Ron Paul For President

[FaninAma]

And I agree that we need to repeal the entire year of 1913.



THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE
http://www.gold-eagle.com/images/clear.gif
Larry LaBorde
http://www.gold-eagle.com/images/clear.gif
Earlier this month in Nashua, New Hampshire congressman Ron Paul said that, "1913 was a bad year. We need to repeal that entire year." The crowd cheered him. Well what exactly happened in 1913? Two very important events took place in the United States that year. The first was in February when the 16th amendment was declared passed and income tax began. (see thelawthatneverwas.com) The second event occurred in December of that same year when congress authorized another Federal Bank in the form of the Federal Reserve Bank. (President Andrew Jackson had killed the previous federally chartered 2nd National Bank by refusing to renew its charter in 1836. He claimed it was the greatest accomplishment of his life. Two years later in 1838 he paid off the national debt entirely.)

How are these two acts related? Going back in history we find Lincoln was hard pressed for funds to pursue his invasion of the Southern States. He simply issued paper notes directly from the US treasury called greenbacks. These notes were payable in gold without interest at some unspecified date in the future. He then used these same notes to pay troops and purchase supplies. They were declared legal tender and circulated along side regular gold backed currency. They were good for all debts EXCEPT for payment of taxes to the government. For that Lincoln wanted gold backed notes. Even though the greenbacks were legal tender they were discounted against the gold backed notes. Eventually they were redeemed at full value a couple of decades after they were issued. So if a country can directly issue bonds why can't it issue notes (currency)? Why do we need a private bank (the federal reserve) to issue them for us? Thomas Edison stated that a country that can issue bonds can also issue notes or currency. Both are promises to pay but one fattens the bankers and the other helps the people. As a matter of fact the US Treasury issued silver certificates directly with the government silver backing it up as a government issued note or currency until 1963 when the federal reserve started printing small notes.

Why does the government print bonds and sell them to the privately owned federal reserve bank in exchange for currency (notes) and pay interest on those bonds to a private bank when it could just issue the notes (currency) themselves without having to pay any interest at all?

Let's look a little further back in history to King Henry I in England. King Henry invented the "talley stick". This was a carved wooden stick that was broken in half lengthwise. One half was kept by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other half was "spent" by the King. Later the halves would be matched up to prevent counterfeiting. Why you ask would anyone accept a broken stick in exchange for crops or goods of real value? What if the King only accepted those same talley sticks in payment of taxes? The king declared that only talley sticks would be accepted to pay certain taxes and if you didn't have them the king's men would knock on your door, take you away to jail by force of arms and confiscate your lands. What gave the talley sticks their value? Was it the fact that they were pretty pieces of wood or was it the fact that they were declared valuable by the king at tax time? These talley sticks circulated in England for 726 years until 1826 when the Bank of England could stand it no longer.

Now just think for a minute. If the government can fund their operations by issuing bonds (or currency) why do they need to collect taxes? It is the very fact that those taxes are collected in unbacked worthless paper federal reserve notes that give them their value. Without the income tax, fiat money issued by the federal reserve would not have value. The private federal reserve notes are given value due to their enforcement arm, the US Treasury collection agents who will knock on your door, take you away to jail by force of arms and confiscate your lands or assets if you do not pay your income tax with them.

It is no coincidence that both were passed in the same year. In 1924 shortly before his death, President Wilson said in regards to the federal reserve, "I have unwittingly ruined my country."

In our current little liquidity crisis the nasty secret of the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking comes into play. When the US Treasury sells a one dollar bond to the federal reserve, the federal reserve gives the US Treasury a one dollar note (that costs the federal reserve nothing). The federal reserve then charges interest on the note. After the US Treasury spends the dollar into circulation and it ends up at a private bank it gets even better. The private bank can send the single dollar to the federal reserve bank and place it on deposit there and then borrow 9 dollars from the federal reserve (that it creates out of thin air) to loan out in commercial loans. So with a 10% bank reserve for every one dollar the US Treasury borrows and spends into circulation 9 dollars get created out of thin air in commercial banks in conjunction with the federal reserve bank. When one dollar of currency is pulled out of the system the money in circulation decreases by 9 dollars. When the 10% reserve requirement is lowered it gets even crazier. Is there any wonder than panics can cause liquidity crisis with our present system. Top it all off with Wall Street's new leveraging tricks and the multiplier effect is staggering during a contraction. No wonder the federal reserve has to flood the market with money to keep up with a contraction. The entire system is flawed because of greed.

Do you ever wonder where the interest comes from to pay on all the money that was created out of thin air? And what is the true rate of return on a note that didn't cost the federal reserve bank anything in the first place? Infinity!

While other presidential candidates are hacking at the branches only one has the sense to strike at the root. The more you learn about Dr. Ron Paul the more you will like him. I wonder if he is related to Andrew Jackson?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Name me a single Democrat who will change his vote from D to Ron Paul, please...just how daft are we?

[FaninAma]

Name me a single Democrat who will change his vote from D to Ron Paul, please...just how daft are we?

