Things are looking bad; almost nobody supports Ron Paul and knows of Bilderberg Group.

Originally posted by The Axeman
That being said, I will have to call into question your "snake oil" comment.

I used the snake oil analogy because Paul's rhetoric sounds really good, hjust like the those of the old snake oil salesmen in the old west. But just like the snake oil itself, Paul's policies are not medicinal at all, and in fact, they contain a harmful venom, which I will I attempt to explain below.

I don't care about Timothy Leary; what is it about Paul's platform that you find dangerous?

I don't want to talk liberalism vs. conservativism, if it can be helped. What I would like though, is to discuss the social, economic, and political issues that are affecting this election.

Paul touts himself as a "strict constitutionalist", and I do agree with his claim. But Paul wants to revert to the "time" of the Constitution, which is not possible.

When the Constitution was written in the 1780's, the economic system was much different. The Industrial Revolution changed everything. Without government oversight, industries were free to pollute, exploit their workers, and hoard wealth. This new industrial system led to the Great Depression, which was predicted by Marx and other leftist philosophers.

FDR, who was both a Masonic brother and humanitarian, introduced the New Deal, which applied various aspects of socialism in order to fix the mess we were in. The introduction of child labor laws, minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, Social Security, and other pro-worker regulations were then introduced. The New Deal also created tons of new government jobs, including even street sweepers, to put people back to work. These policies were hugely successful, despite the conservative opposition to FDR. Finally, people had money in their pockets again, began spending, and we slowly ended the Depression.

Paul does not believe that government should regulate business. He believes that business should be free to do pretty much what they want. In other words, he wants to go back in time before the New Deal. This would eliminate government oversight on pollution, workers rights, etc.

Furthermore, we the people elect our government officials. We do not elect corporate boards unless we have own stock in the particular company. We the people can hold government officials responsible at the ballot box, but cannot hold CEO's responsible likewise. We all need a voice.

Unlike most politicians I have ever seen, he will not obfuscate or change the subject when asked a tough question. He'll tell you what he thinks. For his flaws, of which I have found few, he seems to me genuinely...well, genuine.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Paul is lying about his views. I think he's very honest about them. I just believe that he is very, very wrong.

One of the more prominent ideas I picked up from your posts is that you are concerned about health care. You used France as an example. How does the system work there? Do corporate interests and lobbyists pander to the government in order to persuade them to subsidize medical care, and exert corporate contol of medicine, as we are seeing here?

I do not advocate adopting the French system, but in France, the hospitals are government-ran, and most doctors are government employees. Their system is a socialist one, similar to our socialist public school and law enforcement systems.

I personally advocate the single payer system. This allows both hospitals and physicians to remain in private practice. The difference would be that private health insurance would be eliminated, and all Americans would be fully covered under Medicare (the single payer).

It is important to understand that there is *already* enough money in the system to fully cover everybody. The problem is that 1/3 of the money in the health care system isn't going to actually health care, but is instead going to insurance corporations' profits. Furthermore, the real tragedy lies with those who *have* insurance coverage, have paid their sky-high premiums for years, and when the time comes when they need health care, the insurance company denies their claim. This happens on a daily basis, and has resulted in many thousands of American deaths. And again, these people had insurance.

As I mentioned earlier, most businesses make a profit by providing a service. However, for insurance companies, they can only make a profit if they *deny* a service. Some insurance comnpanies have already been exposed engaging in the unethical practice of denying *all* claims automatically, the first time they are submitted.

The contradiction here is apparent. If you eliminate the profit incentive, and put all the money in the health care system to actually pay for health care, everybody is covered, and there's no need to deny a claim just because they want their bottom line to be a little larger.

Would not the best way to ensure that all have health care be to have a free-market system where charity, relief and brotherly love could fill that need?

I strongly believe that the single payer system is brotherly love, charity, and relief in action. Just as the entire community recognizes the right of all American children to universal education, I believe that we should recognize the right to health care for the sick.

Untie the doctors' hands, and let the patients and the doctors be in control of treatments and prescriptions, untie the hands of the people by allowing at least marginal competiton from other countries in the way of prescription drugs.

I agree with this completely, and a single payer system would do exactly that. Currently, the insured are required to go to a doctor within the HMO network. Under the single payer system, you would have choice of doctors.

Originally posted by The Axeman
How exactly is Ron Paul scary? What "Crazy Eye?" I've seen nothing of the sort; in fact, Paul sems like the most reasonable, the most informed, and the most articulate about what he believes (correctly IMHO) are the root causes and, more importantly, solutions to the problems this country is facing.

Here's the thing about Ron Paul: he's not a conservative, and he's certainly not a Republican.

The Crazy Eye is something that I usually reserve for the chicks I date. It's a look - almost a thousand-mile stare - in which you can tell the person you're talking to just isn't home right now. It's a look that screams that there's something just not right, but that they haven't been diagnosed as a psychopath yet, so it's okay to sleep with them ... just don't let them eat with anything more pointy or menacing than a spork. And Ron Paul has the crazy eye. I very rarely see CE in a guy (probably because I'm not ever trying to get into a guy's pants), but ... I will tell you that Marshall Applewhite - from the Heaven's Gate Cult - has exactly the same look as Ron Paul does when he talks.

I will also say that I see the people who support Ron Paul express themselves very much like a cult - no offense intended.

The Cult of Paul are - I believe - doing a huge disservice to their leader by the absurd emails (I get them), the goofy phone calls to talk shows, and the attacking of T.V. shows or their hosts.

You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you come off like a nut - which is exactly how many of the Cult of Paul members come off.

