Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #9255772 -

Trade with Cuba, in case you missed the point, has absolutely zero to do with protectionism.  He squealed like a bitch about free trade with Canada and Mexico, our two biggest trading partners.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9256322 -

zappaisgod said:
Trade with Cuba, in case you missed the point, has absolutely zero to do with protectionism.  He squealed like a bitch about free trade with Canada and Mexico, our two biggest trading partners.


Trading with them was never his problem with NAFTA. Serving and protecting special interest groups is what he was squeeling about.

Quote:
If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.~ Ron Paul


http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2007/07/ron-paul-for-fr.html

Another factoid

Quote:
Paul is the only GOP candidate (and only one of two in the entire two-party field) to have an 100% fair trade voting record. (Except for missing a vote on the Morocco FTA.

)


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9256449 -

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (07/10/21 12:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #9258661 -

I think that Brazil would rather dwarf any contribution from Cuba.  Cuba is less than a pimple on a gnat's ass.

Another gadfly website cited as authoritative.  I love it.  More anti-corporation nut logs squealing the squeal against "special" corporate interests.

Enough Ron Paul.  He is as significant as Ross Perot.  Or Cuba.  On a good day.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9258723 -

Exactly, enough of your putting false spin on the guy.

Gadfly squealing about special interests?????????

He sounds just like you in the Dow in Free Fall thread, SQUEALING about the special interests of Chris Dodd and Frank Barney.

Why you are not thankful someone like Paul is in Congress trying to block that crap is beyond me.

Why is it okay for special interests to lobby congress to pass protectionists laws in the NAFTA treaty to help them profit, but not for Dodd and Barney to push legislation to help their special interest lobby's to profit?


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #9259423 -

EntheogenicPeace said:
Basic question, again, amid all the rambling: An example of some libertarian (meaning no aggressive/expansionist/war-making state overseeing & ultimately controlling things.. the only centralized authority being that which exists to protect production & subsequent commerce) societies from somewhere in human history beyond the possible example provided in the previous paragraph?


There has been no society fitting that description that I know of. Also, I find it troubling that you, like chomsky, seem to assume that a society lacking a state as such described in anarcho-syndicalism or primitive societies is free of authoritarianism. In the absence of a state, local committees or tribal councils have arisen and these are often more totalitarian than a leviathan state. Just look at the anarchists of Spain as an example.

"The committee is the paterfamilias. It owns everything; it directs everything. Every special desire has to be submitted to it for consideration; it alone has the final say." -Burnett Bolloten

I think the most important thing to remember is that worker owned co-operatives of syndicalism and socialist communes can exist within a natural rights libertarian society but not the other way around.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: d33p]
    #9260246 -

ParEcon - Participatory Economics

It's people trying to master such dynamics right in the here and now.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: ScavengerType]
    #9261250 -

ScavengerType said:
ParEcon - Participatory Economics

It's people trying to master such dynamics right in the here and now.


I read a few entries of the cap vs parecon and it sounds like a joke, capitalism with it's head cut off which is then flogged by leprechauns. The straw men they use to evaluate capitalism are laughable. Somehow using resources and your own labor to create goods that other people want is an egregious authoritarian process as you did not allow the people who want your goods to enter into the decision making process. In their twisted view, the collective stealing one's private property to allow consumers to oversee it is not only morally right but also logically right. They assert that the consumers are clearly better suited to run an enterprise because they are going to be the ones consuming the good after all. It is a fucking joke. Do they have no understanding of economics?

My boiled peanuts for african peanut soup are almost ready :laugh:


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: d33p]
    #9261577 -

Quote:
It is a fucking joke. Do they have no understanding of economics?


None whatsoever, I'm afraid.

There was some other guy - long gone now - who was into this ParEcon thing on this forum several years back. His name escapes me at the moment. At any rate, it made no more sense back then than it does today.  Complete lunacy.






Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: Phred]
    #9264149 -

to be honest I haven't looked into the website but the book is relatively good (I believe it is available on the website). I think the name is deceptive though it is much more useful as a way of organizing worker owned enterprises, it should be called ParOrg or ParLabor.

Edit: After reading the entry your talking about a moment I'd like to raise a counterpoint to your proposal. Is it economically beneficial that the means to better ones self and one's world around them be stratified into 20% of the population with only a limited minority of 1-5% actually able to effect business practice? Can this homogeneous segment of society be counted on to innovate or even operate the assets they do control proficiently? Was it right for the UFC to sit on it's agricultural land in Guatemala and do nothing with it while landless peasants in Guatemala starved and it's economy stagnated?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (11/18/08 05:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9265075 -

zappaisgod said:
My mistake, I thought he was talking about Obama being called unamerican etc.  I skipped a few posts.
And when did that retard Ron Paul come into this thread?  I don't ever recall anybody saying Ron Paul was anti-American or sympathized with our enemies.  The worst I recall anybody saying about Ron Paul was that he was a nut case and his followers were idiots.  On the other hand, I certainly heard lots of people saying Obama was a sympathizer.

Can anybody please tell me when we can relegate this douchebag to the Ross Perot memorial scrapheap of irrelevance.  Please.  College sophomores are cheaper than Def Lepard groupies.  About as generally dumb and likely to get less out of it.


I really wish you'd stop confusing ron paul supporters with ron paul's positions or the man himself.


The fact that he has a bunch of nutcases supporting him for a bunch of totally idiotic reasons is irrelevant.


Stop bitching about the fact that he was popular in certain circles and that those circles are more crazy than most- it has nothing to do with ron paul or his platform.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9265212 -

zappaisgod said:
I think that Brazil would rather dwarf any contribution from Cuba.  Cuba is less than a pimple on a gnat's ass.

Another gadfly website cited as authoritative.  I love it.  More anti-corporation nut logs squealing the squeal against "special" corporate interests.

Enough Ron Paul.  He is as significant as Ross Perot.  Or Cuba.  On a good day.




You've not supported your claim.  Since this is one of those rare ocassions where you've criticized ron paul by actually criticizing ron paul (rather than generalized untestable claims or observations about his more stupid supporter) why don't you take this opportunity and educate me and others on this issue and for once make an argument regarding ron paul that has some relevance.

support your thesis that ron paul is anti free trade because (or vice versa) he is anti nafta.



I thought he was for free trade.  I thought he disliked nafta as an assault on our soverignty and an unequal implementation of free trade.  Rather than passing a one sentence law/treaty that made free trade, we have this bill that has all these special people included and others excluded for no damn reason.


Its like a casino proposal that was vetoed in ohio recently this election.


They talked about free trade and jobs, and the other side talked about the evils of gambling, but when it came down to it, it wasn't allowing gambling, it was allowing one predetermined company to have a special constitutional amendment so that they, and only they, could open a casion.  That's bullshit and is decidedly not capitalism.  Just as NAFTA can be criticied for making all sorts of exception to the point where it appears more like a cronyism agreement than anything having to do with "free trade".


So feel free to support your claim and educate me on who ron paul really is (I'm not being sarcastic, I really am not that educated on this stuff and foreign policy is one of the areas I have some problems with Paul).


Quote:
If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.



Ron Paul on the house floor re: CAFTA

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: johnm214]
    #9266022 -

Ron Paul wants a one sentence trade agreement in a multi- paragraph world.  There can be no one sentence free trade agreements because no other nation will do it.  Isolationist, simplistic moron pandering to other simplistic morons.  I have hammered Ron Paul numerous times in numerous other threads.  I am not doing it again.  He is as irrelevant as Cuba and Ross Perot.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9266181 -

ScavengerType said:
to be honest I haven't looked into the website but the book is relatively good (I believe it is available on the website). I think the name is deceptive though it is much more useful as a way of organizing worker owned enterprises, it should be called ParOrg or ParLabor.