Ah, the old, worn-out "a vote for so-and-so is a vote for the Democrats" argument.

How daft is it to continue voting for the same two party putzs who differ very little in their domestic policy and differ only slightly in foreign policy? How stupid is it to continue to vote for candidates who owe their allegiances to corporations, trial attorneys and other special interests?

For instance, who is getting bailed out now? Is it the individual home owners who are defaulting in record numbers or is it the big Wall Street investment firms who are receiving billions of dollars in short term discounted loans from the Fed?

I know candidates like Ron Paul don't stand a chance but I find it somewhat distasteful to continue to vote for leaders who are leading this country down the road to perdition. At least when they finally do I can sleep better at nights knowing I didn't help them do it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ah, the old, worn-out "a vote for so-and-so is a vote for the Democrats" argument.

How daft is it to continue voting for the same two party putzs who differ very little in their domestic policy and differ only slightly in foreign policy? How stupid is it to continue to vote for candidates who owe their allegiances to corporations, trial attorneys and other special interests?

For instance, who is getting bailed out now? Is it the individual home owners who are defaulting in record numbers or is it the big Wall Street investment firms who are receiving billions of dollars in short term discounted loans from the Fed?

I know candidates like Ron Paul don't stand a chance but I find it somewhat distateful to continue to vote for leaders who are leading this country down the road to perdition. At least when they finlly do I can sleep better at nights knowing I didn't help them do it.Can we say Ross Perot?

[OU Adonis]

Can we say Ross Perot?

Ross Perot

[FaninAma]

Can we say Ross Perot?

What major changes did Ross Perot advocated that departed from the 2 other political parties? I don't remember him calling for an end to the Fed or an abolition of the Federal Income Tax. Ross Perot was the consumate "insider". His company amassed it's fortune by doing business with the federal government.

And if my vote for Ron Paul helps the Democrats get elected then so be it. And you can refer to the last paragraph of my previous post for my motivation.

Perhaps if we are lucky the Democrats will get caught holding the bag for the economic calamity that is probably headed down the road courtesy of poor fiscal policies by Greenspan and the Federal Reserve.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Paulistas are attempting to do the same.

[Jerk]

If it's Gulliani versus the Democrats, you'll basically have two canidates who are idealogically the same. The Republican might be a little more pro-business, pro-law enforcement, and pro-lets-go-kick-someone's-terrorist-arse, but other than that, they are the same. The government gets bigger, the rights of the individual go to the toilet, and 'democracy' is replacing our constitutional republic. Tell me that this would not be so under Gulliani? The only difference between him and Hillary is that Hillary will move us towards socialism faster. That's a plus because maybe there would be a backlash and we could get congress back in 2010.

So, I'll probably vote for Ron Paul if he runs as an indy (assuming a conservative doesn't get the nomination). The liberals laugh at that attitude but they said the same thing in 1979 before Reagan kicked their pro-communist arses.;);)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So, I'll probably vote for Ron Paul if he runs as an indy (assuming a conservative doesn't get the nomination). The liberals laugh at that attitude but they said the same thing in 1992 before Clinto kicked marched his pro-communist arse into power.Sorry, Jerk, but "fixed"

[Jerk]

Sorry, Jerk, but "fixed"
Yep, and if Bush would have won, no 1994 take over of congress.

Come to think of it, did it really matter? When the Repubs owned congress from 1994 to 2006, did the government get smaller or larger?

I'm on your side, but you've got to understand something...this current group of Republicans is 1) incompetent 2) can't govern 3) can't stand up for what they believe in 4) and easily becomes 'part of' the beltway once they get elected. They assimulate into the system.

.

[OCUDad]

Admit it, Jerk, you only like Ron Paul because your birthdays are three days apart.

[Jerk]

Admit it, Jerk, you only like Ron Paul because your birthdays are three days apart.

I think he's kind of a kook, but, wouldn't it be fun to throw a massive wrench into the whole machine?

Think about that. It would be great entertainment.

JK- I will vote from Thompson, but he needs to quit d*cking around though and RUN!!!

[Rhino]

Name me a single Democrat who will change his vote from D to Ron Paul, please...just how daft are we? I know a good handful of Democrats that are interested in what Ron Paul has to say, including myself.

I'm not saying I'm going to vote for him -- mostly because the general election is over 14 months away -- but he's in my top three right now.

[jk the sooner fan]

and your other two?

[Jerk]

I'll make a confession...

I am such a single issue voter, that if it came down between Gulliani and Richardson, I would vote for Richardson.

[Sooner24]

When I first saw the title to this thread I thought it was about that guy that dresses up like a woman. :O

[Vaevictis]

If Ron Paul were at the top of the Republican party ticket, I'd actually have to think twice before voting for his opponent.

I'd vote for Hillary without hesitation -- and I actually don't like her -- over any other republican. But if the election were today, I'd vote Ron Paul over Hillary.

[picasso]

he never lived up to all of that hype at Notre Dame.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ah, the old, worn-out "a vote for so-and-so is a vote for the Democrats" argument.