The one overriding thing that I've seen, read and heard, is that the Cult of Paul members are constantly trying to convince others that 'Paul didn't mean that when he said...' or that 'Paul is a conservative...' or that 'you should support Paul because you don't know what's best for you...' or they attack whenever someone doesn't agree with the Cult of Paul, and so on. They don't use logic in their arguments ... in fact, they come off like the cut and paste anti-Masons whenever they try to make a point; huge leaps in illogic, unverified source material from a third party, general misunderstanding of what it is they're talking about.

Pauls actions and words speak for themselves. He gets himself in trouble whenever he speaks candidly (when they Crazy Eyes show up).

As I said, there are some things that I like about Ron Paul's positions, but there's far more that I dislike. And I find the man himself to be disturbing.

Where I tend to disagree with him, is on his belief that the U.S. hasn't done anything right since it's inception. That the Civil War didn't have to happen, it was just Lincoln grandstanding and slavery was already mostly over with around the world (which it wasn't). The we - the U.S. - were responsible for 9/11, and that we should, instead, talk to the terrorists and understand their feelings and get all warm and fuzzy with moronic uneducated bastards that should be killed like cockroaches wherever we find them.

The man is stuck in the wrong century.

He is a Constitutionalist - which isn't necessary a bad thing ... if you recognize that the Constitution is a living document, not a static one. He doesn't. He believes that we should follow strictly the document ... but clearly doesn't recognize that as a living document, it changes as the U.S. changes. For example, there is provision for a militia and a navy ... but we've got things that fly through the air now called airplanes.

He opposes the Civll Rights act.

He clearly doesn't believe that there are threats to the United States around the world. That we should become an isolationist country; he's said that he thinks the U.S. was wrong to get into WWI or WWII.

He billed himself as a libertarian, but at the same time he's said that Vietnam - a place without much in the way of liberty - is a 'nice place.'

And he proves that he's just another politician when he does idiotic things like oppose earmarks ... and then attaches his own earmarks! Who does the guy think he is? McCain? Kerry?

At the end of the day, I firmly believe that Ron Paul is anti-American. An anti-American who believes in isolationism and wants to take the U.S. back to a kinder, gentler time: 1779.

P.S. I've no expectations of you, high or otherwise. Your posts in this thread however, have been somewhat rude and arrogant. To each his own, and my skin is thick, but I had you figured for more even-keel.

I am even keeled; people only tend to think that I'm rude and arrogant when I disagree with them. When I do agree with them, they think I'm smart-assed and disrespectful.

I hope this explains my position on Ron Paul a little better. I've had RP supporters attempt to change my mind ... but I'm of the opinion that actions speak louder than words; the words or actions of the Cult of Paul will not sway me (but they continue to alienate others). My opinion of Ron Paul is - and will continue to be - based on Ron Paul, his actions and his words.

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by mmmeat
I will tell you that Marshall Applewhite - from the Heaven's Gate Cult - has exactly the same look as Ron Paul does when he talks.

Yawn. Character slander. Ron Paul is a small white man with greying hair, so you're going to compare him to a cult leader. Marvelous.

They don't use logic in their arguments ... in fact, they come off like the cut and paste anti-Masons whenever they try to make a point

Tying in Ron Paul with your favorite enemy, the imaginary 'anti-masons'. How is this even relevant? Besides highlighting your paranoia against ATS members who discuss Masonry. Totally unrelated.

Pauls actions and words speak for themselves. He gets himself in trouble whenever he speaks candidly (when they Crazy Eyes show up).

Your right, Pauls action and words DO speak for themself. He has not ONCE been found 'guilty' of any wrong doing or mis-truth. Again, you use the term 'Crazy eye' to paint him as a cook. Tired and cliche'd media-tactic slander. Yawn.

He opposes the Civll Rights act.

This slander has already been debunked numerous times. Do you have a big book of disinformation that you consult while posting on ATS?

He clearly doesn't believe that there are threats to the United States around the world.

Actually, he admits regularly that America has created plenty of enemies. Next.

At the end of the day, I firmly believe that Ron Paul is anti-American.

More unfounded character slander. This is where your whole post was going, so why not just say this from the beginning?

Your allowed to voice your own opinion on Ron Paul, but the way you step into threads along with others to purposefully sling mud at him only highlights the heavy bias.

It is both transparent and tiresome.

Next?

double post

[edit on 24-1-2008 by NewWorldOver]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Paul touts himself as a "strict constitutionalist", and I do agree with his claim. But Paul wants to revert to the "time" of the Constitution, which is not possible.

When the Constitution was written in the 1780's, the economic system was much different. The Industrial Revolution changed everything. Without government oversight, industries were free to pollute, exploit their workers, and hoard wealth. This new industrial system led to the Great Depression, which was predicted by Marx and other leftist philosophers.

How did the industrial system lead to the depression? The way I understand it, JP Morgan pretty much bailed out the banks after the Panic of 1907, making him a "hero" of sorts. There are those who believe that the Panic was orchestrated by Morgan in order to reap the profits from bailing everyone out... he didn't do it for free, that's for sure. The money that went out to the banks and tanking businesses was loaned at interest, not just given freely. At any rate, Morgan was one of the key players in instituting the Federal Reserve System.

In my opinion, the commission of the Federal Reserve system was the ultimate cause of the great depression. The central banks have control over the "discount window" interest rates, which affects commercial banks' ability to cover their portfolios in the event that depositors withdraw to the point that the bank does not meet its fractional reserve ratio required to operate. The Fed is supposed to be a bailout system for banks -- ostensibly to prevent panics and depressions.

During the years leading up to the Great Depression, the Fed was negligent of that duty, and allowed banks to close and fail, thus weakening public trust in banks. Obviously, people tried to convert deposits into currency en masse, thus putting more strain on the banks and ultimately contracting the money supply by calling in loans and slowing lending; i.e. "hoarding cash" to cover their portfolios.

Each time a bank failed or closed, the money supply was constricted by the amount of the banks' deposits.

