| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ...   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Final Editing | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Aug 9th, 2013 03:58 pm |
|
681st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear,Why did Russia invade Afghanistan in the first place? A person, or a small group in agreement, sign the order, and FUND the Aggressive War for Profit, or, on the other hand a person, or small group in agreement, sign the order, and FUND the Defensive War for the profit of not being destroyed by Aggressors (criminals). The actions set in motion could be something other than my measure of it. My guess is that the person, or the small group who sign the order and FUND the expense, do so in order to maintain their power to do so. To me all sides in all wars are FUNDED and ORDERED into existence by the same most powerful group that have constituted the most powerful among us, and that group is always small, not always the same individual people in the group, of course, but the same group in power employ the same routine methods by which they are in power. My answer should then be an understanding that the small group is not Russian, or Muslim, or English, or American, or Chinese. Follow the FUNDING back to the source and who signs the ORDER to FUND the expense of invading Afghanistan? I don't know. Sergey, or someone familiar with Russian history, may be able to trace back the actual people inspired to sign the order and set the actions called war in motion, in this case. If the Russian viewpoint turns out to be an inspiration that they claim to be defensive in nature, then there is the real possibility that the origin of the inspiration to set the Dogs of War in motion are not originating in Russia, but why did the Russian decision makers fail to find a solution other than War to solve their defensive problems? The Grand Chess Board? Russian Dogs of War are mere pawns? "There was a man from Afghanistan speaking. He said there was a meeting between Afghanistan leaders and Russian leaders and the Russians opened fire and killed the Afghanistan people they were meeting with. Have you ever heard anything about that? I was probably still in high school are just out so I wasn't really paying that much attention. But the fact that the people were shot during a meeting stuck with me because it bothered me. Do you know about that?" I do not know about that, but that sounds like false propaganda, too simplistic, too much like a "Western" Hollywood Movies whereby the FUNDING for the movie is traced back to the same powerful people who funnel FUNDING into all sides of almost every War on Earth so that the small group remains in POWER; where the theme of the movie is that we (meaning the U.S. Federal Government) are the good guys and they (meaning any competitor to "Full Spectrum Dominance") are the bad guys, where we serve and protect generously and they injure and destroy greedily. Specifics are demanded where ignorance of specifics exists. From Pepe's report I understood that the US lured Russia into Afghanistan during the Carter years. But I still don't understand why. Here is where due diligence exposes a possible flaw in the subjective opinions of Pepe Escobar, which can be contrasted relative to the actual factual information reported by the same human being. The word choice "lured" appears to suggest that the clear aggressors (invaders) are not responsible for what they clearly do, but my version of events asks the question who is following orders and who is giving out orders? Is it a Russian, so called, who is "lured" or who is there merely a person in a "Russian" position having an agreement with some small group that is not Russian, which is a counterfeit Russian, in place to make sure that Russians are "lured" into doing evil things? I have to get a job done at this time. Finishing last post before moving on: Maybe both Russia and the US think they have the highest and best use rationale for the lands that surround them and each other? When all the little lies, threats, and violence used willfully to injure innocent people are added up to a whole sum total of destructive power, in one place, such as America, there is then a very powerful destructive force that can be used to destroy another, almost equally powerful force, such as Russia. Is that not an ideal set-up for a small group of people who control all the legal power to purchase in the world? Who is FUNDING any large scale aggression, and how convenient is it to have ready a large scale defender ever ready to defend against large scale aggression? How about comparing the Revolutionary War in America with the events that became known as World War II? The Declaration of Independence offers fair warning to anyone who dares to claim ownership of those people making that Declaration. The Aggressors invade anyway, but the aggressors are driven out, and large scale hostilities are temporarily on hold, but not for long. Compare that to World War II where the supposed good guys are indirectly and directly financing all sides of the large scale conflict and then the same supposed good guys are volunteering to go and defend goodness with a larger scale military force of aggression, and by some strange coincidence there ends up being two, not one, team of good guys defeating the bad guys, where the bad guys property is split in half, one half goes to the Bolsheviks, and one half goes to the Dollar Hegemony. The last thing the most powerful among us want is a One World Government known to the victims so long as the victims remain powerful enough to mount an effective defense. The victims must always be divided and fighting each other for the Business Psycho to work. The Revolutionary War almost tore down the most powerful among us. I've just learned some more on that understanding from Frank O'Collins in the last live discussion. The actual (not counterfeit) good guys were employing a productive strategy known as annuities, and in this investment process the Americans paid off most of their Revolutionary War debts, which, according to Frank, inspired the New World Order bunch, at that time based in England, to mount the invasion of America, in the War of 1812, to sack Washington and burn the records that including those annuities. I don't have all this figured out, and it is probably a case where the concept of annuities is a genuinely productive, honest, process, and therefore there is more than likely a counterfeit version that is hatched into a crime made legal with a false, half true, front, like the concept we know as Social Security. The point here is to point out that defense is exactly what it is, and it is either effective or it fails, and if it is effective then it can be effective on a scale from highest quality and lowest cost to lowest quality and highest cost, and it can still