Comment: Welcome

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Adding to a narrow reply (see in situ)

Welcome

Thanks, I listened to Mathew and much can be discussed about those words in my opinion. Power is either or used to make more power and the evil way is the scarce way, in my opinion.

Psalms 25 is much more contentious to my way of thinking, but the words are typically vague, leaving much room for misunderstanding.

"Josf, if the PTB want WWIII we may not be able to do anything about it. If they make all power scarce, then what?"

The power that is left can either or be used to make more power. If not then the remaining power will be consumed, if so then there will be more power. I think it is easy to understand, not at all complicated.

"And also states that a socialist planned society cannot advance technologically by itself.” At 25.48"

I have as little trouble understanding someone discrediting "Socialism" as I have little trouble understanding someone discrediting "capitalism" when the context of their word choices includes all the familiar evidence confirming the fact that they are all speaking about Legal Crime.

By any other name Legal Crime destroys, so what's in a name?

A rose by any other name...

My discussion partner (friend?) from Russia is a very good example of this point of contention I have with many people in the West and in the East.

I don't know how our discussion will play out in time, I know that this friend in Russia is very unusual because of his determination to expose error in thinking. We are already thousands of words into a discussion and we have yet to make one step forward in resolving contentions. It is an epic battle.

If we do get around to the socialism versus capitalism subject matter my expectation is that I will again be expressing my standard viewpoint, a viewpoint that does not change in the least when speaking to anyone who discredits "socialism" or "capitalism". I'll ask for specifics: what do you mean?

If I hear that socialism is a study of society, including the study of politics and economics, and if I hear that people have used socialism to discover the fact that liberty is the only way to move toward prosperity, then I can agree with what I hear.

If I hear that socialism must be enforced by a select few exceptional individuals who are then given all the power they need to take all the power they need whenever they alone think they need more power, then I'll know what they mean, and I can then know that they are speaking about crime made legal.

If I hear that capitalism is a method of pricing things according to a specific plan, a planned economy, where central planners plan on making things scarce so as to then be in a position to set a price as high as what the consumers will pay for something they need, then I'll know that they are speaking about a pricing method that works to arrive at the goal desired by people who use capitalism. If they reject any use of lies, threats, or violence as a means of making things scarce, then I can know that they too are speaking about liberty and how liberty is the only way to move toward prosperity, even if these people use their capitalist pricing method.

If I hear that capitalism requires a few exceptional people to take power by any means, including lies, including threats, and including violence upon the innocent, so as to enforce capitalism, since socialism is so bad, and therefore we must be capitalists since socialism is so bad, then I'll know that they are speaking about Legal Crime.

Is that not simple?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------------------------
“If I am paid back, for all my digging, why does someone else owe me anything for future use of that supply of water?”

What if there is a cost to maintain the well? And in modern times, what about the electricity it takes to pump water from the well to the well tower? What if there are on-going costs besides just digging the well?
------------------------------------
“That is not how it works, and you know it. The one well digger invents a "law" that says no one else is allowed to dig another well unless a "license" is issued to a fellow "Union" Well Digger.”

You are too generous, because I do not know that. But I do know that the Amish hand dig wells here without union diggers. But, I do not know the rules about well digging in Missouri, so maybe the person has to be union, I don’t know. I suppose if I were to build a house in the country where rural water is not available I would soon find out!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When I say "you know how it works" I was not being generous, I was speaking about "it" being crime made legal. I may have been assuming too much, as in assuming that you know what I mean when I say "you know how it works", but not being generous - at least I don't see it that way.

If someone hand drills a well into a water supply that connects to a well where some people are dumping poisons into that water supply, it does not matter to the water that the Amish have dug their own well, at their own cost, without "tax payer" dollars covering the cost of digging the well. If those people become very sick, growing tumors, deformed babies, they die miserably deaths, drinking poisoned water, then that is what happens.

My brother is just now moving out of Hinkley, by the way.

"Is that part of the economic hit man stuff? It is so hard for me to fathom that people want to go and ruin people’s wells."

Whose idea was it to put fluoride into the water supply, not just any water supply, almost all the water supplied to almost all the "tax payers": whose idea is that, and why did they implement that idea, what was their real goal, not their stated goal?

Just now, just now, after years of being the nutcase in my family, I am just now, just now, after decades, gaining currency, where my closest human beings are just now listening to the information I have discovered.

I am crazy. I have "issue". I cost too much to have around, because I am so full of crap. Decades.

Why are people just now listening?

Everyone now knows someone dying of cancer, and those already dead don't have ears that can listen to the sounds of warning?

I know this stuff when I heard about 911 while it was happening, I was driving my wife's car to her office. Hey, guess what, I'd say. What, she would say. They are starting World War III on schedule. Oh, really, that's nice, here are the bills, can you pay them?

Fukushima? Hey, guess what? What? I wrote a song, and I'm actually singing now, do you want to hear it? What is it called? Radiation Blues. No thanks.

"I suppose filling in people’s wells comes from that same evil, ill, regard towards a person or a group of people. Jacob’s wells were filled in:"

I don't think that way. You are not the problem, and a million times a million careless thoughts by everyone on the planet does not equal one very evil person who sets about to destroy everyone else with World War just so that that person, or that select few people, can maintain their power over their targeted victims. These people are sociopaths, psychopaths, pedophiles, rapists, torturers, and mass murderers. They are not guilty of cracking a smile over littering toilet paper.

"They were jealous!"

If you pay your own costs for jealousy, and you are still jealous, then maybe you like paying those costs, sure, but what does that have to do with Legal Crime and how the victims may, or may not, survive a few more days, weeks, months, years, centuries, or as long as God intends?