In 1931, the commercial bank deposits fell by 7%; the Fed actually RAISED the discount rate at this time, thus making it even HARDER for the banks to borrow money to cover their margins. As a result, bank deposits declined another 15%, thus shrinking the money supply that much more.

So, at this point, 1932 now, the banks can either horde cash, which is no good; discount loans at a loss, which isn't good; or call in loans to already strapped people, forcing them into bankruptcy. Equally not good.

In March of 1933, even the Federal Reserve Banks closed. When they opened their doors again, only 60% of commercial banks remained in business. This, in effect, shrank the money supply by 30% or more, effectively hurling us into the Great Depression.

Industry had little to do with it, or so it would seem. Economics is a bankers' game. According to my research, it is much less the "industrial revolution" that created the depression than the central banking system and the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the economy through adjustments to the interest rates and constriction of the money supply, which destroyed what little purchasing power Americans had left.

Before I comment further, an excerpt from FDR's Inaugural Address:

We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
[...]
Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

(emphasis mine)

Hmmmm... Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

FDR, who was both a Masonic brother and humanitarian, introduced the New Deal, which applied various aspects of socialism in order to fix the mess we were in. The introduction of child labor laws, minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, Social Security, and other pro-worker regulations were then introduced. The New Deal also created tons of new government jobs, including even street sweepers, to put people back to work. These policies were hugely successful, despite the conservative opposition to FDR. Finally, people had money in their pockets again, began spending, and we slowly ended the Depression.

OK, that's one viewpoint... however there are many who would disagree with your assessment... beneath the surface, that is.

Source

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.
[...]
...the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire ... The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.
[...]
What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.

So while the claim is that the New Deal "brought us out of the depression," there is evidence to show that it actually prolonged it. The Great Depression didn't really end until the onset of WWII, and we all know that war boosts the economy considerably due to all the production, etc. that is a result of it. I think this more than anything else contributed to the end of the Great Depression.

Paul does not believe that government should regulate business. He believes that business should be free to do pretty much what they want. In other words, he wants to go back in time before the New Deal. This would eliminate government oversight on pollution, workers rights, etc.

I have never seen or heard Paul say that outright; he is for limited Federal Government, but I'm fairly sure he's aware that this is the 21st century, and some policies have to evolve with society. Going back in time is not the issue; it's the deregulation of areas the federal government should not regulate that is the problem. The federal government has its place and its authority as laid down in the Constitution. If we want to give the federal government jurisprudence over a particular area that affects us all, then we should have the respect for the constitution to amend it to meet the needs of the nation.

Pollution? If you cut the subsidies and special privileges afforded to energy companies and other industrial entities that produce the pollution, and at the same time bringing back the idea of personal property rights, it would force the polluters to implement cleaner, less pollutant policies for waste disposal. It can be done, but the way the government panders to them now, why would they bother?

Furthermore, we the people elect our government officials. We do not elect corporate boards unless we have own stock in the particular company. We the people can hold government officials responsible at the ballot box, but cannot hold CEO's responsible likewise. We all need a voice.

With this I agree 95%. The way it works now, those corporations throw billions of dollars at Washington in order to affect policy to favor them. Ron Paul is a staunch opponent to this idea. We must get big business and special interest groups OUT of Washington -- precisely because they are unelected and are influencing policies that affect us all. The only part that I don't agree with is the idea that we can hold our officials accountable. We can't -- otherwise Bush and Cheney and their cohorts would all be at the proverbial gallows.

This anti-corporatism is the same line of thinking that leads Paul to oppose NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the UN, and the NAU. We should never, under any circumstances, give foreign, unelected officials prerogative to dictate policy to us. It is nothing less than the surrender of our national sovereignty to unelected, foreign officials, and it must stop if America is to remain the America we know and love.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Paul is lying about his views. I think he's very honest about them. I just believe that he is very, very wrong.

All due respect, and that is quite a bit, but I have to disagree. There is maybe one issue that I categorically disagree with Paul on, but it is one of little consequence when one looks at the big picture. What he says sounds and feels right to me, and I find that when I research what he speaks on, the facts line up with what he is saying.

I personally advocate the single payer system. This allows both hospitals and physicians to remain in private practice. The difference would be that private health insurance would be eliminated, and all Americans would be fully covered under Medicare (the single payer).

Call me conservative, but I believe, from personal experiences, that welfare and state-provided benefits, especially in the current system, simply encourage people not to work or contribute. As it stands, someone with no skills and who would make low wages actually receives more by sitting at home than they would out in the workforce, even though they would be gaining experience.

Consider the single mother. Say she's on Medicaid and Food Stamps. No job. If she brings in a certain amount of money, they cut her benefits, not taking into account that she must provide child care when she is away (and that shyte is expensive!), and also purchase the food and commodities that she would normally get with the food stamps. At the end of the day, she brings home less money from working than if she just stayed at home and worked the system. This is counterproductive, IMHO.

Medicaid has the same sort of restrictions for eligibility, and this often creates a conflict of interest for the lower class people dependant on the system. I would rather advocate a system that encouraged people to get out and improve their lives, rather than tying their hands and dooming them to a sub-standard life for fear of losing their precious benefits.

It is important to understand that there is *already* enough money in the system to fully cover everybody.

*snip*

The contradiction here is apparent. If you eliminate the profit incentive, and put all the money in the health care system to actually pay for health care, everybody is covered, and there's no need to deny a claim just because they want their bottom line to be a little larger.

Yes. Medical insurance is a racket and the system should definitely be revamped. If the insurance companies were cut out of the system and it was again free-market health care, then the doctors would be able to enter contracts with the patients for health care, and also set their own prices, or provide pro-bono care when necessary. This idea that we need the government to take care of everyone is one that I find invalid. We should all take care of one another... we don't need to government to dictate to us how we should provide for our fellow man, nor compel us to do so in the form of an involuntary tax. This creates resentment between those who work hard and are taxed to pay for medical care for those who abuse the system or are just plain lazy.