be effective defense inside that scale, then there is a fine line, and then there is false defense that is not defense, whereby the scale goes the other way, whereby it is only high in quality as measured by the criminals, as they get the most they can from the victims, and it can be lowest in cost by the same measure, measured only by the criminals, whereby the bills are paid by the victims and by the measure of the victims there is only a scale of defeat, or lack of defense, where it is all cost, and no benefit to the victims. Defense, true defense, when it is best, when it is highest quality, and when true defense is lowest in cost, there is no loss by any victim, and the only loss is measured by the criminals who fail to gain at the expense of the innocent victims. The example of effective defense is offered personally in a previous post. You or your loved one is seconds from being murdered and someone says NO and the criminal is scared into a life of honestly and productivity because of that one word spoken by that one defender. What happens if there is no one that volunteers to say NO? There is no defense, there is no effective defense, there is no ineffective defense, there is simply no defense whatsoever. Without any defense will there be no crime? Joe, you may be entirely too busy to mess with my thoughts below. And they really don't matter, but I wrote them anyway and have gone back and added this note before you start answering. I am on page 140 out of 174 of the book. I am going to try to finish today. I look forward to honest, generous, discussion. I am not too busy. Honestly, I was not thinking in those terms. I was thinking of the people who were bought out to move them off of their land so the Truman Dam could be built and flooding could be controlled. That is where it is important to get on the same page. That page is very specific and it is probably documented in many ways by many people who witnessed it first hand, and many people who may have studied it, honestly, and who may have reported on it accurately. That time period corresponds with an America that has already been taken over by the Legal Criminals with the Usurpation known as The Constitution. The time period is also after the Usurpation known as The IRS and The FED. The idea of remaining within the boundaries of voluntary association while operating within a framework of Crime made Legal is more than likely, in my opinion, because I think human beings are basically good, but the worst of human kind tends to stand out and steal the show, so to speak, so there are always going to be cases of criminals finding out how to get paid well for their type of special abilities. If it were me I would not force someone out unless there was no option and at the same time failure to force someone out would result in catastrophe for another person and the person holding-out was well aware of the catastrophe that results from their failure to yield and do so equitably. I know that last sentence may be difficult to piece together, but there can be examples offered to illustrate the concepts reported. I don't mean to say anything that is not specifically understood by me, and I know there is plenty of room for misunderstanding. Our area which used to be the "resort area" ended up being the water table control land so the marinas and business that were supported by tourism went belly up while the other side of the dam properties were elevated in value. Our county seat got a federal prison "to make up" for the economic lost. There was an old lady in a nursing home who said they were forced off of their farm land that their family had established. It seems that all the land around the rivers now is state/public land. Some criminal figures out the game, connects to the right, fellow, criminals, and with secret deals, there are victims made, and there are profits made, and even if the victims end up finding out what happened, it is in the past, and the people hired to protect victims are in on the dirty deals? That started a long time ago. I don't personally think that it is natural. I think it is unnatural behavior. I think it is only natural in the sense that the natural tendency to be honest and trusting is exploited very effectively by a few people who then figure out how to specialize in that work and that work is what I call Legal Crime. "...I would not make them die of thirst..." "...run me off of my property..." You are not the problem. Those who use any lie, any threat, or any form of violence to gain at the expense of innocent people are the problem because they will make people die of thirst and they will run people off their property. "... shown up with a greater use theory..." Am I to take that as an insult to me? I am showing up with a "greater use theory"? I am doing no such thing, but your words appear to confuse my offerings with crime made legal. If the current owners of a place in Japan where nuclear fuel is burning out of control and there is now enough poison unleashed into the ocean and the air to kill hundreds of thousands of people, then that qualifies as use. Is it highest and best use? I can be left completely out of the picture. Anyone can either volunteer to judge the "theory" as they see fit. Those who die of cancer, dying miserably, can abandon any thoughts of why they die, as they die, and the owners can use the land any way they see fit until they too realize just how well, or how poorly, they are using their land. My guess is that the users using the land to poison thousands, or millions, or billions are less likely to suffer from their use of their land because they are at least well aware of exactly how well they are using their land, and they don't call it a theory. If we go with the greater use theory, then we can say that we, the white man, had a greater use for this land between sea to shining sea and therefore the Indians who were here first have no right to block railroads and settlements. I don't call it a theory, so I'm not in the we group you mention. Best use is accurately measurable by, at least, the innocent bodies floating down the river. Best use is not a theory, it is when there are less innocent bodies floating down the river. Who and What determines greater use? Sometimes it seems like Johnny come lately is the determiner...as long as Johnny has the might to make it right. You and Frank have in common the appreciation for the Golden Rule. I don't know if you and Frank share the same concept, but the same words are shared in those three words. The Golden Rule If a determination is made by anyone then how is the determination raised to a point of authority in any case? I think that Frank says, and I agree, that The Golden Rule, means that if there is a determination made, by any authority, then the determination being made applies to everyone without exception, or it is not an authoritative