I think there are things to do, so I do things, like type, read, learn, discover, and communicate accurately.

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home
4.
How about a schedule and a to do list?

I'm a broken record?

"Instead, when Abraham died Abimelech’s people stopped up the wells. It appears to me that people have been fighting over water and making power scarce for a long time."

OK, so you see that routine, what is the opposite of that routine?

Use scarce power to make power abundant?

What happens then?

"No, but I am looking it up now. Also, it has been my understanding that all the EPA regulations is part of what drove industry to China."

If that were true then how is it that Elon Musk is making competitive cars in California today.

I think you are being duped if you buy those lies.

Check this out:

http://live.wsj.com/video/elon-musk-ill-put-a-man-on-mars-in-10-years/CCF1FC62-BB0D-4561-938C-DF0DEFAD15BA.html#!CCF1FC62-BB0D-4561-938C-DF0DEFAD15BA

I just found out that Tesla did get a loan from the Legal Criminals, previous to that news I had followed this effort during the time period where Tesla had to go to Germany and Japan for investors.

Note: Loan is a Loan, paying interest, a loan is not a subsidy or bail out.

I was looking for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9ftbRWqkj0

My brother Danny (Goldstone Man = Deep Space Tracking for 30 years) has a story about a supplier for parts to Space X (Elon Musk).

“As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes” must give the impression that total unprecedented situations regarding air pollution are encountered in China”
How about this thought RE the carbon tax…the Criminals are polluting China during the boom and they will recoup the boom by charging China a carbon tax…or am I connecting dots wrong? How about that for a bear theory? Or has someone else already thought of it?"

My son decided on his own to go to Cambodia a few years back, and his story is that China is very bad, very bad for pollution, but he did not go in to China with his friends, he stayed in Cambodia instead. That is a long story. He is now home. The point is to point out more than just main stream news on this subject.

If the victims of pollution could sue for damages, in some way, would it be more or less expensive to run a business that destroys the lives of millions of people?

Again, same brother, Deep Space guy, is just now moving out of Hinkley and that same brother is just now starting to listen to my version of reality.

"If you would like a bear break so you can use your power to learn from the Russian guy, say so, and I will not bother you with such things as ownership of paper, food, salt & pepper shakers, etc. I think those things are on the list to discuss."

I have specific things to say, and almost no one wants to hear what I have to say, including you, we go off on your tangents, and so does the Russian, but I would be a hypocrite if I demanded to dominate and monopolize the topics for discussion. I don't pick the people who want to discuss things with me, they pick me.

I sent a note to Howard Bloom, no response yet, to see if he could offer advice on selling a book, getting printed copies made, etc. I picked him, we can see how far that goes.

I picked my other machinist brother, the one in New Jersey, not the one in California, as a consumer of the book, he asked for an autographed copy, and then I told him about the costs of printing, he said he would send 100 dollars.

My wife is not a money tree, we are struggling at this point, so inventions have to be invented, or discovered, or reinvented, or rediscovered, as to how to market the book.

It may take off, who knows?

If you write something, so far, have I not responded each time?

Is that worthy of credit by some measure? I mean to say that I don't have an reason to stop discussing things with you, there will be time for it, or there wont' be time for it, and then another day arrives, so then what happens on that new day?

What has the past shown to be what may be the future in any case?

"Crime and cruelty. But is someone actually doing that? If I buy property and dig a well because there is no water running to the location, do I have a right to my well water?"

I refuse to think in terms of standardized lies, so I invented my power perspective, and it works for me, so my answer is to say that my answer is competitive, demonstrably competitive, and my answer is that the power to consume the water is gained by someone, an individual, and the power to exclude other people from consuming the water will be gained by that individual, so where does the concept of "rights" fit in?

If you drill a well and you consume water and I drill a well diagonally or a well that taps into the same underground source of water, and I pump all the water out of that source, and you then have none, or I pump in a poison, such as fluoride, then I am excluding you from consuming water and/or consuming water without poison added to it by me, I am creating law without morals, I am legalizing my crimes, because that is what I do in fact.

You can call it water rights I suppose.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------
"I think public is something that all people are invited to access. Private is something that does not include access to all people. I think that is simple."
That is nonsense.
---------------------------
Why is it nonsense?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do all the people invite all the people? If such an event occurred, anywhere, then you could demonstrate such an event as having happened once, or if it is happening now, then you can demonstrate it happening now. Unless I misunderstand what you mean, that which you write, is nonsense.

If public is: "all people are invited to access", then who does the inviting?

"So were is a public drinking fountain?"

I know of no such thing, not until I know what you man by Public.

"But, just because criminals took people’s lives at Waco, does not mean that they didn’t have their own water, oh, but I suppose the criminals might of turned the water off? Or stopped up the well."

I don't remember exactly but I think one of the dead victims (human beings) fell into the water tank after being shot up by a gunner on a Helicopter. That may be completely wrong, but the case of Waco does exemplify something significant in human history here in this thing called America.

Rights?

"But even if all water is public, how will that ever keep criminals from stealing what is public?"

When I do figure out what you mean by "public", then I can discuss that topic with you.

"To me, the problem is not whether something is public or private or who owns what. The problem is people with evil in their hearts and that evil not being checked and allowed to run rampant."

So why does this concept of "rights" persist?

Why does this concept of "public" persist?

If you see nothing in it, and I don't see anything in it, what is it?

"What if everyone acted that way? Would it matter who owned what?"

What do you mean by "owned"?

Joe