Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: aint privitization the goal of all good republiclans?

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 9, 2013, 7:43 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

163 Comments

163 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The Dems do NOT get a free pass. They do NOT.

They bank on the privatization of education and medical care. We aren't dealing with a bunch of innocent bystanders here.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Con refusal to allow Dem USPS corrective bills (and many, many others) to even come to floor, thwart Dem heroics. Con obstruction and filibustering are setting human history records! Nevermind US Government!

Pouting Newbies in 2010 allowed the current Con majority in the House and lack of a Super majority in the Senate, not to mention the damaging Teabag invasions in State governments. So while Dems still remain imperfect, with our lowest Voter turnout and mindless petulant loyalty, I think it's the American Electorate who get's their "Free Pass" and "innocent bystanders" privileges revoked! But cred deserved over last election bullet dodge.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407

It was cosponsered by two Democrats and passed the senate unanimously in 2006.

I was actually trying to dig up old information on it and came across this little post here on Democratic Underground. Click on the links. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022335782

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

And your point is: Something is better than nothing?

Look--there are only two roads to take here. The Bill was passed in 2006 and either a hell of a lot of Democrats are feigning innocence or stupidity. Be aware enough to hold these people accountable as well. If you choose not to hold these people accountable than you have given them the approval to do this again.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Something IS better than nothing! Ever been hungry?

And:

Lesser evil IS better than greater evil (in fact it's our only choice), especially when the greater is the America-, democracy-, women-, labor- Hating GOP!

And perfection only exists in lies and delusion. Not I, politics or democracy are perfect, and even the intrinsically evil nature of Cons is sometimes spoiled by goodness. It's a messy world. Full of exceptions and contradictions, nuances, grey areas, defectors and Blue Dogs.

But exceptions do not make the rules!

You seem to believe that Dems are responsible for the poison pill USPS legislation that forces them to fund a pension 75 years into the future for employees that have yet to be born (can someone explain how this wasn't laughed out of our Capitol?). My research says otherwise. Thom Hartmann, Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes, Bill Press, Norman Goldman and all of the several authors I've provided links to unanimously blame RepubliCons for the war on the Post Office. If you can prove it was Dems, not Cons, I'm all ears, and I will wage war on the lying bastards who misinformed me.

Hell hath no fury like the wrath of a lied to Progressive, Liberal Dem by PLDs.

Oh, and in 2006 Cons still controlled Congress, they pushed through a lot of crap having lost the election, probably to get even with Clinton. Unlike Dems, Cons have no problem with totalitarian appearances and procedures.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I gave you the bill. It was cosponsered by two Dems and two Republicans from 2006. There were prior attempts that had been made. And that's it. That gives one of two roads to take: feigning innocence or stupidity. Neither of them fly.

No need to spin shit. Really.

What you need in order to make your case are the dirty tactics used by Issa. Not Thom Hartmann, Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes or Bill Press.

Even so, Issa comes later. We posted information about his tactics over a year ago. You can locate ALEC and all of the info on FedEX as well.

Something IS better than nothing! Ever been hungry?

And you play right into their hands. They give you crumbs and you act satisfied.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

But: Are we assuming you deny all the references I have claimed?

OK, in 2006 there were more than 2 Blue Dogs. Is that your PROOF?

This "prior attempt" what do you mean and what proof do you have?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be extrapolating! I saw no language like you have presented. Is this an assumption? Or did you reach this conclusion with more substantial information?

And is this not just an attempt to implicate both EVIL AND PURCHASED parties?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

lolwut? HR 22 failed.

H.R. 6407 Passed the senate unanimously and no recorded vote. This is what we know for sure: the guilty crew

See, lemme explain to you how this works. You don't wanna record your votes? Every single one of you is guilty. Every single one.

A cop pulls you and three friends over in your car and there is a quarter bag under the seat. Nobody claims it and every single one of you will probably go to jail.

Now, last year or year before Issa concocts a website geared towards the destruction of USPS. We know FedEx and UPS are tied to ALEC. You see, ALEC is pretty easy to catch. If you read the business sections then you find the contracts and deals. They don't lie, they are fucking you and they make no bones about it. They tell you they are writing the legislation and that they are focusing on states. Now, Heritage Foundation, Cato etc. spin the numbers and provide the arguments. They are laughing at you while they do it. When they get popped they cry, quit and morph.