determination. So you confuse what I say with what you think is relevant to what I say, and to me there is no connection whatsoever, and often there is the opposite determination made by you concerning what I say. A. Johnny, or any criminal, perpetrates a crime upon an innocent victim. B. Johnny, or any non-criminal, does not perpetrate a crime upon any innocent victim. One is one thing. The other is another thing. Who determines when a crime is perpetrated upon an innocent victim? Only one person or must there be two people? If only one person determines when a crime is perpetrated upon an innocent victims then please tell me how that works, because it is beyond my ability to understand, at this time. If two people fail to agree on a crime having been perpetrated on an innocent victim, does that mean that no crime has been perpetrated upon an innocent victim? I can't see that working out either. There will be a criminal, and typically the criminal will not confess. There will be an innocent victim, and it is not a given that the victim will admit to being a victim. That is at least 2 people involved in the crime already. Who and What determines greater use? Instead of that question, please, consider asking how? How is greater use determined? I have offered a method. If thousands of bodies are floating down the river, as an extreme example, a determination can be made, by any number of people, including the people doing the killing, and including anyone not yet, but soon to be dead, as to what is going on up-river. No need to call anyone criminal or to call anyone victim. There are dead people in the river. Up stream there will be a cause of death. The criminals may claim that it is highest and best use, since the living are now dead, as the criminals just so happen to be walking off with everything of value formerly used by the dead people. I don't claim to be making excuses for killing people. I am not offering a theory. Highest and best use can be measured by the number of bodies floating down the river, or the sudden increase in cancer deaths that just so happen to be a result of a sudden release of radioactive material flowing from a place in Japan. Please sir, please owner, please stop killing so many people, please? I don't want to die a horrible death, and I don't want my loved ones dying horrible deaths, so, please, consider my theory to be valid? It is not a theory, not to me. What happens if they drain all the water to build a dam? Is that a good neighbor relation? At the point at which crime begins is at that point. If you know how to know when that point become that point then I'm all ears. I can offer an extreme example of when that point has obvious been reached, and passed, so as to leave no more room for misunderstanding. I can only offer, and I'm not offering a theory. Bodies float down the river. That is not highest and best use, unless a criminal is doing the measuring. Back to book work: Joe, does it make sense to change the word when to while? Yes that sounds much better as it removes the opportunity to think that the idea is a question when the word used is when. I think I may have a habit of using when when I should use the word while. Yes that sounds much better as it removes the opportunity to think that the idea is a question while the word used is "when." I think I may have a habit of using "when" where I should use the word while? In any case the sentence reads better as the word "when" is replaced by the word "while," thanks. 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 9th, 2013 04:40 pm |
|
682nd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
I've been thinking about a book today called "Ask Joe."To me all sides in all wars are FUNDED and ORDERED into existence by the same most powerful group that have constituted the most powerful among us, and that group is always small, not always the same individual people in the group, of course, but the same group in power employ the same routine methods by which they are in power....to keep their power... "Oh My God," is all I can muster. This makes me want to go outside and scream, "I am on this earth and I stand for Life." Are those the right words? This is almost as bad as understanding the Economic Hit man stuff. Except I feel stronger. Not hysterical like before. Joe, who would want to kill people for fun and profit. Fun and profit means something different to me today. So does well paid liars as I think of seeing John McCain in the Pepe link. And remember the GW If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists you linked for me and is linked in your book. I thought wars were nations being aggressive about land and protection. Nations are a thing which I was holding accountable for the actions of people. What are they doing? Playing a game like Risk or Monopoly? But in real life and real death? You used the words "to me all sides." Does that mean that you could be wrong? Or are you pretty sure you are right?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 9th, 2013 06:34 pm |
|
683rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I responded up-to-date while editing my previous response.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 9th, 2013 11:37 pm |
|
684th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
"... shown up with a greater use theory..." No, please do not take that as an insult. I was not meaning it that way. I am sorry that it sounded that way. You know Joe, I think my problem is that all I can see is thru eyes that see everything turning out as crime in progress, and I have a problem fore-seeing how people following the Golden Rule can do things. You are right. I should be asking How instead of Who and What. I read this today in the book. I think you afterword explains what I am asking, but I am not asking correctly. I am too busy seeing crime in progress and cannot see that things can be done differently. The messages demanded by former victims of fraud are accurate descriptions of life after the damage inflicted by the perpetrators is overpowered and in the past. Meanwhile the suffering continues daily. The record of abuse grows from small to large, and the victims begin to find cause to share their individual stories. Similarities are discovered, and the need for remedy is realized in time.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Aug 10th, 2013 10:53 am |
|