I strongly believe that the single payer system is brotherly love, charity, and relief in action. Just as the entire community recognizes the right of all American children to universal education, I believe that we should recognize the right to health care for the sick.

If someone is sick, they should not be turned away, but to compel taxpayers who work for a living to pay for those that don't is not fair, nor is it Freedom. If someone is in need of care, they should negotiate a fee with the doctor or hospital, make a contract, and pay when they can. Alternatively, if the federal government would stay our of the doctors' and hospitals' business, I would imagine that there would be a whole host of free clinics and services available for those in need. Untie the doctors' hands, and the people will be taken care of.

I also firmly believe that every child has the right to an education; however, I do not feel the federal government should have any influence over the curriculum or administration of the schools. That's why we have school boards, and state and local government.

Just look what has happened to our public education system since the bureaucrats took over. It is disgraceful.

Wow... that was a bit more long-winded than I expected...

[edit on 1/24/08 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by The Axeman
This idea that we need the government to take care of everyone is one that I find invalid. We should all take care of one another... we don't need to government to dictate to us how we should provide for our fellow man, nor compel us to do so in the form of an involuntary tax. This creates resentment between those who work hard and are taxed to pay for medical care for those who abuse the system or are just plain lazy.

I understand your argument, but my problem with it is two-fold:

1. It makes "government" out to be some sort of abstract entity, separate from "us". But government is supposed to be "We The People", i.e., you and me. Thus government cannot dictate to us, since we are literally government, through our representatives.

2. It brings up the old argument of "Why should I pay for other people's health care" while ignoring the fact that we already are, it just isn't being spent on it. By the same token, I could say that it brings resentment to many to line the pockets of Wall Street insurance company fat cats while paying insurance premiums. Why would people prefer to pay corporate honchos billions per year in salaries instead of having that money pay for cancer treatments for someone's sick child?

I also firmly believe that every child has the right to an education; however, I do not feel the federal government should have any influence over the curriculum or administration of the schools. That's why we have school boards, and state and local government.

Bro, I live in the Deep South Bible Belt. If local and state government had the authority to set their own curriculum, our high schools here would be teaching about Noah's flood and the co-existence of Adam, Eve, and dinosaurs, in physics class.



[edit on 24-1-2008 by Masonic Light]

reply to post by Masonic Light

1. It makes "government" out to be some sort of abstract entity, separate from "us". But government is supposed to be "We The People", i.e., you and me. Thus government cannot dictate to us, since we are literally government, through our representatives.

The government IS separate from us.. and not only is it a separate entity, but I will go as far as to say it is an ALIEN entity and does not reflect the direct concerns of the people. Not only that, but aside from not having a conscious of the peoples them selves, the government cannot localize and personalize issues. People who have problems in Kentucky, do not have he same problems in California.

For the FED to be responsible for the 50 free states, with the power it has accumulated in respect to Social Services, the vast majority of money will be spent in the highest populated and highest tax revenue areas.

Now, if the FED stayed out of social services entirely, and the states picked up the responsibility.. then I would be more then for it.

Also, as Axe said, people should be responsible for people, not the government. However, in this respect I also realize that people with money will almost never help the poor when they truly need it. During wars, famines, plagues, depressions.. the wealthy remain well off, isolated in their communities and do not help the general populace.

The government may have been built to be "a Government of the people, for the people, by the people" but it is certainly "a Government of the few, for the few, by the few"

It does not represent me, and I can guarantee it does not represent any one I know. In fact, we are for the most part at complete odds with the beast.

2. It brings up the old argument of "Why should I pay for other people's health care" while ignoring the fact that we already are, it just isn't being spent on it. By the same token, I could say that it brings resentment to many to line the pockets of Wall Street insurance company fat cats while paying insurance premiums. Why would people prefer to pay corporate honchos billions per year in salaries instead of having that money pay for cancer treatments for someone's sick child?

Personally, as morbid as this sounds... I believe health care should be limited, and restricted to communicable disease only. Sounds odd, and perhaps you have never encountered someone with this philosophy.. however, extensive health care be it preventive or what ever, only prolongs otherwise weak people's lives.. expanding the population, expanding the reproduction pool, expanding poverty and eventually if not already restraining resources of all kinds, including food and water.

So why on Earth do we prolong the lives of otherwise weak people? To be kind? We are all Humans after all? But alas, this is where I get my philosophy.. we are animals, and we play God, we have given Nature the finger and eventually we will only be kicking our selves in the arse.

Wow ML.. I may be the ultimate anti-socialist.

I am a Darwinist.

Bro, I live in the Deep South Bible Belt. If local and state government had the authority to set their own curriculum, our high schools here would be teaching about Noah's flood and the co-existence of Adam, Eve, and dinosaurs, in physics class.

Is there something wrong with that? If the local people want to teach the local children local beliefs, the Federal Government has absolutely no right to impede upon those peoples God given right to education.

While I may not agree with that set curriculum, I could always go somewhere else, and I am free to start my own private academy to teach "proper" education.

I went to a Catholic school, the education even *gasp* with the consistent presence of God was by far better then the education I got at Public school.. so much in fact, my Children will be Catholic and go to Catholic schools, because private schools with a sense of morality ran by LOCAL parents and parishioners is 1,000,000x better then the regenerative cesspool of public education, where the maximum standards are set for those of the lowest intelligence.

Then again..

Perhaps all schools should be private.

Socialism is not a bad thing, it has the best intentions, however, at a federal level the humanity of the matter is lost in the wind, and it become tyrannical..

And I do apologize for the horrible spelling.. trying to type this on my lap top sitting on my couch..