So, ya both parties are pretty fucking evil, doncha think? You need to know these people by NAME and if it is possible then you want to know who works under them because there is a revolving door issue. I'm going to tell you point blank this is also why I didn't care for Rocky Anderson. He reinvents himself----nothing else really changes.

Now look at UPS and look at FedEx and look at current/past relationships.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2413) 1 year ago

Yes it's easier to hide corruption and steal taxpayer money when it can't be audited and the public has no rights to review the financial records. Not to say that corruption doesn't happen in the public sector it's rampant, but at least we know about it; when it goes private you'll still be paying out the ass but will get even less for your money and won't have the right to investigate.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

What drives me crazy is that most of the bribery is LEGAL

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

tells us how the military works Bradley

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Unions & Dems against prison privatization. Only profit over people repubs and their corp pupetmasters support prison privatization.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130211/OPINION01/130219920

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

how many privatized troops are in Afghanistan? They call them private security contractors or something like that. KBR gets a lot of work out there too.

What does black water go by now a days?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Where I am the Republicans are largely anti-privatization while those in power as Dems are actively pursuing it at every opportunity.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

where & how

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

They've privatized various aspects of county government. And now they are selling "assets."

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Near me they've privatized various aspects of county government,
and are eating it

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Yes. The republicans want to cut government pgms (privatize) because the private sector will immediately cut off service for the lowest income (minorities) in the name of profits. And that is right wing ulterior motives for cutting govt pgms. In the case of the Post office specifically it is busting a large powerful fed union.

[-] -1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

Post office owns lots of prime real estate.Wonder if Issa will get his mitts on any of that?It will be intresting to see who ends up with the people's land.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we communicate electronically these days

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

this is old but

This is a tread to organize forum Topics by category

Please do not respond to posts here. Follow the link to the thread and post there.

I've been collecting and organizing thread heads. Each thread head post has a link to thread on this forum so some threads have been ordered and can be brought back up.

The Protest

The Issues

.

general catch all

detractors



discuss Fed, bank and well street issues The Economy



markdown

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Yes, I know you do this. I hope you get some sort of compensation for your tedious and concentrated efforts. It's very impressive.

But...

The Post Office provides many invaluable services to many people. And not everybody only communicates electronically, or can.

National Super High Speed Internet would be great! This and many other goals are reachable on the path of progress, unfortunately we have deliberate GOP obstructions holding us back. Remove the GOP obstructions, not the Post Office!!

Again, good work on your archive. Suggestion: Include a section on posters who pretend to be sympathetic to OWS goals, but are frauds who come on this Forum to diffuse and mislead (sabotage) real change.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

A vote for Obama or Romeny is a vote for tyranny...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000081

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

ONE party was the primary force to privatize prisons
ONE party was the primary force to privatize the army
ONE party was the primary force to privatize the post office
ONE party was the primary force to privatize the schools


remind me -
WHICH ONE party was that ???

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

While it may indeed be the Republicans who are the "priamary force to privatize prisons"

The bureaucracies that benefit, and cruely sends many non violent youths to be incarcerated in those public and private prisons is bipartisan

In the prison industrial complex, the 'iron triangle' is a term used for the intertwining financial, and political interests of bureaucracy...private business, and politicians

The common denominator they all have is $$$

And that same dynamic which distorts social policy is present in most other domestic, as well as foreign policy programs

Since both parties feed at the corporate/banking troth

Both are to blame for the sorry state of affairs we are in

~Odin~

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

And who is introducing a constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate personhood & citizens united?
This is the first step to disconnect the 1% from our democracy

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Tell me bensdad, why is it that things have gotten progressively worse over the last thirty plus years? Keep in mind that our decline has happened through both Republican and Democratic adminisrations, and majorities in the House, and/or Senate.