685th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, Here is where your generous honesty shows up as being proof of the value of life. When the mind is used willfully for crime, in my case I merely think the thoughts so as to understand them, then things makes sense in that mind-set. When the mind is used on the opposite way, not the criminal way, things make sense. Example: 1. Criminal mind-set: Honesty is a fatal weakness 2. Non-criminal mind-set: Lack of honesty is a fatal weakness You wrote: You know Joe, I think my problem is that all I can see is thru eyes that see everything turning out as crime in progress, and I have a problem fore-seeing how people following the Golden Rule can do things. I think that I do know this and I know that it is very difficult to realize such things for many reasons. The power of dishonesty has no power without victims who are in some way operating under false belief that may exist in the form of confusion, if not genuine belief in false ideas. It is too much work, or it is impossible, or it is dangerous, or it is potentially destructive to my well being, to understand how the criminals do business, which leaves, power-less-ness, in the form of confusion, or semi-belief in criminality as being worth something for life as a whole or as an individual human being. How much is true concerning the work required to understand and then know the full measure of criminality? To me it is reasonably true that innocence is lost when too much criminal knowledge is transferred from the source of it, through mere study, or through actual practice, so it is true, in that sense that knowing the criminals is dangerous, destructive, and therefore it may be a good idea to specialize. It may be a good idea that you don't know so much, but then how can you defend yourself, and the answer is that you have to depend upon other sources other than yourself for you defense if you are to avoid the damage done by too much intimate knowledge of how crime works. Does that make sense? You know Joe, I think my problem is that all I can see is thru eyes that see everything turning out as crime in progress, and I have a problem fore-seeing how people following the Golden Rule can do things. How much of the criminal mind-set is already busy destroying your innocence? That is how I see it. You don't have to borrow my viewpoints. If you read my viewpoints you are then probably allowing some of the information offered into your sphere of influence. Then the information may work inside you for whatever result may be the result of such information. The information may be power-less; but compared to which power this is more powerful? 1. Might makes Right (a reasonable lie) 2. Do no harm (my wording meaning what can be expressed as The Golden Rule) So the obvious power here, in my opinion, is to ask yourself a series of competitive questions whereby the intent is to find out why you have problems seeing specific things that may be worth seeing, and it may be a good idea to find out why your focus tends to be driven with ideas concerning how the crime in progress progresses. All that can be done in private, in secret, or shared with other people, in any event. It is not easy to figure out who is friend and who is foe, for many reasons. Example: From my contact with Frank, combined with my contact with you, combined with my contact with other people, an idea struck me recently. If I can't trust myself to make myself a promise, how can I trust anyone else? If you have the answer, then you are more powerful than I am, so why would it be an accurate measure to say that I am the teacher and you are the student? Honest people share. Dishonest people dictate. Which way does one way go, and which way does the other way go every day as people switch, voluntarily, or involuntarily, from one way to the other? There is so much, way too much, information I process on this path of discovery, whereby the concept of saying that I know, yes I know, is controversial in my own mind. Why? Another question, added to the heap? Which answers work best time and again? I don't know, but I can reasonably know, and I can demonstrate, and I can offer examples to other people, and they can accept my offer and in that process the viewpoints we are stuck with can be compared by each other. That is not even possible if the idea is to demand from someone else obedience according to a perspective that I currently have going on in my mind. So I don't trust my own mind? A perpetual conflict going on in my own mind? I am doomed to confusion? Compared to what? I can compare my past self when there is no bear to help me. Is that reasonable? You are right. I should be asking How instead of Who and What. I read this today in the book. I think you afterword explains what I am asking, but I am not asking correctly. I am too busy seeing crime in progress and cannot see that things can be done differently. See how this works, and I have not yet read past those words above, see how YOU ARE RIGHT, is as contagious as smiles? Beware dear friend, of overconfidence, but how can you willfully pilot your being without a sense of doing the right thing by some process such as reason? So we meet, we compare notes, and how many times do I have to confess to you that you are my teacher at least as much as you may think that I am your teacher? Where is that information describing life after Legal Crime? That is, potentially, where I am right, in this case. Looking is what happens, then finding happens, and then looking better happens, and then finding more happens, reasonably, compared to the opposite. You found the Bible, there is where life after Legal Crime is described, and why not, and who is to say not there, and it is not me who says the information is not found there, it is me who is asking which specific information, and I am on guard for contradictions that appear in my mind because contradiction in my mind is cause for concern about what is still wrong in my mind. What will life look like after the victims shed the deceptive need to perpetuate investments in unspeakable crimes made legal? One less murder is not merely one less murder. The murderer is infected with a potential desire to perpetrate more crimes and the victim may have close loved ones who are potentially desiring to perpetrate more crimes in the form of revenge. If you get to the point where your mind is working similar to mine, then automatically there is a thought that returns concerning the idea that Love is very powerful indeed when considering how much Hate is working so powerfully to destroy life on Earth. Example: How many murders have you personally witnessed in you life? If the answer is none, as is my case, and we start adding up all the answers that are none, then that measures something that may be worth knowing. On the scale, human beings manage to preserve the power of LIFE, despite those very powerful forces that work against LIFE. How are such things measured? Which side is winning? How many bodies are floating down the river today? If the hatred wins, is there anyone left to work in the other direction? How bad are things, in a reasonably accurate measure, right now? Turn on the 6 O'clock NEWS? Turn on The Alex Jones Show? At least one of those competitive offers of NEWS admits of a competitor to the MONOPOLY POWER. Look in the Bible? How bad are things right now? What happens when power is no longer willfully consumed in the work required to make a few people more powerful than everyone else, and what happens when instead of crime being made legal that power is employed into making power abundant for all? I realize that I am quoting my own words here, but I think the questions are valid, and therefore the answers have to be accurate or the answers are potentially counterproductive if inaccurate. The thing here, striking me again, is the concept of numbers of people who are currently powerless to a point of dying helplessly in abject misery compared to existence as LIFE on Earth somewhat distant from that specific scale. What do smiles measure? What is going on in the mind of the person smiling? Can you tell a counterfeit smile from a real one?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Aug 10th, 2013 12:15 pm |
