Yes, but what do you think about that? I mean, having did well out of the system?
The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
The reason why I ask, is because I don't think ANY amount of legislation can make society better. If you thought: Hey Hey, I'm getting mine while the getting is good. Well, that's bad. If you thought: Shit, there's nothing much I can do but save myself. That's a poor sign. If you thought: I'll try to tell people that there's something wrong, but, it's up to them to decide for themselves. That's probably the best. If you thought: Meh, the government should sort this out for me. That's horrid.
Does that make sense? In order to change society for the better, responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the individual. Including his/her role in said society.
Does that make sense? In order to change society for the better, responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the individual. Including his/her role in said society.
No, that does not make sense, in the context of a democratic society. In that context, the laws are nothing other than the expression of the collective individual responsibilities, and engagement in such a process is central to the role of said individuals in said society.
One can only do so much and so yeah I told people what I thought, but I don't have a crystal ball so it wasn't like I knew for sure what and when it was going to tank, just a general feeling that there was no way the rapid price increases could be justified and felt that there was a good chance there would be a major market correction.
In truth I didn't think it was as bad as it turned out to be.
In my case it just so happened that my father in law lived in the smaller city 90 miles away and on a trip in 04 my wife saw a house that she just loved, and it cost less then half what mine did, and since I work out of my house there wasn't anything preventing me from moving, so I made her happy and bought the house pretty much on the spot and then spent nearly a year slowly moving from one house to the next, then sold the house in the hot market for a bundle.
I don't think I'm alone though.
I think a LOT of people cashed in on the housing market by doing much like I did. I only know but so many people but even within that relatively small group a number of people I knew sold their houses for a lot of money and moved to someplace where housing was a lot cheaper.
So when you look at the housing market and what happened I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of the people who lost big were the people who showed up late to the party and had no place to sit when the music stopped.
Arthur
I see Paul had a 5 day money bomb and collected OVER 3 MILLION DOLLARS IN SMALL DONATIONS for his campaign!!!
Phenomenal
I do worry though about Obama, considering he has sooo many special interest "Individuals" from the Banktocracy that support him. It's be hard to push back against THAT level of financial influence.
Phenomenal
I do worry though about Obama, considering he has sooo many special interest "Individuals" from the Banktocracy that support him. It's be hard to push back against THAT level of financial influence.
I just checked with my crystal ball and it is still saying what it did more than four years ago. I.e. run on the dollar by Halloween (or before) 2014, quickly followed by worse depression ever in US & EU. Only thing that seems to have changed is only a few are saying I am insane anymore.
Would your date and/or prediction change if Paul was elected POTUS?
No. It was originally a 6 year wide window but the start has long since past. I said the run, with quickly following depression, was "inevitable" due to policies and stupidity of GWB back when he still had two years more as POTUS. IMHO, it is only the intelligence of Obama that he has probably been able to delay it until after his first term ends. (I hope his only term, as don't want a black man blamed for GWB's inevitable depression.) The means by which Obama has made this delay (trillion dollar annual deficits) will only make the depression longer lasting and much worse so Obama is IMHO almost as bad for US as GWB was.
I'm not so sure. I am seeing more and more acceleration in covert activities among the world's national and international clandestine organization to provoke war of global proportions. This seems to be the modus operandi once global economic conditions seem to be beyond their control to manipulate. This was the cause of WWI and WWII.
It has been beyond me to tell what the plan is going to be though. The are so many various competing interests about where this global war will start, what it's issues will be, and who will be on what side. . . every thing is very fluid at this point, and the actors seem to be changing sides monthly at this point.
The only thing I am sure of? In the end, it is essentially the leaders of the nation states against their people. The next world war may appear to be Russia and China against the U.S. and Europe, or China and the U.S. against the world, but in the end, it is really about the political and economic elites against the people of the world. It's about the oligarchs of all nations that are currently in control, staying in control. The leaders of China have more in common with the leaders of the U.S. than they do with their own people. Likewise, the leaders of the U.S. have more in common with the leaders of China then they do with the American tax-payers; and this is what they have all acknowledged behind closed doors. The average world citizen hardly ever comes to acknowledge this simple fact. If we did, we would all tell these bureaucrats at these global organizations to take a flying leap. They care more about the global corporations than the people of the different nations they claim to represent.