How daft is it to continue voting for the same two party putzs who differ very little in their domestic policy and differ only slightly in foreign policy? How stupid is it to continue to vote for candidates who owe their allegiances to corporations, trial attorneys and other special interests?

For instance, who is getting bailed out now? Is it the individual home owners who are defaulting in record numbers or is it the big Wall Street investment firms who are receiving billions of dollars in short term discounted loans from the Fed?

I know candidates like Ron Paul don't stand a chance but I find it somewhat distasteful to continue to vote for leaders who are leading this country down the road to perdition. At least when they finally do I can sleep better at nights knowing I didn't help them do it.

As usual Fan, you are 110% correct. I'm supporting Fred Thompson on the assumption that Paul won't even make it to the OK primary ballot, but if you were to ask me which candidate my heart is really with then I would say Ron Paul. The guy is amazing.

[Edmond Sooner]

The irony of the 16th Amendment is that when they were debating before submitting it to the states for ratification, it was suggested that a clause be added that would prohibit a tax rate above 10% unless a super-majority--2/3rds of the House & Senate I believe it was--authorized it.

That clause was never added because, members argued, it would simply encourage future Congress's to raise the income tax rate to 10%, and everyone knew how unthinkable that was without some sort of major war--and everyone knew that President Taft and any possible successor's were resolutely committed to keeping the United States out of nasty overseas squabbles. So the clause was left out.

Then a few years later this nutty little Zimmerman telegram was intercepted and decoded by the British, who in turn saw to it that it made its way into the hands of the Wilson administration, and the next thing you know...

Marginal tax rates have never seen the bottom end of 10%--for those who have to pay--ever since.

*This isn't a pro-Paul or anti-Paul post; just an observation that he's correct, IMHO, in this particular instance.

On edit: Gave Wilson a headstart on the front end; it was Taft. Too much Sam Adams is good for the soul but bad for the memory.

[SicEmBaylor]

A friend of mine did a segment on CNN a couple of mornings ago as part of a politics on campus segment. She had a sort of debate with some liberal college chick.

Anyway, here's the YouTube of it. She makes the case for Ron Paul.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Xg22Fr6i-I

[King Crimson]

whenever i see these college politics things--they have them all the time on Lehrer--they kinda scare the hell out of me. it's talking points. good puppetry.

very little thinking involved, just automatic opinions right or left. (no offense to your friend S'em)

i'd like to see one of them just bust out with, "where the Republicans and Democrats BOTH have it all wrong......"

[SicEmBaylor]

whenever i see these college politics things--they have them all the time on Lehrer--they kinda scare the hell out of me. it's talking points. good puppetry.

very little thinking involved, just automatic opinions right or left. (no offense to your friend S'em)

i'd like to see one of them just bust out with, "where the Republicans and Democrats BOTH have it all wrong......"

She was toeing the line better than she typically does.

Let me tell you, the organization we belong to is definitely not "automatic." What we accomplish every year for a bunch of college students continually shocks and amazes me. But trust me, like I said, there's an entire organization of us in Texas who are not and have never been party puppets.

For a long time, we even banned members from also being a member of College Republicans. We refer to them as, "the whores."

[Edmond Sooner]

A friend of mine did a segment on CNN a couple of mornings ago as part of a politics on campus segment. She had a sort of debate with some liberal college chick.

Anyway, here's the YouTube of it. She makes the case for Ron Paul.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Xg22Fr6i-I

Your friend did a very effective job of representing the GOP in general and Ron Paul in particular.

Her Democratic counterpart, not so much. Instead of answering the CNN guy's questions, she got snippy with him. Which is somewhat puzzling: CNN is, for all practical purposes, a media subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

:confused:

[King Crimson]

She was toeing the line better than she typically does.

Let me tell you, the organization we belong to is definitely not "automatic." What we accomplish every year for a bunch of college students continually shocks and amazes me. But trust me, like I said, there's an entire organization of us in Texas who are not and have never been party puppets.

For a long time, we even banned members from also being a member of College Republicans. We refer to them as, "the whores."

that's good. i guess i mean also the way the things are framed. i teach college kids, most of their political ideas are a hodge-podge of pop culture, massive contradictions, and unexamined assumptions about economy and foreign policy.

the networks, the unholy MSM, or whoever....do a really BAD job of not framing the issues so it's not automatic.

[SicEmBaylor]

that's good. i guess i mean also the way the things are framed. i teach college kids, most of their political ideas are a hodge-podge of pop culture, massive contradictions, and unexamined assumptions about economy and foreign policy.

the networks, the unholy MSM, or whoever....do a really BAD job of not framing the issues so it's not automatic.

It all depends on the organization you belong to. Our new members are always like that, but at EVERYTHING we do the arguments are constant. It's a very combative atmosphere actually and some people can't handle it either getting offended or tired of having their views constantly challenged. Once we've had someone for a year or two though we're pretty good at getting our members to think far far more critically than they used to and for the most part they stop using pedestrian political platitudes that amount to absolutely nothing of significance.