|
686th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
I am cleaning house today. I have swiftly read your reply and I am looking forward to coming back to it. I finished my first read thru the book last night. I will begin a 2nd read as soon as I can. I am looking forward to reading it a 2nd time thru. If I come across anything in my 2nd time thru that bothers me and I cannot fix it, I am going to ask you about it instead of passing over it. I think we are getting close! I also want to know, do you want to say anything about your son and Joe's Slaw? It seems that one time you told me something about him saying Joe's Law, Joe Slaw or something of the sort. I can probably go back and find the words in the abyss if you don't know what I am talking about. If you don't want to say anything that is OK too. I am thinking of it as reciprocal validation. He validates you, you publicly validate him. Validation is powerful? Validation like a true Remember this: b e a r (except your forum makes it more fancy) now there is: j o s f ?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Aug 10th, 2013 03:44 pm |
|
687th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
My son made the connection between Joe's Law and Joe's Slaw much to my delight, in good humor, because I was under the impression that he was willfully unaware of both. If that sentence can fit in, then I think the sentiment may convey well. Having the book in hand is almost unimaginable at this point. Smiles are so contagious, as I just found out, again, at a stage performance involving my daughter as the Troop redid the Musical titled The Drowsy Chaperone.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Aug 11th, 2013 07:26 pm |
|
688th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Had a Sunday School party for my kids and had a houseful this afternoon. I am still looking forward to replying. It must be rewarding and fun to see your own daughter perform!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 15th, 2013 06:36 pm |
|
689th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Just want to tell you I am on my 2nd read. I didn't start till late this afternoon and am on page 16 out or 174. I don't have a day with the Amish tomorrow. That is next week, so I expect to do bookwork tomorrow. Hopefully it will go fast. I still owe you a reply from a discussion above, but I don't know if I should discuss or do bookwork. I think it is important to do bookwork faster than slower, do you agree, or would you rather I discuss and do bookwork at the same time?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 15th, 2013 08:44 pm |
|
690th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I think that the artist has to find the inspiration where, and when, it can be found?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 16th, 2013 01:23 pm |
|
691st Post |
|
bear Guest
|
I am on page 60 of 174, second read, and I am inspired to finish sooner rather than later. I hope today as I want to play. I am afraid if I did whatever I wanted to, work would never get done. I don't suppose that Joe has that problem.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 16th, 2013 02:27 pm |
|
692nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The Joe problem boils down to powerlessness concerning the right thing to do at any given moment; in a competitive sense, like this here is right, but only right compared to this here, and that there is more along the lines of the right thing to do, but only in the sense that it is relative to this over here, and that goes on and on. There is this scale and on this scale I could be doing things that preserve life as we know it the best that I can do on that scale, and then, on the other end of the scale, I am unknowingly working to destroy all life everywhere as best as can possibly be done by one person in this time period, and each step I take, being misdirected, is another step in the wrongest direction, due to my ignorance, or due to my powerlessness to know better from worse. When I hear about someone growing tomatoes and packing the excess for later use, then that appears to me to be a right as can be, on that scale, as far as I know, right up there in the right side of things along side of nurturing copies of human beings made the old fashion way, not GMO, test tube, type, beings.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 16th, 2013 02:50 pm |
|
693rd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, your words made me think of this verse: Psalm 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. I went to find that verse and the whole Psalm sounds like things we talk about: http://www.biblestudytools.com/audio-bible/kjv/psalms/37.html --------------------- I need some of your good help with bookwork as I think a word or something is missing from this sentence on page 70: "What happens if the best game in town, the highest paying job, is Legal Fraud, Legal Extortion, and all the Legal Torture and Mass Murder required to keep that game going?" What do you think? ----------------------- (I still have a counter half full of tomatoes. I expect I may try to can them tomorrow.)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 16th, 2013 05:53 pm |
|
694th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, We are working through a computer problem at work, where data was at my fingertips, but I lost it, through a series of errors, and by some stroke of fortune (savings of time and effort) my wife had saved backup copies from last year, which is much better than saving no data. Anyway, that places me away from this terminal. "What happens if the best game in town, the highest paying job, is Legal Fraud, Legal Extortion, and all the Legal Torture and Mass Murder required to keep that game going?" I think that the sentence is a typical example of how the reader may have too much work thrown at the reader all at once. How about this: When the best game in town (the highest paying job) is Legal Fraud, Legal Extortion, and all the Legal Torture and Mass Murder required to keep that going, the observer can know precisely how much crime pays by following that money trail as it pays out, because the authorities are notoriously good at keeping accurate records. So, as may be seen, the effort to make things easier may actually work, in my case, toward making things more difficult. Canning tomatoes may look easy, for example, but actually having nourishing food stored for later use, having the food right there when the consumer opens the can, is easy, looks easy, at that point, in that place, from that competitive viewpoint.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 16th, 2013 05:58 pm |