As economic conditions continue to deteriorate, if the basics of life are not covered, and if the people of the world continue to protest and hit the streets, I'd be more and more expecting the next world war to break than a run on the dollar.
Based on WHAT lame analysis is this conclusion drawn from?
LOL, The last thing China wants to do is bomb the people who owe them so much money.
What BS.
The average life of the typical Chinese person is improving DRAMATICALLY and has been for some time. Clearly the Chinese system is working for them.
Same with the American system, malcontents like you bitch over the high speed internet and call people on your 4G cell phones as you play strategy games on your latest generation PlayStation and get ever fatter from eating too much friggin fast food and too little excersize from driving your nice new car everywhere and never missing the latest 3D movie on your wide screen TV.
No, what you aren't doing is suffering.
That would be like during the Depression and this isn't even close.
No, there is no revolution in the offering.
They didn't revolt then, they are hardly going to do it now.
And indeed it has been the global corporations that have spread the wealth across the globe with virtually all inhabitants on an upward trajectory of quality of life. Post ANY long term study that shows the opposite. (there was a small downward blip in 09, but the upward climb has resumed)
Life expectancy is increasing globally.
Quality of life indicators are increasing globally.
But overall economic conditions are not deteriorating, that's the friggin point.
Indeed, the place where people are protesting violently, it's not for the basic necessities of life, it's for self determination.
Big difference.
Arthur
If when you say "world war III" you mean physical destruction of enemy assets by high explosive (or even A-bombs) I don't think that will happen as everyone would lose big time - with no one even coming close to being able to claim they "won."
I do think WWIII is in progress and has been for more than a decade. The US, as I posted long ago, has armed China's big canon by buying on credit, much more than it can afford. IMO, China has a steadily succeeding plan to dominate the world economically. When they are ready - I.e. When China does not need to sell to the US as their trade with the suppliers of the food stocks, raw materials and energy (like Brazil & Canada) is somewhat larger (now growing at more than 15% per year) as is their trade with Asian neighbors (now growing at >20% per year - That with the eight SEATO counties was up 37% in 2010!) who supply the low value added parts that China can no longer produce as economically due to real wages rising 10% per year but needs to build into their High Value added products has grown a few years more, China will tell the US (and EU) to go to Hell - That China will no longer finance about 2 trillion in western annual deficits. No need to as the countries it then trades with don't need loans to buy from China.
Also in last five years China's trade with Africa is up 14% and with India they have new mutual agreement to boost annual trade to 100 billion dollars (equivalent) a year and balance it so no dollars are used.
I think the dollar will collapse of its own accord, but if China wants to fire the big economic canon the US has loaded, then it can destroy the dollar when it is ready - When hard pressed to supply the non-US, non-EU trading partners who don't need loans to buy AND the rapidly growing domestic demand of its population. True China would loss ONCE by dumping dollars from its reserves; to send the US & EU into deep long lasting depression, but the loss would quickly be recovered (EVERY TWO YEARS !) by lower cost of all its imports when neither the US nor the EU is in the market place COMPETITIVELY buying oil, minerals etc.
SUMMARY the economic version of WWIII started more than a decade ago and China is very definitely winning it.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure the English monarchy could have made the same point, that life was much much better for English colonists in America when compared to in England. So what? They should just suck it up, live and die for the system. Yea, if you look across the history from 10,000BCE to today, things have continued to progressively get better for humans. .... and this mean? .... and this is relevant how?