[edit on 1/24/2008 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by Masonic Light


I have also lived in the south in the heart of the "bible belt." The citizenry of Chapel Hill, North Carolina are far more likely to teach their children about how religion destroys the world and is the bane of all humanity and darwinism over any curriculum that even mentions the word "God" in anything but a negative context. If the local government had the authority to do so, they'd be teaching about it in a physics class and probably create a new class, "The Evils of Religion" just to fit the rest in

[edit on 24-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
1. It makes "government" out to be some sort of abstract entity, separate from "us". But government is supposed to be "We The People", i.e., you and me. Thus government cannot dictate to us, since we are literally government, through our representatives.

I think Rock said it better than I could. I'd only add my own comment that the executive branch has run amok and it is no more the government it used to be, by and for US.

Surely you can't think that Bush pushed all that because he cares about us? It was a scam, and he's stolen our government.

Terrorism is a real threat but it has been made much, much worse by Bush and his cronies. Sad too, 'cause I voted for him once.

2. It brings up the old argument of "Why should I pay for other people's health care" while ignoring the fact that we already are, it just isn't being spent on it.

And that's part of the problem with the government, and the system in place. It's one thing to help people; it's another to be forced to "help" when it isn't helping at all.

By the same token, I could say that it brings resentment to many to line the pockets of Wall Street insurance company fat cats while paying insurance premiums.

And you'd be damn skippy it does! I HATE the insurance and medical industry in this country! They're leeches! I have paid THOUSANDS for insurance premiums over the years, that goes mostly unused as I don't go to the doctor very often. Even if I had, as you say the insurance company would fight me about it; they always do. Now, if I had all that money in my pocket, I assure you some of it (I do go to the doctor sometimes, and I have a family too) would have ended up going to help local families in need or other charitable pursuits. Donations to the free clinic, perhaps.

Why would people prefer to pay corporate honchos billions per year in salaries instead of having that money pay for cancer treatments for someone's sick child?

I would rather give the money to the sick child's parents and have them use it however it is needed than to have it extracted from my check without my approval to - just as you say - line some fat-cat's pocket. No thanks, I'd like to be able to actually help, and be able to afford to help, what's more.

Bro, I live in the Deep South Bible Belt. If local and state government had the authority to set their own curriculum, our high schools here would be teaching about Noah's flood and the co-existence of Adam, Eve, and dinosaurs, in physics class.

So the solution is, instead of the government dictating mind-numbingly inadequate lessons to the masses, the government should give tax credits to homeschoolers to make it easier for them, and/or tax credits or rebates to cover tuition to private schools. The American public education system is dismal, my brother.

Perhaps it has been too long since you attended?

I'm enjoying this, but I must admit I was trying to gain some insight on your opinion of the banking system... given your profession and all. I'm sure you've given it some consideration.

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Personally, as morbid as this sounds... I believe health care should be limited, and restricted to communicable disease only. Sounds odd, and perhaps you have never encountered someone with this philosophy.. however, extensive health care be it preventive or what ever, only prolongs otherwise weak people's lives.. expanding the population, expanding the reproduction pool, expanding poverty and eventually if not already restraining resources of all kinds, including food and water.

So why on Earth do we prolong the lives of otherwise weak people? To be kind? We are all Humans after all? But alas, this is where I get my philosophy.. we are animals, and we play God, we have given Nature the finger and eventually we will only be kicking our selves in the arse.

Wow ML.. I may be the ultimate anti-socialist.

Indeed, and yes, I have encountered others with that same philosophy. What you have just described are the core social principles of Fascism.

I am a Darwinist.

As am I. Darwin, by the way, was a liberal Unitarian.

Is there something wrong with that?

Whatever happened to Truth being a Cardinal Virtue? Should we teach things that are not true and masquerade it as "education"?

If the local people want to teach the local children local beliefs, the Federal Government has absolutely no right to impede upon those peoples God given right to education.

If I tell you that the earth is a flat disk resting on the back of a giant cosmic tortoise, am I educating you?

And I do apologize for the horrible spelling..

Hey, it's not your fault you had to go to a private school!

Originally posted by The Axeman


So the solution is, instead of the government dictating mind-numbingly inadequate lessons to the masses, the government should give tax credits to homeschoolers to make it easier for them, and/or tax credits or rebates to cover tuition to private schools. The American public education system is dismal, my brother.

You keep saying the public education is broken. Outside of rightwing propaganda, I'm not sure where you're getting this information. Sure, the Bush administration has attacked it time and time again, and have pushed for vouchers and tax credits. But our public education system remains a shining example of what community and mutual respect can do.

As a Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite Mason, I am obligated to oppose all forms of school vouchers. If you are a Scottish Rite Mason, you are under the same obligation. The Supreme Council's complete program on the issue can be read in "Why Public Schools?" by Ill. Brother. Henry Clausen, 33°, Past Grand Commander. But all AASR SJ Masons are obligated to defend and completely support universal public education in the United States.



[edit on 25-1-2008 by Masonic Light]

reply to post by Masonic Light

Indeed, and yes, I have encountered others with that same philosophy. What you have just described are the core social principles of Fascism.

One should becarfull brother not to lump all political ideologies into general discriptions. While it may be a core beleif of some aspects to Fascism, Fascism its self is not centered around such ideas..

And while some ideas of Fascism does appeal to me, not enough to sway me into that political grouping. Fascism, like Communism, Socialism and many other ISMS are declared evil because society says they are.

As am I. Darwin, by the way, was a liberal Unitarian.

And? He also loved his Cousin.

Whatever happened to Truth being a Cardinal Virtue? Should we teach things that are not true and masquerade it as "education"?

Truth is relative brother to the mentality of the individual. Some people claim Christian teachings as fact. I do not. But can I really argue with such devout certainty? It is fact for them, because they believe it so. But not all science is forsaken in Godly schools, as I said I went to a Catholic school, and we learn about dinosaurs, fossils, ages of the Earth.. I believe Catholics are more liberal when it comes to sciences, but when it came to entwining God, it was mysteriously never brought up.