|
695th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Oh, maybe authorities aught to be in quotes. <------- lost data is like spilled milk, smile, don't cry about it!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 16th, 2013 06:17 pm |
|
696th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Yes, and if it happens to be lemons instead of milk, make some lemonade (which your wife pre-made when she made that backup, and I am sure it had sugar in it! She is a smart cookie to go with that milk! - I just had to add all those colloquialisms - your spilled milk art inspired me ) I am glad you can smile Thank you for the words you sent for the book. I will incorporate them with "authorities." I am now on page 92 out of 174.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Aug 18th, 2013 11:29 pm |
|
697th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
bear calling Joe, I have a question: I have just finished with the Joe's Law chapter and am now working with John and Pat. I read the word limited here in this text: "The thing that most people may not understand concerns the difference between the concept of "public" and "private" jurisdictions in law. This applies to your question, and this has been explained to me by my trainers. These products are limited by law as to how much profit the bank can make as in the term not-for-profit may suggest. If you are familiar with the term…" Why do limits need to be set? Why can't Joe's Law work as power is produced into oversupply thru bank profits? Can that profit be used to produce more power which would then make wealth cheaper? Why does a limit have to be set on the bank's production of profit? Wouldn't the nature production of profit yield to cheaper wealth thus making interest rates lower? Pat appears to be even more confused It is accurate to account our profits as being limited by free market competition, you or anyone can start your own competitive bank. If you can understand that concept, we can move on. If I or anyone could start my own bank, then wouldn't that competition become the natural limit set on bank profits (rather than a government ceiling)?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Aug 18th, 2013 11:45 pm |
|
698th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, please also see my questions above. I am adding a new one here:What happens when power is no longer willfully consumed in the work required to make a few people more powerful than everyone else, and what happens when instead of crime being made legal that power is employed into making power abundant for all? My question has to do with human nature. Even when power is made abundant for all, will all make the effort to access the abundance? Will some squander abundance and live in poverty instead? What happens when too many people squander abundance? Joe, there are people here who do not even bother to shower. In my experience, some people are poor and choose to be clean, while others are poor and choose squalor. Proverbs 19"24 A slothful man hideth his hand in his bosom, and will not so much as bring it to his mouth again Proverbs 12:27 KJV The slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting: but the substance of a diligent man is precious. Even in abundance, those who are slothful will not take advantage of the situation. So their own volition causes their own condition, and that is part of liberty too. Make ones own choices and live in ones own consequences? But do those types of ill-choices impact economy and Joe's Law for the whole?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Aug 19th, 2013 12:31 pm |
|
699th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, You are now asking questions that are vital in the effort to offer a competitive viewpoint on Legal Money Matters. Example: Why do limits need to be set? The concept of a defensive power stepping into the role of offering a defensive deal has to be understood in the context of an aggressive, fraudulent, attacker, in this case the form of the attack is The Federal Reserve/Federal Income Tax/Enforcement by Federal Criminals. Failing to have that context in view fails to acknowledge that specific LIMIT already LIMITING, and therefore the offer to offer a counter to that LIMIT is not acknowledged if it is not acknowledged. If the LIMIT Enforced by the False Federal Enforcers is acknowledged, then, it can be seen by the observer, the lady seeking a new Home Loan, or a new Construction Loan for Power Products, that there are two things in view as such: 1. Legal Crime Limit 2. No Legal Crime Limit OK, so that now, if you understand the above, is the question here: "Why do limits need to be set?" The quick answer is that there does not need to be a limit set, but in context there is NO LIMIT once the LIMIT (Legal Crime) is no longer enforced by those Legal Criminals, and therefore a time exists between the old Legal Crime Limit and whatever happens next, and what happens next will be a LIMIT of some accurate measure. You pay no interest? What is interest? If interest is a Free Market cost paid by Free Traders so as to cover the costs of offering accurate accounting services (Free Market Banking Services), then the highest quality (most accurate) and lowest cost (lowest costs paid by the bankers in providing and offering the service) provider is on the shelf, or on the Web Page, or on Main Street in any City, right next to the next best provider who offers lower quality and higher cost (LIMIT). So the question again: "Why do limits need to be set?" To bridge the gap between NOW (LEGAL CRIME LIMIT) and THEN (NO LEGAL CRIME LIMIT) there has to be communication between those who offer (The pretend salesman in the pretend Free Market Government Banking Transaction Play Acting) Free Market Government Banking Services and those who may be shopping for a Home Mortgage and possibly shopping for Home Improvements, and their LIMIT will be LIMITED by whatever the Market will Bear. How many choices of Free Market Government Banking Services exist now? None. Everything is denominated in Federal Reserve Notes, and that is not a random occurrence. "Why can't Joe's Law work as power