You seem to conclude that things are better now, in the year 2011 when compared to say 1960-70-80s therefor this system is fine. At least that's how your post reads. Things are great. Just suck it up, live and die, don't demand change. If so, well, I disagree. Americans seem to be much much deeper in debt (and shit), most will now wait until they're in their 30s even 40s before they take a chance on starting a family. Many will ONLY be able raise that family with both people working full time jobs. Soon, they'll probably need their kids working too to make ends meet. Oh, but, so long as technology and medicine advances, I suppose they should get used to the new norm and suck it up, live and die, work for the system.
Sure, we have the ability to buy two cheaply made iPhones a year.
Life is Wonderful.
It's too bad you don't have the choice to forgo the two cheaply made iPhones a year and instead live with one expensive phone, AND, only one person has to work full-time and their children able to spend time with their parents coming home at 5pm and no weekend work, and one is at home all day :shrug:
I just heard an economist the other day, talking about how wonderful life is now compared to "before". He did the same thing, pulled out a bunch of stats on life-expectancy, access to cheap technology and etc... There's a serious flaw here though, we can't know how much BETTER things may have been under a different system. For example, if we had kept our currency backed by gold and silver, or Clinto had never passed NAFTA, or maybe things would be worse? Perhaps if that moron Greenspan had never made credit cheap, the tech bubble would have ended and the housing bubble never blow up in our faces? Perhaps if we had let the Banks fail, things would be fine? We just do not know. What does seem to be true, its, many people are working their asses to death, but can buy two iPhones a year, IS that better? Life seems to be more homogenous, of course this makes it more productive, yet, is that better? Now I can fly from LA to NY to London to Sydney and drink the same shit, eat the same shit, see the same shit, and all very cheaply. I can do it a couple times or more a year it's so freaken cheap. Is THAT better?
If one were to look at a particular set of parametrics they'd actually make Cuba look much better today than 50 years ago. Does this mean their system is really a great way to go? I mean, they do have better health than us, it's free too
Should Cubans therefor shut up, live and die in the system they have? Lastly, I don't necessarily think this perceived mess we're in is completely to do with the government (although the government does f*ck shit up per usual) - it has to do with us behaving the way that we do in the system we've created. I really don't see how anything is going to change that. We have two big problems: People's Behavior and our Political/Monetary system. Whining about Bush or Clinton or Obama of even Ron Paul, will probably do nothing to change it. It can probably only be changed AFTER it collapses in on itself. At least that's how it seems to me. So, take heart, the end may be nearer than we think
Last edited:
Workaholic
Registered Senior Member
Obama Issues Ron Paul “Kill Order” As Russia Prepares For War
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/11/obama-issues-ron-paul-kill-order-as-russia-prepares-for-war/
How credible is this report? Sounds a bit whacky to me.
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/11/obama-issues-ron-paul-kill-order-as-russia-prepares-for-war/
How credible is this report? Sounds a bit whacky to me.
To Michael:
There is a popular story in Brazil that illustrates well the point you were making about life not being better now than earlier (Assuming the medical advances would have taken place under almost any system of government. - For example Cuba has made huge advances in terms of numbers of people aided - lots of Cuban trained doctors are working in Africa and many in South America. Cuba gets nearly free oil for providing free clinics to the population of Venezuela, etc.) Here is slightly condensed form of the story:
A city dwelling modern man visits his county brother who is, as usual, is sitting on the river bank fishing and reading a comic book while waiting for a fish to bite. He tell him he should come back with him to the city.
"And then" ?
Well you can live with me until you get a job.
"And then" ?
You can go to night school to get educated.
"And then" ?
Then you can get a better paying job, buy car, & your own home - stop renting.
"And then" ?
Then get married, have kids, move up in your job, make more money to send kids to college, etc.
"And then" ?
After their college is paid for you can save a lot of money for your retirement.
"And then" ?
Well you can leave the rat race, move out of the city and relax in country fresh air.
"And then" ?
Well you could go fishing and read books while waiting for the fish to bite.
Brazilains, who are not yet too infected by modern life's rat race do know how to be happy: A few months ago, while walking to the store, I saw a dirty beggar, dressed in terrible rags, who was nearly toothless. But he was filled with joy, smiling and very excited. - I was stopped at his corner waiting for the traffic light to change and fearing he would try to hug me as he approach; but he just wanted to tell me "his" football team had just scored and was now winning.
