi was very good.
• (of clothes) smart and suitable for formal wear : he went upstairs to change out of his good suit.

5. [attribute] thorough : the attic needed a good cleaning | have a good look around.
• used to emphasize that a number is at least as great as one claims : they're a good twenty years younger.
• used to emphasize a following adjective : we had a good long hug.
• fairly large : a good crowd | figurative there's a good chance that we may be able to help you.

6. used in conjunction with the name of God or a related expression as an exclamation of extreme surprise or anger : good heavens!

Then I looked up "lead" to see what meanings we have to misinterpret:

1. cause (a person or animal) to go with one by holding them by the hand, a halter, a rope, etc., while moving forward
: she emerged leading a bay horse.
• show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them : she stood up and led her friend to the door.
• be a reason or motive for (someone) : nothing that I have read about the case leads me to the conclusion that anything untoward happened | a fascination for art led him to start a collection of paintings.
• be a route or means of access to a particular place or in a particular direction : a door leading to a better-lit corridor.
(lead to) culminate in (a particular event) : closing the plant will lead to the loss of 300 jobs.
• (lead on to) form a stage in a process that leads probably or inevitably to (a particular end) : his work on digestion led on to study of proteins and fats.
• (lead something through) cause a liquid or easily moving matter to pass through (a channel).

2. be in charge or command of : a military delegation was led by the Chief of Staff.
• organize and direct : the conference included sessions led by people with personal knowledge of the area.
• set (a process) in motion : they are waiting for an expansion of world trade to lead a recovery.
• be the principal player of (a group of musicians) : since the forties he has led his own big bands.
• (lead with) assign the most important position to (a particular news item) : the news on the radio led with the murder.

3. be superior to (competitors or colleagues) : there will be specific areas or skills in which other nations lead the world.
• have the first place in (a competition); be ahead of (competitors) : the veteran jockey was leading the field.
• have the advantage in a race or game : Dallas was fortunate to lead 85-72.

4. have or experience (a particular way of life) : she's led a completely sheltered life.

5. initiate (action in a game or contest), in particular
• (in card games) play (the first card) in a trick or round of play.
• (lead with) make an attack with (a particular punch or fist) : Adam led with a left.
• (of a base runner) advance one or more steps from the base one occupies while the pitcher has the ball : the runner leads from first.


1. the initiative in an action; an example for others to follow : The U.S. is now taking the environmental lead.
• a clue to be followed in the resolution of a problem : detectives investigating the murder are chasing new leads.
• (in card games) an act or right of playing first in a trick or round of play : it's your lead.
• the card played first in a trick or round.

2. (the lead) a position of advantage in a contest; first place : they were beaten 5-3 after twice being in the lead.
• an amount by which a competitor is ahead of the others : the team held a slender one-goal lead.
Baseball an advance of one or more steps taken by a base runner from the base they occupy while the pitcher has the ball.

3. the chief part in a play or film : she had the lead in a new film | [as adjective] the lead role.
• the person playing the chief part : he still looked like a romantic lead.
• [usually as adjective] the chief performer or instrument of a specified type : that girl will be your lead dancer.
• [often as adjective] the item of news given the greatest prominence in a newspaper or magazine : the lead story.

4. a leash for a dog or other animal.

5. a wire that conveys electric current from a source to an appliance, or that connects two points of a circuit together.

6. the distance advanced by a screw in one turn.

7. a channel, in particular
• an artificial watercourse leading to a mill.
• a channel of water in an ice field.

lead someone astray cause someone to act or think foolishly or wrongly.
lead someone by the nose informal control someone totally, especially by deceiving them.
lead someone a dance see dance.
lead from the front take an active role in what one is urging and directing others to do.
lead someone up (or down) the garden path informal give someone misleading clues or signals.
lead the way see way.
lead with one's chin informal (of a boxer) leave one's chin unprotected. • figurative behave or speak incautiously.

lead off
1. start : the newsletter leads off with a report on tax bills.
• Baseball bat first in a game or inning.

2. (of a door, room, or path) provide access away from a central space : a farm track led off to the left.

lead someone on mislead or deceive someone, especially into believing that one is in love with or attracted to them.

lead up to immediately precede : the weeks leading up to the elections.
• result in : fashioning a policy appropriate to the situation entails understanding the forces that led up to it.