Edit: After reading the entry your talking about a moment I'd like to raise a counterpoint to your proposal. Is it economically beneficial that the means to better ones self and one's world around them be stratified into 20% of the population with only a limited minority of 1-5% actually able to effect business practice? Can this homogeneous segment of society be counted on to innovate or even operate the assets they do control proficiently? Was it right for the UFC to sit on it's agricultural land in Guatemala and do nothing with it while landless peasants in Guatemala starved and it's economy stagnated?


Parecon is most definitely not simply advocating worker owned enterprises. Those exist despite their difficultly in competing with normal businesses. Parecon is advocating a horizontally planned economy that not even laplace's demon could manage.

Seriously? Those are all loaded questions and unworthy of a reply.

You should know that the UFC's position was a product of corporatist government.

weak...


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9266185 -

John Didn't ask you for a bloviated rant.

He and I are correcting your false statement about Paul being against free trade with Mexico and Canada.

What Paul is against is unfair and non open trade treaties packed with cronism regulations. 


Irrelevant as you think RP is, today on C-Span, I saw Paulsen and Bernake having to answer to Ron Paul during a Congressional Financial Services Committee hearing on TARP.

He is an active and  news worthy part of the political landscape, like it or not.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #9266250 -

No he is not.  He is a marginalized nutlog.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9266399 -

I don't care if you call him a marginalized nutlog that is for free and open trade with all countries. Just get the facts about his stances straight is all we are asking.

You stand corrected, now pony up to the table and

eat it. Mmmmmmmm :smile:



--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #9266757 -

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (07/10/21 12:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: d33p]
    #9266884 -

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (07/10/21 12:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hannity wrong again. [Re: d33p]
    #9267072 -

d33p said:
Parecon is most definitely not simply advocating worker owned enterprises. Those exist despite their difficultly in competing with normal businesses. Parecon is advocating a horizontally planned economy that not even laplace's demon could manage.

Seriously? Those are all loaded questions and unworthy of a reply.

You should know that the UFC's position was a product of corporatist government.

weak...


You must have never seen a movie called "the take" ParEcon is more than possible, it is ingrained in the world. It is reality today, ParEcon is a North American offshoot of the autonomous factory movement that has started in Argentina (though other examples exist like solidarity movement in Ukraine and anarchist cites in the Spanish revolution). Though in NA is is developed of interest rather than of necessity in SA.

If you think those questions are loaded I think it's just reality. That's the way it is, and if it's economically beneficial for society or if those persons can be trusted to manage their assets without harming the rest of society or even themselves are the least loaded questions to be asked about those realities.

As for the UFC it was not fair and it was right and proper for that government to take action and undo it's corporate-colonial past.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* American imperialism - for RailGun headphone 1,585 4 09/06/01 03:08 AM
by MrKurtz
* The I hate Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter Forum Thread
( 1 2 all )		 mjshroomer 2,595 21 07/31/03 08:19 AM
by 1stimer
* THIS is what's wrong the the Halliburton deals. GernBlanston 1,087 8 11/06/03 11:07 PM
by GernBlanston
* How can anyone vote for a Democrat? luvdemshrooms 2,166 9 07/16/02 04:49 PM
by I_Fart_Blue
* A Solutions For the Democrats Ellis Dee 1,470 9 11/13/02 06:38 PM
by Evolving
* Unreported cost of war: 827 Americans wounded
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Zahid 5,894 73 08/07/03 04:03 PM
by d33p
* What is wrong with Black America?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 RandalFlagg 15,054 148 12/29/03 01:19 PM
by Phred
* American voters lose faith in Bush's foreign policy
( 1 2 all )		 Zahid 2,331 20 10/14/03 08:57 PM
by Zahid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,050 topic views. 0 members, 42 guests and 29 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.