We've had social get togethers from time to time with CRs who do nothing but constantly repeat the latest press release and seem content with that. Our members absolutely run circles around them. Anyway, it has been one of the best educational experiences of my life.

[King Crimson]

the biggest hurdle for college students/and people in general is to think critically and understand that that means something qualitatively different than "being negative".

spek.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If Ron Paul runs as an independent, he will get lots of financial backing from leftists, in order to max out his potential to get take-away republican votes...Hello Ms. Rodham, and new Chief Justice Judge Clinton. Your Brave New world has arrived!

[LosAngelesSooner]

I gotta admit...I really like Ron Paul a lot.

Too bad the rest of the Republicans in the country aren't getting behind him, because he'd be a really good candidate and WOULD cause a LOT of people to pause and think things over.

He'd also be a TREMENDOUS monkey wrench in the machine that is Washington D.C.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Which is somewhat puzzling: FOX News is, for all practical purposes, a media subsidiary of the Republican Party.

:confused:Fixed it for you. ;)

[Edmond Sooner]

Fixed it for you. ;)

Heh. touche.

[King Crimson]

If Ron Paul runs as an independent, he will get lots of financial backing from leftists, in order to max out his potential to get take-away republican votes...Hello Ms. Rodham, and new Chief Justice Judge Clinton. Your Brave New world has arrived!

an interesting Huxley reference.

so, do you agree that Nader cost Gore the 2000 presidency...or was it just virtue and prevail of the public will?

this seems to be your argumentation line with Paul and Perot. that Americans were cheated out of good, earnest honest, moral GOP leadership in 1992 and may be again in 08?

but, it doesn't apply in 00?

so, you don't like 3rd party candidates?

[Edmond Sooner]

I gotta admit...I really like Ron Paul a lot.

Too bad the rest of the Republicans in the country aren't getting behind him, because he'd be a really good candidate and WOULD cause a LOT of people to pause and think things over.

He'd also be a TREMENDOUS monkey wrench in the machine that is Washington D.C.

The libertarian in me agrees wholeheartedly with you; the part of my brain that actually engages reality tells me he doesn't have a prayer.

Still, as a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very disaffected Republican, if he makes it to Oklahoma's GOP primary I just might "throw my vote away/vote my conscience" (depending on how one looks at it) and cast my ballot for him.

This two-party system thingy can be a real drag...:mad:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

CNN, MSNBC, The Comedy Channel, PBS,CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, for all practical purposes, are media subsidiaries of the Democratic Party.

:confused:to be more precise. These little jewels are the broadcast division of the MSM. Fox News Channel, if anything, is more pro constitution than pro republican, although they have a lot of leftist commentators, too.

[Edmond Sooner]

to be more precise. These little jewels are the broadcast division of the MSM. Fox News Channel, if anything, is more pro constitution than pro republican, although they have a lot of leftist commentators, too.

Oh, I agree completely with you. But L.A. Sooner has a point, in that FNC is widely perceived and seen as an arm of the Republican Party.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

an interesting Huxley reference.

so, do you agree that Nader cost Gore the 2000 presidency...or was it just virtue and prevail of the public will?

this seems to be your argumentation line with Paul and Perot. that Americans were cheating out of of good, honest, moral GOP leadership in 1992 and may be again in 08?

but, it doesn't apply in 00?

so, you don't like 3rd party candidates?I don't remember the actual numbers, but, of course Nader hurt Gore, and not Bush.
I think their should be runoff elections in each state, until one candidate gets over 50% of the vote in that state. After that is accomplished, then the electoral votes would be cast.

[Rhino]

and your other two? Richardson and Obama.

[King Crimson]

to be more precise. These little jewels are the broadcast division of the MSM. Fox News Channel, if anything, is more pro constitution than pro republican, although they have a lot of leftist commentators, too.

you don't know much about NewsCorp do you? you also don't know much about the media in the US either (but that's not for now, and no secret to anyone).

"pro constitution". hilarious.

the constitution doesn't make money, slutting news to demographics does. Rupert Murdoch sells audiences to advertisers. and angry white males like you are just his demo-g.

that's what Rup does. he slutted for the Labor Party in the UK. he has no principles other than what makes an advertising buck for him. which is good business, but it's not news.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh, I agree completely with you. But L.A. Sooner has a point, in that FNC is widely perceived and seen as an arm of the Republican Party.That is due to effective propoganda by the left. IMO FNC makes an effort to have a balance of conservative and liberal commentators, whereas the other broadcast media is almost purely leftist. FNC is the only tv channel that treats conservative opinions as though they MIGHT be viable.

[SicEmBaylor]

Fox News Channel, if anything, is more pro constitution than pro republican

I couldn't possibly disagree with that more.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

you don't know much about NewsCorp do you? you also don't know much about the media in the US either (but that's not for now, and no secret to anyone).

"pro constitution". hilarious.

the constitution doesn't make money, slutting news to demographics does. Rupert Murdoch sells audiences to advertisers. and angry white males like you are just his demo-g.

that's what Rup does. he slutted for the Labor Party in the UK. he has no principles other than what makes an advertising buck for him. which is good business, but it's not news.You have said on this forum before that you are a marxist. The above comments are consistent, anyway.