is produced into oversupply thru bank profits?" What are "profits," and how are they measured, and what power is at work to increase or decrease those accurate measures of those profits as those profits flow form one person to another person? A Fraudulent Government Banking "Service" is "profitable" right now to the tune of "profits" amounting to a few people gaining as much Legal Purchasing Power as everyone else combined, and those few people merely write themselves a "private" check that is "good" as far as the Fraudulent Government is concerned, as good as gold. That is what does exist right now. The question is, and can be answered accurately, what is the alternative to what exists right now? "Why can't Joe's Law work as power is produced into oversupply thru bank profits?" Which bank? The legally enforced fraud bank or one, and only one, alternative bank? If there is only one alternative bank, then are those "profits" more or less compared to the legally enforced fraud bank as the legally enforced fraud bank, which is ONE, and only ONE, is replaced by ONE, and only ONE replacement? If there are two Banks "profiting," in a Free Market (meaning free from Legal Crime, and free from Non-Legal Crime) then which is "profiting" more than the other, and what are they doing with those "profits" compared to what the other bank is not doing with those "profits"? What are these "profits"? Are profits the costs of doing business paid for by the buyers, and if one competitive Bank is passing on much more costs to their buyers compared to the competitive bank (the Bank that does not pass on nearly as much costs to their customers) then which competitive bank tends to gain more currency compared to which bank tending toward going out of business due to lower quality and higher prices (costs to the customers)? "Can that profit be used to produce more power which would then make wealth cheaper?" If the buyer of banking services keeps that "profit" (which is either/or an actual increase in POWER or not), as "savings," or as "cheaper banking costs," then the buyer decided if the buyer will consume those "profits" having fun, or if the buyer will invest in making more power out of less power, or if the buyer will give away that "savings" as charity. If the Bank wins the competition for market share in competition with a competitive bank, and the Bank gains that advantage or "profit" from the customer, then the Bank decides what to do, or not do, with that power. 1. Is there actually more power produced? 2. If there is actually more power produced, then who produces it, and who is in POWER to control that new power? 3. Is the power consumed? 4. Is the power invested into the process of making more power out of less power? 5. Is the power given away charitably? 6. If the power is invested into the process of making more power out of less power, then who is credited with having made that decision, and who gains that currency once that POWER does exist because of that decision to invest? "Why does a limit have to be set on the bank's production of profit?" That is a question that returns back to the Play Acting done during the imaginary discussion between a potential buyer who may be shopping in a potential Free Market Government Banking Shopping Center where many possible Free Market Government Banking Service Providers are offering Banking Services of highest potential quality at lowest potential costs. The idea there, with that LIMIT, was to start somewhere, and start somewhere other than "offering" the same Un-free Government Monopoly Banking Power lack of quality (unless you are a criminal and therefore quality means the same thing as being better able to destroy people) and the same Un-free Government Monopoly Banking Power PRICE (which is potentially everything paid by the targets to the criminals). Pick an "interest rate" number out of a hat, please, and tell me why you think that number is an accurate representation of what a competitive bank, in a competitive market, could offer to competitive shoppers looking for high quality and low cost banking services? There will be a measure of quality and cost, so what is it? If there will be a measure of quality and cost, what is that measure? There is, now, a measure of Fraud, in fact. Look at the National Debt Clock to see how National Interest is working now, right now, currently, and know the difference between what is, and what can be. What can be? What that which can be: is, then what is it? What is the Free Market Government Banking Interest Rate moved, or forced, to be that rate, once the shoppers, a total collective will power of shoppers, constitute the force that forces Free Market Government Banking Services to the highest quality, and lowest cost, that is possible at that time? Pick a number, a guess, a starting point, and see if your guess is competitive. I pick 1%, and I can offer words, and mathematical calculation, and references, whereby my guess is not picked out of a hat, so much as my guess is an educated, or competitive, guess. I've told you about the Jellybean Jar Experiment? The Wisdom of Crowds Example As it happens, the possibilities of group intelligence, at least when it came to judging questions of fact, were demonstrated by a host of experiments conducted by American sociologists and psychologists between 1920 and the mid-1950s, the heyday of research into group dynamics. Genuine things are often counterfeited because the genuine thing is good for life, powerful for productivity, and therefore a threat to the Legal Criminals who find cause to counterfeit the genuine goodness. "Wouldn't the nature production of profit yield to cheaper wealth thus making interest rates lower?" I do not understand that question, and rather than guessing, I can ask for clarification. 1. Do you mean "natural production of profit," rather than "nature production of profit," and if so, then what IS this stuff that you call "profit," how is this stuff accurately measured in fact? 2. What do you mean by "cheaper wealth," because I can guess at this point and it appears to me that you are referring to the concepts in Joe's Law at this point, whereby the only problem I can see, at this point, is the problem of accurately identifying what is, exactly, this stuff called "profit," and then who is credited with the decision to create this stuff called "profit," and does "credit" mean the same thing as "power to decide what to do with" this "profit" stuff? If I or anyone could start my own bank, then wouldn't that competition become the natural limit set on bank profits (rather than a government ceiling)? Yes, and if you build a scale, then you can build a scale from worst to best as a function of Monopoly being worst and the exact opposite being best. National Debt Clock (and all that goes with it) is on the bad side of things. Everyone having the legal POWER to