ORIGIN Old English l?dan, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch leiden and German leiten, also to load and lode.

What a surprise!!!

When we desire a "good leader" it seems to me we COULD be asking for a "pleasurable load."

When we say someone is a good leader that can easily be interpreted to mean "good" as in "good genes" or "elite" or whatever upperclass designation it may infer to those who are aware of the implied meaning.

Taken at face value it seems reasonable to say we desire a "good leader" but really the question is: GOOD FOR WHOM?

Clearly, from the definition above the word "lead" says NOTHING about following the leader anywhere.

What is a "leader" anyway?


1. the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country : the leader of a protest group.
• a person followed by others : he is a leader among his classmates.
• an organization or company that is the most advanced or successful in a particular area : a leader in the use of video conferencing.
• the horse placed at the front in a team or pair.
• (also Leader of the House) British a member of the government officially responsible for initiating business in Parliament.

2. the principal player in a music group.
• a conductor of a band or small musical group.
British the principal first violinist in an orchestra.

3. British a leading article or editorial in a newspaper.

4. a short strip of nonfunctioning material at each end of a reel of film or recording tape for connection to the spool.
• a length of filament attached to the end of a fishing line to carry the hook or fly.

5. a shoot of a plant at the apex of a stem or main branch.

6. (leaders) Printing a series of dots or dashes across the page to guide the eye, esp. in tabulated material.


Wow!! Look at all the synonyms for the word "leader" here - are these the "roles" we think of when we think "leader" of a group?


1. the leader of the Democratic Party | world leaders have agreed to meet in Geneva

(managing) director,

number one,
numero uno,


2. the uncontested leader in genetic engineering

pioneer, front runner, world leader, world-beater, innovator, trailblazer, groundbreaker, trendsetter, torchbearer, pathfinder.

Are those the people we think of when we think of a "leader" for the "people?"

Amazing, isn't it?

Still want a "good leader" to "lead our country?"
Back to top

Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paradox wrote:

I'm amazed by the level of resistance to RP's ideas on this forum, given that his campaign slogan is Full Spectrum Liberty.

Just thought I'd mention that.

Drew Terry wrote:
I'm pretty sure the FSL is from Navari who is doing the rponline web site.

Is that where you got the idea that 'Full Spectrum Liberty' is RP's campaign slogan?

I'm not resistant to RP's ideas...alot of them anyway, but the man himself is a long term politician and one who was pretty cozy to Reagan (see Gary's posts) (and just listen to him talk out of both sides of his mouth) and i have just come to the not so original conclusion that therefore, he lies. They lie to get into office and then they fuck you over.

paradox wrote:

On another note, while it is true we need courage and strength in ourselves, we need good leaders also.

Drew Terry wrote:
Pardon me, but there is no such thing as a good leader - only good followers.

And i have been guilty as sin in being one of those..not any more.

Drew Terry wrote:
Today we have leaders so skilled in deception and denial they have convinced themselves they are not leading us to where we all know we do not want to go.

I don't need anyone to lead me anywhere I am not already going.

Ron Paul is one of the better skilled...and it seems he's really workin' it on some really bright people. I have been through too much personally and i just can't give it away anymore. I thought FSL was about self actuating systems and self reliance. If the support of this man is to just use him to get the FSL message out there...well i guess 'maybe' but i still think we can get that message out there in spite of him or any of these slicksters. Just my personal opinion..li'l ole me.

The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

abcar wrote:
Ron Paul is one of the better skilled...and it seems he's really workin' it on some really bright people.

1. He is from Texas; that alone should disqualify him.

I think we have had enough Texans, thank you vey much.

2. He is working emotions against logic - logic does not convince emotion, and emotion blinds people to logic.

People WANT to BELIEVE - the essence of "good leadership" is manipulating those beliefs to an end (BUT GOOD FOR WHOM?).

3. No matter how much logic is presented it will never trump the emotions involved in a particular belief.

How much more proof do we need to prove the Bible is bullshit? Yet there it is, every single year, the best selling book in the world.

4. Paradoxically, the brighter a person is the better they are at rationalizing and justifying those beliefs they have held the longest, despite all evidence the contrary.

Brighter people are more adept and more creative in rationalizing and justifying whatever situation or circumstance needs doublethought - especially when they are beliefs opposed to each other.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Page 20 of 22

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.