[LosAngelesSooner]

The libertarian in me agrees wholeheartedly with you; the part of my brain that actually engages reality tells me he doesn't have a prayer.

Still, as a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very disaffected Republican, if he makes it to Oklahoma's GOP primary I just might "throw my vote away/vote my conscience" (depending on how one looks at it) and cast my ballot for him.

This two-party system thingy can be a real drag...:mad:
I agree and feel very much the same way.

[LosAngelesSooner]

to be more precise. These little jewels are the broadcast division of the MSM. Fox News Channel, if anything, is more pro constitution than pro republican, although they have a lot of leftist commentators, too.
GUFFAW!!!!

*insert creepy music*dreeeeeaaaaammmmm woooorrrrllllddddd*

[jk the sooner fan]

Richardson and Obama.

interesting mix

[LosAngelesSooner]

I like Richardson and Obama as well. I also like Huckabee (though the no evolution part bugs me a bit)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I like cheese.

[King Crimson]

You have said on this forum before that you are a marxist. The above comments are consistent, anyway.

you'd have to explain that to me: the consistency. what you say makes no sense, except that you got to call me a "marxist". though, i have no doubt you can explain it.....in jargon-y, scapegoating platitudes divested of any real meaning.

you've also said on this board you are a democrat--albeit lamely tongue in cheek "Obama" stuff.

show me the post where i say i'm a marxist. as part of my education i do know quite a bit more about Marx than most here (that's for sure)....especially those who throw the term around as a all-purpose/not defined pejorative for things they "disagree with" and use it as a synonym with "totalitariansim" and pro-reagan rah rah post W. Bush nostalgia.

i may have, i may not have. show me. you also claimed I'm a big Chavez guy based on the statement that i said there was no natural right the US had over the oil in Venezuela.

[FaninAma]

Richardson and Obama.

I actually think Richardson is the best candidate the Dems have running. If Obama somehow managed to get elected I would think he would be like a more articulate Bush, ie. very dependent on his advisors to make any decision and not inspiring a lot of confidence during times of crisis.

The last Prez that was inspirartional in times of crisis was Reagan and then JFK before him.

I actually think Hilliary would govern from the middle(or a little left of the middle) and i don't think she would be stupid enoough to burn the bridges that it would take to get Bill appointed to the SCOTUS. Her biggest problem is that we'll get to relive the whole scandal ridden mess from the Clinton administartion from Travelgate to the Health Care Fiasco she oversaw in addition to a few suprising new things coming out about Hiliary's personal life....although if she is as good as her husband at putting those fiores out they may not present much of a problem.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

you'd have to explain that to me: the consistency. what you say makes no sense, except that you got to call me a "marxist". though, i have no doubt you can explain it.....in jargon-y, scapegoating platitudes divested of any real meaning.

you've also said on this board you are a democrat--albeit lamely tongue in cheek "Obama" stuff.

show me the post where i say i'm a marxist. as part of my education i do know quite a bit more about Marx than most here (that's for sure)....especially those who throw the term around as a all-purpose/not defined pejorative for things they "disagree with" and use it as a synonym with "totalitariansim" and pro-reagan rah rah post W. Bush nostalgia.

i may have, i may not have. show me. you also claimed I'm a big Chavez guy based on the statement that i said there was no natural right the US had over the oil in Venezuela.I guess this means that you deny having said you are a marxist on this message board. I do remember your saying it, and I was surprised at the candor. Few ever admit it.

You're prolly going to have to show the board where I said you were a Chavez supporter, if you want. Are you? If so, please explain why. My position on the Venezuelan oil is that the country of Venezuela had contracts with American oil companies to produce oil, in the beginning. At some point, the Ven. govt. acquired the assets of the oil companies. I'm not sure about the history of how the assets were acquired, or how the oil operations became nationalized, and how the American companies came to leave. Whatever was done is over.

[Edmond Sooner]

show me the post where i say i'm a marxist. as part of my education i do know quite a bit more about Marx than most here (that's for sure)....especially those who throw the term around as a all-purpose/not defined pejorative for things they "disagree with" and use it as a synonym with "totalitariansim" and pro-reagan rah rah post W. Bush nostalgia.

i may have, i may not have. show me. you also claimed I'm a big Chavez guy based on the statement that i said there was no natural right the US had over the oil in Venezuela.

Well, I'm certainly no Marxist (far from it), but I have had occasion to study the philosophy of the cranky fellow from Trier with a bad case of piles quite a bit.

But let us define which school of "Marxism" we're talking about here: economic or cultural? If economic, I assume you're sympathetic to Leon; if cultural I assume you're a Marcusian.

Or maybe you're just confused and are doing a bit of "throwing around" yourself, since Marxism in practice of either variant are about as totalitarian--sans quotation marks--a pair of systems that mankind has ever witnessed in human history...*

(*economic Marxism gave us Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and other such suave charmers; cultural Marxism is very much with us to this day in the form of political correctness, and all its attendant silliness)

[King Crimson]

Well, I'm certainly no Marxist (far from it), but I have had occasion to study the philosophy of the cranky fellow from Trier with a bad case of piles quite a bit.