There is a popular story in Brazil that illustrates well the point you were making about life not being better now than earlier (Assuming the medical advances would have taken place under almost any system of government. - For example Cuba has made huge advances in terms of numbers of people aided - lots of Cuban trained doctors are working in Africa and many in South America. Cuba gets nearly free oil for providing free clinics to the population of Venezuela, etc.) Here is slightly condensed form of the story:
A city dwelling modern man visits his county brother who is, as usual, is sitting on the river bank fishing and reading a comic book while waiting for a fish to bite. He tell him he should come back with him to the city.
"And then" ?
Well you can live with me until you get a job.
"And then" ?
You can go to night school to get educated.
"And then" ?
Then you can get a better paying job, buy car, & your own home - stop renting.
"And then" ?
Then get married, have kids, move up in your job, make more money to send kids to college, etc.
"And then" ?
After their college is paid for you can save a lot of money for your retirement.
"And then" ?
Well you can leave the rat race, move out of the city and relax in country fresh air.
"And then" ?
Well you could go fishing and read books while waiting for the fish to bite.
Brazilains, who are not yet too infected by modern life's rat race do know how to be happy: A few months ago, while walking to the store, I saw a dirty beggar, dressed in terrible rags, who was nearly toothless. But he was filled with joy, smiling and very excited. - I was stopped at his corner waiting for the traffic light to change and fearing he would try to hug me as he approach; but he just wanted to tell me "his" football team had just scored and was now winning.
Last edited by a moderator:
(Something, something, Burt Ward)
It's not credible at all, as near as I can tell. In truth, I though perhaps the EU Times was a particularly bourbon-riddled offshoot of The Onion.
Personally, I like the RationalWiki take on the EU Times:
Meanwhile, Ron Paul has declined to participate in the Newsmax debate later this month, to be hosted by Donald Trump. According to Jesse Benton, chairman of Paul's campaign:
Notes:
RationalWiki. "European Union Times". November 7, 2011. RationalWiki.org. December 3, 2011. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/European_Union_Times
Burns, Alexander. "Ron Paul camp: Donald Trump debate 'beneath the office of the Presidency'". Politico. December 3, 2011. Politico.com. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69687.html
Workaholic said:
It's not credible at all, as near as I can tell. In truth, I though perhaps the EU Times was a particularly bourbon-riddled offshoot of The Onion.
Personally, I like the RationalWiki take on the EU Times:
The European Union Times claims to be a news site. Its articles on Barack Obama have been linked from a few Libertarian teabag blogs, presumably pleased to find what is apparently a news site that supports some of their views. It even has lots of mainstream advertising served by ContextWeb! Eminently respectable to all appearances.
Upon closer inspection, however, it is little more than a compiler and regurgitator of various news stories and a particularly unpleasant far-right leaning blog. The reporting is, without exception, shockingly unprofessional. Do not be fooled by the nice WordPress theme - this is utter neo-Nazi bollocks ....
.... Almost everything the site claims about the world and, more worryingly, itself, is demonstrably deliberate falsehoods. Anyone who takes the site seriously, despite the evidence of its utter unreliability and lunatic views which springs to the eye almost immediately upon visiting it, is either a Nazi, an ideologue or a complete fucking idiot.
Upon closer inspection, however, it is little more than a compiler and regurgitator of various news stories and a particularly unpleasant far-right leaning blog. The reporting is, without exception, shockingly unprofessional. Do not be fooled by the nice WordPress theme - this is utter neo-Nazi bollocks ....
.... Almost everything the site claims about the world and, more worryingly, itself, is demonstrably deliberate falsehoods. Anyone who takes the site seriously, despite the evidence of its utter unreliability and lunatic views which springs to the eye almost immediately upon visiting it, is either a Nazi, an ideologue or a complete fucking idiot.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul has declined to participate in the Newsmax debate later this month, to be hosted by Donald Trump. According to Jesse Benton, chairman of Paul's campaign:
"The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office's history and dignity. Mr. Trump's participation as moderator will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues such as the national economy, crushing federal government debt, the role of the federal government, foreign policy, and the like. To be sure, Mr. Trump's participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.