In fact.. in Public schools (including college) I had teachers who refused to teach some topics or in some cases (this was in college) a professor who would add "this is only one shrewed perspective" after every 2 mins or so of lecture involving evolution.

If I tell you that the earth is a flat disk resting on the back of a giant cosmic tortoise, am I educating you?

Cultural beliefs should not be forsaken for "progress" of general hypothesised theory, for it is my belief the destruction of culture and historic belief is the ultimate form of spiritual digression.

Hey, it's not your fault you had to go to a private school!

They made us learn to type as fast as possible, but not spelling correctly. Now I find without my spell checker I am a bit retarded at writing.

reply to post by Masonic Light

As a Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite Mason, I am obligated to oppose all forms of school vouchers. If you are a Scottish Rite Mason, you are under the same obligation. The Supreme Council's complete program on the issue can be read in "Why Public Schools?" by Ill. Brother. Henry Clausen, 33°, Past Grand Commander. But all AASR SJ Masons are obligated to defend and completely support universal public education in the United States.

Luckily I am a Prince from the North. and I am not obligated to support such a disgusting, pathetic day-care type "education" that public schools provide.

Of course, if I where obligated to support the decrepit public school system by the Rite, the only thing they would get from me is my obligation to my self to give them the finger and throw my dues card at them.

Originally posted by Rockpuck


One should becarfull brother not to lump all political ideologies into general discriptions. While it may be a core beleif of some aspects to Fascism, Fascism its self is not centered around such ideas..

Actually, fascism is very much centered around those ideas. The ones you explicitly mentioned gave rise to Nazi eugenics.

Fascism, like Communism, Socialism and many other ISMS are declared evil because society says they are.

I would argue that Communism and Fascism are declared evil not because of what society may say, but because they led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

I agree with you, however, that Socialism is declared evil only because *American* society says it is. After all, the other advanced western democracies often have Socialist majorities, and don't consider socialism evil at all.

And? He also loved his Cousin.

So did Jerry Lee Lewis, and I dig him too.

Truth is relative brother to the mentality of the individual.

I have to disagree. If one man says 2 plus 2 equals 4, and another says it equals 5, we cannot say that both statements are true as relative to the person answering. The fact of the matter is that the correct answer is 4, and the guy who tells us it is 5 has no business attempting to educate others. It would be to set up a scenario of the blind leading the blind.

Some people claim Christian teachings as fact.

And that's fine. But they have no business enforcing those beliefs in a classroom dedicated to science.

Cultural beliefs should not be forsaken for "progress" of general hypothesised theory, for it is my belief the destruction of culture and historic belief is the ultimate form of spiritual digression.

Should cultural beliefs be perpetuated even if they were found to be false? If the old slogan is really correct, that there is no religion higher than Truth, how can the pursuit of Truth be detrimental to society? Would it not be better to have one truth than ten thousand falsehoods?

reply to post by Masonic Light

Actually, fascism is very much centered around those ideas. The ones you explicitly mentioned gave rise to Nazi eugenics.

*shrug* So I am a Fascist. Actually, I consider my self a Monarchist, with my firmest of beliefs:

Man is to ignorant, and to detached from what he needs to have the capability to govern themselves.

I would argue that Communism and Fascism are declared evil not because of what society may say, but because they led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

As has democracy (Germany was a Democracy when Hitler came to power.. perhaps the Democratic state did not committ the crimes, but the inherited flaws of Democracy is quite simple: it is an unstable system that will eventually lead to tyranny.)

But even know, for imperialistic purposes democracies are the cause of millions of deaths...

And the Capital system that Democracy needs as life blood, leads to the further demise of millions more, and the less then poverty conditions of further, millions more. Go Democracy!

I have to disagree. If one man says 2 plus 2 equals 4, and another says it equals 5, we cannot say that both statements are true as relative to the person answering. The fact of the matter is that the correct answer is 4, and the guy who tells us it is 5 has no business attempting to educate others. It would be to set up a scenario of the blind leading the blind.

As you know Mathematics is a "exact"science .. 2+2 cannot be incorrect..

However..

Social and theological hypothesis and theories are matters of opinions based on fact or belief.

For one man to say God made the Earth, and for another to say particles drawn together by gravity over billions of years made the Earth .. these are relative theories to the mind.. Both are correct, neither can be proven..

And no I do not stand for Christian teachings like this, but I cannot deny a sense of God in education imprints a sense of morality that is lost in the moral vaccumm of public education.

Should cultural beliefs be perpetuated even if they were found to be false? If the old slogan is really correct, that there is no religion higher than Truth, how can the pursuit of Truth be detrimental to society? Would it not be better to have one truth than ten thousand falsehoods?

Yes, absolutely they should. For the sake of progress, progress should be inhibited in some respects to what we "should know" and what we "believe". If we look at society, we can plainly see there is no cultural unity among us, ideas run rampant. What some see as progress, I see as force, a weapon of sorts, that scientific ideas destroy ancient spiritual beliefs, we are taught that to be different, is wrong, that to think differently is weird, to believe in the supernatural is ignorant.

Where once culture and community identities could be traced for thousands of years, we enter an age where cell phones, computers, cars and gadgets are Gods, and culture is wiped out with a media induced corporate impression of "who you are, and what you want to be"

And you can bet that the down graded, grey-scale type education we receive is absolutley responsible.. We are all the same, Science is Truth, and to celebrate our likeness and throw away our differences.

Yes, I believe Humans belong in groups, cultural identities, that these are ancient ties that we forsake for the sake of globalization and likeness.

Culture, above all else, is Truth. Me knowing what Dinnosaur ate what other Dinnosaur is not going to elevate me, enlighten me, progress me.. most peopleforget such information, and then not only grow up with out a cultural identity but also complete ignorance.