But let us define which school of "Marxism" we're talking about here: economic or cultural? If economic, I assume you're sympathetic to Leon; if cultural I assume you're a Marcusian.

Or maybe you're just confused and are doing a bit of "throwing around" yourself, since Marxism in practice of either variant are about as totalitarian--sans quotation marks--a pair of systems that mankind has ever witnessed in human history...*

(*economic Marxism gave us Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and other such suave charmers; cultural Marxism is very much with us to this day in the form of political correctness, and all its attendant silliness)

it's proper to make the distinction between economic/"scientific" Marxism and so-called Western Marxism (cultural). Marcuse is one name associated with it, though i'm not sure where the PC thing comes from except from right-wing think tank diffused screeds which are generally unfaithful to the texts themselves (search any of my posts on Francis Fukayama).

you would not find any doctrine of "politically correct" language in Marcuse or Theodor Adorno, say. rather, you'd find that "PC" language as a part of the continuing closing universe of discourse and "one-dimensionality" (Marcuse) or in Adorno (are you ready?)--the suppression of the non-identical in language. both of which would be a serious critique of "PC" language.

you are right to make the distinction, but the critique is nonsensical and motivated by "right wing" attempts to discredit it as a social theory. there are better critiques, i'll put it that way.

truth is, much of the conservative pessimism about declining values, the end of "culture", and the shoddy quality and negative influence of pop culture sounds very much like Adorno. and moreover, at least Adorno doesn't ignore the role of the so-called free market in creating this cultural atmosphere....as the conservative critique does. you can't really have it both ways......if you have a media driven by profit you get Paris Hilton and Fergie and American Idol.

so-called conservatives talk about the free-market but are the first to go to the "declining values" card when it comes to media. dems do it to, no doubt.

Marcuse's name is associated as some avatar of the 60's and thereby "hippies". and the elisions of slanderous terms follow to the "soft left"....to what you call "attendant silliness". reality is, these are readings of the texts subordinated to political motives.

[Edmond Sooner]

it's proper to make the distinction between economic/"scientific" Marxism and so-called Western Marxism (cultural). Marcuse is one name associated with it, though i'm not sure where the PC thing comes from except from right-wing think tank diffused screeds which are generally unfaithful to the texts themselves (search any of my posts on Francis Fukayama).

I got the "PC thing" from old Herbert himself: surely you've read his thesis on "Repressive Tolerance"?


you would not find any doctrine of "politically correct" language in Marcuse or Theodor Adorno, say. rather, you'd find that "PC" language as a part of the continuing closing universe of discourse and "one-dimensionality" (Marcuse) or in Adorno (are you ready?)--the suppression of the non-identical in language. both of which would be a serious critique of "PC" language.

I take very few proponents of Critical Theory in general and the Frankfurt School in particular all that seriously, so you may as well cease citing them as scholastic authorities of some sort to me.


you are right to make the distinction, but the critique is nonsensical and motivated by "right wing" attempts to discredit it as a social theory. there are better critiques, i'll put it that way.

Sez you.


truth is, much of the conservative pessimism about declining values, the end of "culture", and the shoddy quality and negative influence of pop culture sounds very much like Adorno. and moreover, at least Adorno doesn't ignore the role of the so-called free market in creating this cultural atmosphere....as the conservative critique does. you can't really have it both ways......if you have a media driven by profit you get Paris Hilton and Fergie and American Idol.

Well, that mish-mash of sentences is, while sorta half-true, mostly distortions threaded like a corkscrew through the topic at hand with either misunderstandings of what you've read or willful refusals to grasp the logical progressions of the same. I only wish to pause here to note that you are implying that I am a conservative.

I am not a conservative: I am a forthright Reactionary. A Libertarian Reactionary with a slight fondness for Distributionism, to be sure, but not some spicier shade of Bill Kristol or Cal Thomas or Freddy-the-Beetle-Barnes. I'm the real deal.


so-called conservatives talk about the free-market but are the first to go to the "declining values" card when it comes to media. dems do it to, no doubt.

Errr, no doubt (which is to say: your point in that paragraph is somewhat opaque to me...)


Marcuse's name is associated as some avatar of the 60's and thereby "hippies". and the elisions of slanderous terms follow to the "soft left"....to what you call "attendant silliness". reality is, these are readings of the texts subordinated to political motives.

Eh, wait up a sec. The "reality" is that Marxist philosophy--whether economic or cultural--takes as an a priori definition that all relationships, from the most intimately personal to the loftiest political, are based on varying degrees of power as possessed by the actors. So, to a Marxist, EVERYTHING IN LIFE is "subordinated to political motives."

I am not a Marxist. Therefore, I reject the entire premise of that concluding paragraph.

Next? :pop:

On edit: "that" = "the"

[King Crimson]

I got the "PC thing" from old Herbert himself: surely you've read his thesis on "Repressive Tolerance"?