start and maintain their own Legal Bank (the experiments done by Josiah Warren prove that this competitive option is viable) is on the other end of the scale. To be even more precise with building this scale, consider a possible additional extreme reaching out past The Dollar Hegemony with false Federal Reserve Notes on the bad end of the scale. What would be the result of having one person, and only one person, as absolute Banking Dictator, whereby no one, anywhere, can breath air, or eat food, without having paid "interest" to this absolute dictator, a single person, for "credits" needed to buy some air, or some food? I make a habit of building these scales as a means of working out complex, dynamic, forces, into a illustrative form. If you are just beginning to get the idea of building scales, in this way, then you may find the process useful as you become more proficient at it, as it may turn out to be a productive use of the scarce power currently available to you. My question has to do with human nature. Even when power is made abundant for all, will all make the effort to access the abundance? Will some squander abundance and live in poverty instead? What happens when too many people squander abundance? To me the question you are asking is the same question I asked above your quote. What would be the result of having one person, and only one person, as absolute Banking Dictator, whereby no one, anywhere, can breath air, or eat food, without having paid "interest" to this absolute dictator, a single person, for "credits" needed to buy some air, or some food? It is the same answer. The single person in power would not be in power for long, unless the single person in power hired fellow members of the exclusive club. Those who threaten to compete with the single power in any way (any true form of competition) will be dealt with in a few possible ways: 1. The threat will be destroyed 2. The threat will be turned, paid as an employee, subsidized, incorporated, hired on, deputized, given an offer that can't be refused, etc. What is the definition of squandering? 1. Using scarce power to destroy all competition. 2. Using scarce power to increase the number of fellow Legal Criminals who use scare power to destroy all competition. Joe, there are people here who do not even bother to shower. In my experience, some people are poor and choose to be clean, while others are poor and choose squalor. Is it merely ignorance as to the benefits of being clean, or is there more to each individual story as may be found out if someone wanted to truly help those who are stuck in abject misery or squalor? I think there are many people in the middle of the scales that can accurately measure the conditions of mankind. On the extremes are powerless people, having nothing, starving to death, for lack of something, and those with power in abundance who use that power for good (make power abundant for everyone), and those with power in abundance who use that power to keep the power they have, which is the power that takes from everyone, causing power to flow from everyone, flowing to only them, flowing only to them in their exclusive club. It is not that hard to map out with factual data. A unit of power, such as a seed, can be planted, cultivated, nurtured, and then there are many seeds. A solar panel works out the same way. It is not hard to see, once you can see it, or I may be deluding myself. So their own volition causes their own condition, and that is part of liberty too. Make ones own choices and live in ones own consequences? But do those types of ill-choices impact economy and Joe's Law for the whole? Someone who is hurting only themselves, as may be proven even to themselves, all in agreement, yes, yes, yes, without controversy, person A is hurting themselves, and no one else, willfully, as another volunteer volunteering to be a criminal, is something worthy of discussion. I agree. Much hurt, of oneself, can be seen as an injury to anyone who may love that one who is hurting oneself, too. Food for thought? Power to make more power out of less power? That is not the same subject, in my mind, as that subject is nearly opposite the subject of those who are currently, willfully, working very effectively, at destroying mankind, right now, and all those who produce anything worth stealing are financing that destruction through the use of Federal Reserve Notes (or whichever new issue of Legal Monopoly World Reserve Currency may replace that one). Helping people, actually helping people, requires that the people being helped agree that they are being helped, by some measure, or the supposed help, from the viewpoint of the target of supposed help, will fight in resistance to help that is seen as counterfeit help to that person. That is a subject worth discussing too, and I happen to have a real world example of such a human condition going on right now in my wife's relationship to her brother (I should not speak anymore on that specific process).
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 20th, 2013 02:44 pm |
|
700th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I had an idea working earlier today concerning the concept of accountability. I can jot down the basics of that idea right now, and then move to the Edit work. The idea was such that each individual holds each individual to account for one's self, ones own actions, during their time alive. Perhaps I am doomed to remain in that place between life and heaven, whatever that name is that I can't remember right now. The idea was viewed as this me thing being aware of having left this present life I am currently living, and I am realizing my failures, and my successes, if there are any credited to me, by me, and in this idea, I think of God as being way too busy for me, so God trusts that I will take care of business, and like a Coach sending word through a messenger, I expect to get another chance to life again, to get back in the game, and hope that I can do better next time around. The basics of this idea is to realize that I am the one in power holding me to account while I am alive at this time, in this place. I am my power to do good or bad at this time, and it is realized that I hold me to account, in any case, since I will question any other person, any other human being, or any other number of human beings sharing similar viewpoints, concerning their judgment of me. I see no power, at this time, in me escaping this condition of me being in control of this power to judge, in any case, either internally or externally, there is no escape, I am either blessed or cursed with this power of conscience. I can start a new reply to get back to book work.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 03:12 pm | Page: ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... |
| Power Independence > Book > Book Resources > Final Editing | Top |