And I know your an old fellow, and it has been a long while since you sat in a public school.......

I assure you, it is nothing short of disgusting.

But me and you.... we both knew already we would never get along in a political discussion, as we are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum.. But, still Brothers no less.

[edit on 1/25/2008 by Rockpuck]

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Man is to ignorant, and to detached from what he needs to have the capability to govern themselves.

If the People are too ignorant to decide who will govern them, who then will make that decision?

As has democracy (Germany was a Democracy when Hitler came to power.. perhaps the Democratic state did not committ the crimes, but the inherited flaws of Democracy is quite simple: it is an unstable system that will eventually lead to tyranny.)

This reflects Plato's view, and I don't completely disagree with the theory behind it. Basically, Plato says that democracy is bad because, when you let the people vote on their leaders, you end up with crooked imbeciles in office. Our current administration is proof positive that Plato was correct.

The only problem is that Plato's solution is an idealistic, as opposed to realistic, one. His idea of a utopia ruled by philosopher kings is a great and inspiring sentiment, but without a balance of power and the people's rights to choose for themselves, this sort of benevolent dictatorship quickly turns into a malevolent one, as history clearly shows.

But even know, for imperialistic purposes democracies are the cause of millions of deaths...

Is it the democratic property that has caused those deaths, or the capitalistic one?

And the Capital system that Democracy needs as life blood, leads to the further demise of millions more, and the less then poverty conditions of further, millions more. Go Democracy!

Capitalism and democracy are not synonyms. Indeed, it could be argued that they are antagonistic (and actually has been argued many times, viz., Proudhon, Marx, Debs, and even John Lennon).

Social and theological hypothesis and theories are matters of opinions based on fact or belief.

That's true, but the proper forum for them is not the science classroom.

If we look at society, we can plainly see there is no cultural unity among us, ideas run rampant.

Do you think that the vast variety of ideas available are a good thing or a bad thing?

What some see as progress, I see as force, a weapon of sorts, that scientific ideas destroy ancient spiritual beliefs, we are taught that to be different, is wrong, that to think differently is weird, to believe in the supernatural is ignorant.

I'm not sure I can agree that science destroys ancient spiritual beliefs. In fact, science has confirmed many of them, especially ideas from Buddhism, Taoism, and the oriental philosophies. I'm also proud that Freemasonry, in a very large part, helped pave the way out of the darkness of superstition and into the scientific age.

Where once culture and community identities could be traced for thousands of years, we enter an age where cell phones, computers, cars and gadgets are Gods, and culture is wiped out with a media induced corporate impression of "who you are, and what you want to be"

I share your concern over materialism, and the produce-and-consume mentality. However, more and more people are waking up from that sleep, and are seeking something more spiritual in life. In fact, we may be on the brink of a great renaissance in spirituality.

Culture, above all else, is Truth. Me knowing what Dinnosaur ate what other Dinnosaur is not going to elevate me, enlighten me, progress me.. most peopleforget such information, and then not only grow up with out a cultural identity but also complete ignorance.

No culture is static, and each must evolve. Nor can I agree that culture is "truth". Certainly, culture can stand for truth, but can just as easily stand for error, ignorance, and superstition.

And I know your an old fellow, and it has been a long while since you sat in a public school.......

Well, I'm not THAT old!!!

I have a daughter who is in high school, and she's never had any significant problems.

I assure you, it is nothing short of disgusting.

I am curious, though....are you an SJ Scottish Rite Mason, and if so, how do you reconcile your ideology in this with your obligation to universal public education?

reply to post by Masonic Light


First off:

I am curious, though....are you an SJ Scottish Rite Mason, and if so, how do you reconcile your ideology in this with your obligation to universal public education?

No, I am a Prince from the North. Northern Jurisdiction in Ohio, and as far as I know am under no obligations. if I where I already shared my feelings about what I would do.

If the People are too ignorant to decide who will govern them, who then will make that decision?

An enlightened Monarch of course.

Life may not be happy go lucky for everyone, and they may not be as free to make them selves look like jackasses like they can now, but to be quite honest, that is not a concern of mine. Order and unity are.

Our current administration is proof positive that Plato was correct.

And given time, it will get worse, and worse till it tips.. no nation last forever, and no political institution goes unchanged - America's democracy will eventually fall.

And what will replace it? Most likely a form of militarism.

The only problem is that Plato's solution is an idealistic, as opposed to realistic, one. His idea of a utopia ruled by philosopher kings is a great and inspiring sentiment, but without a balance of power and the people's rights to choose for themselves, this sort of benevolent dictatorship quickly turns into a malevolent one, as history clearly shows.

It has been found through history, that the best method to opparate a Monarchy is NOT through geniology.. the best way is "pick the best" in which a council of educated spiritual leaders / civic leaders / philosophers will elect, out of the most desired, new king or Queen. Naturall

Is it the democratic property that has caused those deaths, or the capitalistic one?

y, this can be corrupted, unless you take out every form of materialistic value from the council .. they are not restricted in what they can and cannot do financially, and are bound by a philosophy that is opposite to materialism.

A Utopia will never be reached, nor should it, we are a species with a strong connection to violence. And not all violence is bad, many times violence instigates change that otherwise would not have happened.

Is it the democratic property that has caused those deaths, or the capitalistic one?

There is an awkward idea that no democratic state will ever decalre war on a fellow democracy... typically this is true because democracies prior to war, become tyrannies.. however, to say that Democracies by nature are peaceful states that do not wish harm onto others is false. A government is a govenrment, regardless of its name, and it will always be a self survival instinct, the very actions of which cause conflict. Is it also Capitalistic in nature? Absolutely, the material world will be kept alive through the blood of innocent peoples, and the labor of those less fortunate. When Capitalism and Democracy become intertwined, the two cannot be distinguished, they are the same whore.