I take very few proponents of Critical Theory in general and the Frankfurt School in particular all that seriously, so you may as well cease citing them as scholastic authorities of some sort to me.



Sez you.



Well, that mish-mash of sentences is, while sorta half-true, mostly distortions threaded like a corkscrew through the topic at hand with either misunderstandings of what you've read or willful refusals to grasp the logical progressions of the same. I only wish to pause here to note that you are implying that I am a conservative.

I am not a conservative: I am a forthright Reactionary. A Libertarian Reactionary with a slight fondness for Distributionism, to be sure, but not some spicier shade of Bill Kristol or Cal Thomas or Freddy-the-Beetle-Barnes. I'm the real deal.



Errr, no doubt (which is to say: your point in that paragraph is somewhat opaque to me...)



Eh, wait up a sec. The "reality" is that Marxist philosophy--whether economic or cultural--takes as an a priori definition that all relationships, from the most intimately personal to the loftiest political, is based on varying degrees of power as possessed by the actors. So, to a Marxist, EVERYTHING IN LIFE is "subordinated to political motives."

I am not a Marxist. Therefore, I reject the entire premise of that concluding paragraph.

Next? :pop:

On edit: "that" = "the"

i have read repressive tolerance, but surely you have read the "closing of discourse" chapter in One-Dimensional Man....and would at least be clever enough to generalize the use of the term "PC" as such.

i'd be more interested in responding on a plane of fealty to sources if you hadn't concluded with the moronic, faux ****-strutting: "next" and popcorn icon.

you project the phrase "scholastic authority" on me as a an all-purpose pejorative and weak rhetorical move. YOU brought up Marcuse and the distinction between economic M and cultural M.

i'm intrigued by your claim that you are the "real deal". the real deal what? feel free to tell me.

as you say "Marxism", is hardly the only "philosophy" or social theory that takes a priori that power is present in all social relationships....including language.

your dismissive attitude is interesting. and not really very convincing.

[Edmond Sooner]

i have read repressive tolerance, but surely you have read the "closing of discourse" chapter in One-Dimensional Man....and would at least be clever enough to generalize the use of the term "PC" as such.

i'd be more interested in responding on a plane of fealty to sources if you hadn't concluded with the moronic, faux ****-strutting: "next" and popcorn icon.

you project the phrase "scholastic authority" on me as a an all-purpose pejorative and weak rhetorical move. YOU brought up Marcuse and the distinction between economic M and cultural M.

i'm intrigued by your claim that you are the "real deal". the real deal what? feel free to tell me.

as you say "Marxism", is hardly the only "philosophy" or social theory that takes a priori that power is present in all social relationships....including language.

your dismissive attitude is interesting. and not really very convincing.

Ah, and herein with your reply lies the problem: we're talking at cross-purposes.

Your "reply," as a reply, to my forthright post above hits nearly every Marxian talking-point response to a "Counter-revolutionary." The editorial board of Pravda, circa 1960, could not have done better itself.

Nevertheless, for the mere fact that I don't care to endure a tiresome 'but you didn't even answer King Crimson back in 2007 so I win!' charge every time I disagree with some jerk on this board about where the first marker down in a future OU game should have been placed, let's go through it:


i have read repressive tolerance, but surely you have read the "closing of discourse" chapter in One-Dimensional Man....and would at least be clever enough to generalize the use of the term "PC" as such.

Non sequitur. The latter has nothing to do with the former in the context of this discussion; please try again.


i'd be more interested in responding on a plane of fealty to sources if you hadn't concluded with the moronic, faux ****-strutting: "next" and popcorn icon.

Either you're drunk, frustrated, or trying to be funny. Or all three.

Moving on...


you project the phrase "scholastic authority" on me as a an all-purpose pejorative and weak rhetorical move. YOU brought up Marcuse and the distinction between economic M and cultural M.

I "projected" no such thing: I responded to a series of loosely-strung together assertions by you in reply to a post of mine. Just because you are apparently incapable of coherently responding to me doesn't make my post a "weak rhetorical move" brimming with numerous examples of an "all-purpose pejorative": it simply means you are either unwilling or unable to respond in a manner conducive to your side of the argument.


i'm intrigued by your claim that you are the "real deal". the real deal what? feel free to tell me.

:rolleyes:


as you say "Marxism", is hardly the only "philosophy" or social theory that takes a priori that power is present in all social relationships....including language.

I said no such thing. Is your ability to grasp and comprehend the basic nuances of the English language breaking down due to some existential crises brought on by the train of discussion in this thread? That's all I can figure, really...


your dismissive attitude is interesting. and not really very convincing.

Hardly dismissive; I have taken your posts very seriously, and have responded in kind. You, on the other hand, have invariably replied precisely as one would expect a Cultural Marxist would.

Which is to say you haven't, really, when confronted with facts.

Once again I'm compelled to say: Next? :pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Edmond...I hate to say it but you are coming off as arrogant, condescending and completely dismissive.

King seems to be answering your questions with logic and fact and then posing questions to you as his form of argument.