Your near constant crusade to make this a partisan battle is tiring, and it shows a lack of understanding of how we got to this point, and how we can get out of it. I suggest listening to the three hour CSpan interview that Chris Hedges did for starters, or looking into what the people of Iceland have done.

We are in a crisis situation, and our oppressors will not let their power over us slip away through traditional politics. They simply have too much to lose to let that happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zotYU21qcU

~Odin~

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Tell me bensdad, why is it that things have gotten progressively worse over the last thirty plus years? I'll answer your question - do you have the corage to answer mine? The Rs, since the 1971 Powell memo have very successfully made GREED our prime directive.
And the Ds have let them get away with it.
Now its your turn to answer my question. And who is introducing a constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate personhood & citizens united? This is the first step to disconnect the 1% from our democracy


And what, specifically, is your path to a solution?

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yaah bensdad we agree on something! "The Rs [Republicans]....have very successfully made GREED our [their] primary objective. And the Ds [Democrats] have let them get away with it." The question is now why?

OK, now considering the 99%'s slide down-hill has been going on for over thirty years, can we not deduce from that the Dems have been complicit in our demise?? Then of course we can't forget to factor in that they both have the same benefactors, which closes the door to my case a little further.

Isn't this the "political theatre" that Hedges talks about, and isn't it one of the dynamics that has assisted THEM in advancing their neoliberal agenda on us, their victims? All this while we stupidly thought (me too!) voting Democratic would turn things around. Instead things have gotten steadily worse!

Now to answer your question: "And who is introducing a constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate persondhood & citizens united?" Hmmm, is it the Democrats? Yes of course it is, and this gives you the justification that you need to carry on with your partisan campaign under the OCCUPY WALL STREET banner, right?

Now my question is: How did the neoliberal agenda advance itself in the previous 30 or so years before Citizens United was passed in 2008? Let me help you, and answer that question for you.

It was an army of slick lobbyists who set the stage for the "political theatre" that ensued. The goal was to control the process, and two of the ways that they accomplished this were by setting the stage for the tragic comedy that has had a longer life than "Cats." They were to deepen the divisions between people, and to make people think that they had a democratic process when they didn't.

You may want tickets for the next 'showing', but i don't! And neither do the people that i know who scacrifice so much time and energy in this movement, where none of this is even debated.

~Odin~

BTW, I don't see where courage has anything to do with answering your question

[-] 4 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Our Lowest Voter turnout, lowest Voter knowledge, highest Big$ turnout, rampant election fraud! Elections as we saw in 2010, when mindless petulant newbies pouted instead of Voted, have consequences!!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/frontline-cliffhanger-2010-pouting-chickens-come-h/

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Voter despondency manifests itself in different ways

In the bigger picture, it is not because people didn't vote that we are in the pickle we are in

It is because in the end, we had both parties answering to the call of their 1% backers

It should be our job here to awaken people and make them feel that united, we can make a difference

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

No, there were several million '08 Voters that abstained in '10, ushering in the Teabagging Zombie apocalypse we are suffering with today (Portrayed in the above Frontline link). My hope and goal is we learn from the devastating results of this mindless misguided tantrum and never EVER repeat it! Realizing that perfection only exists in lies and delusion; and "lesser evils" are not anathema as both-samers denounce them as being, especially when the "greater evils" are America-, democracy-, labor-, women-, 99%- Hating RepubliCons! Cons are the political arm of the 1%, Dems are just out gunned. Big Difference!

I'm glad that enough people were not duped this election, dodging that filthy bullet, buying us a little time to make real progress! Unity is my thing but it seems ethereal today; progressive media, instant runoff votes, and better connections to our reps are in need of attention. Information and communication are the keys to progress, but too often we make it to the path of progress only to be stalled out by GOP obstructions. We need to remove these obstructions, and catch up with some serious progress.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

"Duped" is how many people feel after having voted for canidates of either of the two parties, and that is probably why so few people vote

Yes the Dems are better on social issues, but when it comes to anything that might threaten the advancement of the neoliberal agenda ($) in a big way, they give little ground except perhaps for the APPEARANCE of answering to the people's interests. Instead they answer to their $ masters, and that is not us

"...Dems are just out gunned." lol Please wake up! They get their bullets from the same gun dealer, and their guns are not pointed at each other. This has not been the party of the people for over 30 years. Both parties have been conflated into the NEOLIBERAL PARTY! And the differences between them are what keeps us 'busy.'