"Mr. Trump's selection is also wildly inappropriate because of his record of toying with the serious decision of whether to compete for our nation's highest office, a decision he appeared to make frivolously. The short-lived elevation of Mr. Trump's stature as a candidate put him on the radar of many organizations and we recall that last spring he was invited to keynote the Republican Party of Iowa's annual Lincoln Day Dinner, yet at the last minute he left RPI holding the bag by canceling. In turn, RPI canceled its biggest fundraising gala of the year and suffered embarrassment and in addition RPI was required to engage in refunding measures. Our candidate will not even consider participating in the late-December debate until Mr. Trump publicly apologizes to Iowa party leaders and rectifies in full the situation.
"Therefore our candidate Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution, has advised he will not attend."
(qtd. in Burns)
____________________"Mr. Trump's selection is also wildly inappropriate because of his record of toying with the serious decision of whether to compete for our nation's highest office, a decision he appeared to make frivolously. The short-lived elevation of Mr. Trump's stature as a candidate put him on the radar of many organizations and we recall that last spring he was invited to keynote the Republican Party of Iowa's annual Lincoln Day Dinner, yet at the last minute he left RPI holding the bag by canceling. In turn, RPI canceled its biggest fundraising gala of the year and suffered embarrassment and in addition RPI was required to engage in refunding measures. Our candidate will not even consider participating in the late-December debate until Mr. Trump publicly apologizes to Iowa party leaders and rectifies in full the situation.
"Therefore our candidate Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution, has advised he will not attend."
(qtd. in Burns)
Notes:
RationalWiki. "European Union Times". November 7, 2011. RationalWiki.org. December 3, 2011. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/European_Union_Times
Burns, Alexander. "Ron Paul camp: Donald Trump debate 'beneath the office of the Presidency'". Politico. December 3, 2011. Politico.com. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69687.html
sounds a bit bullshit to me. Obama doesn't decide what is and is not shown on TV.
I was the thinking: A life worth living is one where you are challenged and challenge yourself to excel. Sure, fishing is enjoyable, but, for me - such an existence is pointless. A waste of a perfectly good consciousness. Not to mention, I'm sure when the fisherman is ill, he wants modern medical attention. Medicine that other people, who didn't fish all day, spent a life time developing. When he's at home, he likes the air-conditioning on those super hot days. Once in awhile he probably likes to check his iPhone for various emails (if he has one). He likes catching the football on the TV. He's happy other people make it possible for him to buy strong fishing line, good bait and tackle (not to mention his carbon-fiber pole with digital fish mating call
).Who wants to be retired their whole life? Not me. I enjoy my free time because it's a luxury. I appreciate it.
Last edited:
Curious Optimism
Growing?
The rolling average at RealClearPolitics has Paul at 8% at the end of November, down from prior weeks, below his high last month of ten percent; his best showing was in August, at fourteen percent; he last hit thirteen percent in October.
Indeed, I could be missing a couple of polls here and there, but aside from the straw polls in which supporter activism plays more of a role in the outcome than actual popularity, where do we find this growth?
____________________
Notes:
RealClearPolitics. "2012 Republican Presidential Nomination". (n.d.) RealClearPolitics.com. December 4, 2011. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Michael said:
Growing?
The rolling average at RealClearPolitics has Paul at 8% at the end of November, down from prior weeks, below his high last month of ten percent; his best showing was in August, at fourteen percent; he last hit thirteen percent in October.
Indeed, I could be missing a couple of polls here and there, but aside from the straw polls in which supporter activism plays more of a role in the outcome than actual popularity, where do we find this growth?
____________________
Notes:
RealClearPolitics. "2012 Republican Presidential Nomination". (n.d.) RealClearPolitics.com. December 4, 2011. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html