You seem to be making snide comments, telling him his sources "don't count" and generally avoiding his points with a dismissive and arrogant attitude.

Now, let me just say...I could care less about this argument, don't have a side, and have no personal feelings towards either of you. But he is right. You are being dismissive and, in my opinion, really arrogant.

And I don't think you've actually countered any of his points at all.

In fact...this whole argument sounds like a bunch of intellectual masturbation by both of you to me and is really boring.

So, that's just my opinion. Ignore it, please, since I really don't care about this whole line of argument. I just felt like speaking up for a sec.

Carry on.

[Jerk]

Hmmm...you guys are way over this truck driver's intellectual capacity. All I know is this: when the next civil war happens, will all of the Marxists please wear red so as to aide with target identification? Thanks. :pop:

An OU logo will get you a pass.

[King Crimson]

Ah, and herein with your reply lies the problem: we're talking at cross-purposes.

you'd need to define both purposes in order to 1. establish this claim and 2. make the "I'm on the higher ground" tone on which you seem to base all your subsequent alleged reasoning....though outside a reference to "reactionary libertarianism" (and a fondness for redistribution), you talk a lot about what you aren't under the suppressed premise that because you are not a marxist, that i am: a key part of your nonsensical battery of crap, veiled accusation, and basically empty (yet still masturbatory) self-reference. Bravo!


Your "reply," as a reply, to my forthright post above hits nearly every Marxian talking-point response to a "Counter-revolutionary." The editorial board of Pravda, circa 1960, could not have done better itself.

Western Marxism, such as Marcuse (I note you avoid Adorno--and the actual cultural argument in my previous post altogether), was conceived as a response to Stalinism, so score a point for both historical inaccuracy and inflammatory name-dropping (Pravda) on your part. another specious elision you attempt which is basically an ad hominem attack--and demonstrates that you don't even know the meaning of the distinction with which you began this whole thing.



Nevertheless, for the mere fact that I don't care to endure a tiresome 'but you didn't even answer King Crimson back in 2007 so I win!' charge every time I disagree with some jerk on this board about where the first marker down in a future OU game should have been placed, let's go through it:

that sounds far more like your style.


Non sequitur. The latter has nothing to do with the former in the context of this discussion; please try again.

far from it, because you are able to pick and choose which sources support your inaccurate reading of a text by bracketing off all others? i mentioned One-Dimensional Man in my first post in this borefest of yours. i'd say the subject of the "closing universe of discourse" is very much a relevant issue....to your favorite subject "PC"--if not the key issue altogether. But, since you seem to lack the alacrity or haven't read it, you retreat into your favorite argument strategy: dismissal. for example, "you sez", "try again", etc. at no other place is your ignorance more on display. which is saying a lot.



Either you're drunk, frustrated, or trying to be funny. Or all three.

ad hominem is a very form weak form of argumentation.


Moving on...

I "projected" no such thing: I responded to a series of loosely-strung together assertions by you in reply to a post of mine. Just because you are apparently incapable of coherently responding to me doesn't make my post a "weak rhetorical move" brimming with numerous examples of an "all-purpose pejorative": it simply means you are either unwilling or unable to respond in a manner conducive to your side of the argument.

talk about assertions? again, you type a lot and say nothing. i can type the phrase "i had sex with Scarlett Johanson and Salma Hayek in the same night", or "i can spin straw into gold" but it doesn't make it true.



:rolleyes:

another brilliant tactical response--ranking below both assertion and ad hominem. I'm pretty sure both Cicero and Aristotle cite Demosthenes on the "refutation by emoticon".

you brought it up, not me. let it be noted that you threaten with some authority and then refuse to disclose it. will you huff and puff and blow my house down too?


I said no such thing. Is your ability to grasp and comprehend the basic nuances of the English language breaking down due to some existential crises brought on by the train of discussion in this thread? That's all I can figure, really...

what you do say is in your previous post is "i'm not a marxist", and then write a fallacious reversible claim stating the torturous double negative: "not a marxist isn't"....which includes your claim that "they" see power relations in all social relations. a real masterpiece of basically nuanced bad logic.

and don't flatter yourself.


Hardly dismissive; I have taken your posts very seriously, and have responded in kind. You, on the other hand, have invariably replied precisely as one would expect a Cultural Marxist would.

again, part of your circular argument of nothing. though the earnest quality of your insincere crap-job is almost touching here.


Once again I'm compelled to say: Next? :pop:

next what? you have demonstrated nothing here. you have not outlined any key terms in "cultural marxism". you have not demonstrated any substantive knowledge of it. you have not shown any counter-program whatsoever....all we've learned from you is that you associate Herbert Marcuse with politically correct language and you probably saw it cited from the text "Repressive Tolerance". other than that, you write a lot but say nothing. all appeals to persuasion are based in weak tropes or counter-accusation and not textual evidence of any kind. you brag about being "the real deal" and then retreat from it like any good self-appointed internet hero.

and finally maybe you can tell the good folks at home what you mean by "Redistribution".

[jk the sooner fan]

brain boxing

about as entertaining as mowing the yard.....so lawnmower, here i come!