Capitalism and democracy are not synonyms. Indeed, it could be argued that they are antagonistic (and actually has been argued many times, viz., Proudhon, Marx, Debs, and even John Lennon).

I will disagree.. all Democracies will have a variation of Capitalism.

That's true, but the proper forum for them is not the science classroom.

True.. in my Catholic school religion was left to the Religion class? Science did not talk about God, and we learned about everything except Evolution. We even learned *gasp* contraception in 5th grade!
If the Holy See knew....

Do you think that the vast variety of ideas available are a good thing or a bad thing?

A bad thing. Most of the prevelent ideas are nothing but ignorant thoughts of the week .. trends, changing every month, whos cool, whats cool, what a cool way to act, treat people, even religion is a trendy nano-second affair.

I'm not sure I can agree that science destroys ancient spiritual beliefs. In fact, science has confirmed many of them, especially ideas from Buddhism, Taoism, and the oriental philosophies. I'm also proud that Freemasonry, in a very large part, helped pave the way out of the darkness of superstition and into the scientific age.

If science did not directly lead to Materialism and war (the two greatest advancers of scientific advances) I would agree with you...

I share your concern over materialism, and the produce-and-consume mentality. However, more and more people are waking up from that sleep, and are seeking something more spiritual in life. In fact, we may be on the brink of a great renaissance in spirituality.

True.. I do agree with this 100% .. though I never expect to see my own beliefs reproduced by others.. my thinking is older then old, its ancient, but I would love to see them implemented morphed with a modern people.

I definently see a rise in spiritual religions as well, even in my own order numbers increase as people search for "something else" something more "them" so to speak. The odd thing is, while spiritualism is increasing, organized religion is fast decreasing.

Which I also find to be great!

Well, I'm not THAT old!!!

I have a daughter who is in high school, and she's never had any significant problems.

Why would she complain? Many of my school mates agree with me, more so those from CAtholic school.. but the vast majority went on oblivious that it should be any other way......

No offense to your daughter.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
You keep saying the public education is broken. Outside of rightwing propaganda, I'm not sure where you're getting this information. Sure, the Bush administration has attacked it time and time again, and have pushed for vouchers and tax credits. But our public education system remains a shining example of what community and mutual respect can do.

In some cases, yes, you're right. There are exceptions to every rule. The question is which is the rule? The shining examples or the dismal failures?

If you look at our academic testing statistics compared with other nations in the world, particularly in physics and mathematics, our ranking is... well, not what I would expect from our country -- given the resources that are at the disposal of the people and our government. We aren't a stupid people by default, so how does that happen?

I am aware of the close links between public schools and Freemasonry (I was Raised in Texas), and really I'm all for public schools. My kids go to a public school, but our curriculum is not dictated to us by federal programs; it's a charter school. We are our own school district and have our own superintendent and the whole nine yards. Sure, we don't have a school bus system, or overly fancy facilities; but the smaller classes, one-on-one attention, and ability to have a say in the process and be more involved is well worth the exchange.

I'm in the Bible belt too... and our school is a prime example of how the government can fund and support public schools, give testing benchmarks rather than dictated curriculum and "approved" books, and let the teachers teach the kids in the way that is best suited to them. It works.

I don't go as far as Rock; I think that free public education should be available, and to a degree, uniform. Arithmetic, language, science; these should all be uniform -- at least at the testing level, for MAT's and SAT's and such. I just feel like the current educational system, much like the medical system, ties the hands of the administrators and pigeonholes them into teaching a certain way, on a certain timeline, and with certain specific materials.

We don't have federally mandated curriculum at our school, and my third grader knows a lot about science already; more than I did in third grade, that's for sure. They teach at their own rate and in their own way, and our testing averages show that this system is, academically speaking, far superior to the other public schools in our area.

The government can support public schools without micromanaging, and I'm fairly sure that, for the most part, we can be trusted to educate our own children. I didn't have a hard time in the public schools either, in fact quite the opposite. Once in high school though, instead of being in an environment conducive to reaching my full potential, I was stuck and bored. I could have passed a high school equivalency test at age 12, save the algebra. As a result, in high school I was bored and disaffected; I neglected my homework so I got bad grades even though my standardized testing averages were in the 98-99 percentile range all through my school years. This caused a chain-reaction of events that greatly shaped my young adult years... probably for the worse.

Now, if the government had a program that would have made it easier for my parents to send me to a private school rather than have to suffer what constitutes a high school education when I had passed those "levels" in my pre-teen years, perhaps I would have had a different path. Perhaps not, but I think the people should have more of a say, and more options. I truly believe that the system we have in place now is hurting us as a society. We are being systematically "dumbed down."

As a Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite Mason, I am obligated to oppose all forms of school vouchers. If you are a Scottish Rite Mason, you are under the same obligation. The Supreme Council's complete program on the issue can be read in "Why Public Schools?" by Ill. Brother. Henry Clausen, 33°, Past Grand Commander. But all AASR SJ Masons are obligated to defend and completely support universal public education in the United States.

I'm unfamiliar with the term "school vouchers," and (not that I disbelieve you, I want to make that clear) I have never heard about an obligation to oppose vouchers or defend public schools - how interesting. Would defending charter schools qualify? Can you give me a brief overview of why Ill. Br. Clausen feels that National "universal" public education is important enough to bind Masons in that serious a way to a cause that many may disagree on?

With regard to the obligation, can we support government support of public schools without the level of meddling we're seeing now? Do we have to accept by default our government's (or rather, the bureaucracy the government created to regulate education) definition of what our children should learn? Should they all wear uniforms?

You know what I would personally like to see? Public schools whose curriculum had some respect for the Seven Liberal Arts and Sciences, and taught them as such. Now I could get behind THAT.

LOL, sorry, I guess I opened a can of worms with the age joke... In reality, I think we're less than a decade apart in age.