Having Occupy Wall Street get involved in is the SAME OLD.... the "political theatre" that this rotten system needs for it to thrive is ludicrous

If you define burying the neoliberal agenda with "serious progress".... that will never happen by having OWS in bed with the Dems or Repubs...NEVER!

~Odin~

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Then you, as I have said before, have the right to espouse directives to sabotage the 99%, and I will continue to defy you. You filthy narrow-minded bastard!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

VQkag2...is that you?! "You filthy narrow-minded bastard!" lol That does not sound like a good way to build UNITY, but then again, I never expected that you were here to do that.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

NO!

I'm here to enlighten and divulge.

Not diffuse and mislead!

And unite and win! Never EVER repeating 2010 AGAIN!!

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Most of us have been "enlighten[ed]" about the two parties, and the people who they work for

It seems that you have a bit of catching up to do

And your brand of 'uniting,' "You filthy narrow-minded bastard" seems a bit contrary to what we will need going forward

Your resulting hypocrisy is quite funny though

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Awaken people (voters/non voters) and continue encouraging all groups who re anti war, pro worker and we will slowly see real change and better choices for offices.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yes that's it with the caveat being, the sea change that we so desparately need will only come from people pushing/pressuring from outside the political system

See Montreal....see Iceland....see Sweden and Norway in the early 20th century...etc.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Exactly. Until such time that we have real pro 99% choices for office.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yes, and in the interim, we will see many little victories along the path from a corrupt system that tries to placate us with as little, easily reversible, and/or obfuscating reform as possible

We should not be fooled by this into thinking that they had an epiphany, and are now prepared to let go of the reins that they have on us

They simply have too much to lose to let that happen

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

JailWarch sounds like good "mutual aid" Thank you for your efforts,

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

You're welcome, and Thank You for your efforts too. You are an asset to this forum, and to our cause

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Agreed. (from below)

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Thanks, and building COMMUNITY...being there for each other is essential in our struggle

That is why doing Jail Watch for people who sacrificed their freedom for OUR cause is so important in the Occupy Wall Street COMMUNITY

While I'll humbly admit that I have only done JW once, just before leaving on an early morning bus for home after the #S17 week-end

Having the chance to be there for a traumatized young woman who stood up for her/our beliefs, was by far and away my most rewarding experience in OWS

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Take all success, but only to build on them. And continue all work to expand our coalition of pro 99% groups, Anti war, pro green energy, pro income equity, etc.

Years of hard work, setback & slow progress.

Get ready it gets bumpy from here.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Occupy Wall Street has brought on a feeling of empowerment to many grass-root groups with different goals.... ie. war resistors, xenophobic issues, civil liverties, environmental issues, wealth disparity, etc..... that has been relatively dormant in this country for a long time,

And as that 'feeling' grows so will our UNITY in realizing that we have a common oppressor who perpetuates, and propagates the divides

And as these groups feel more and more emoldened, we will then feel EMPOWERED enough to do something about it

And yes put on your seat belts because we are definitely in for a "bumpy ride from here."

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

JailWarch sounds like good "mutual aid" Thank you for your efforts,

[+] -5 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Lets not make too big of a deal about a handful of people who are actually pushing something, in a party that is over 100 yrs old and has a brutal history of war, corruption and lies...just like their partners in crime across the isle.

It would be much easier to simply get some new people not under the D/R paradigm in there, as opposed to trying to reverse 100+ yrs of corruption.

I mean, with good people attempting to get into Congress outside the paradigm, why even bother trying to reform criminals?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

you think that replacing James Clyburn, Elizabeth Warren, Debbie Wassermna Schultz is a good idea?
I'd rather replace gomert, paul, bachmann
You don think there is a difference? Your info proves that they have the same voting record on all issues?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2125) 1 year ago

Excellent point. I can say both parties have problems, but on the issues they are clearly and obviously on different sides of the political spectrum.

Anyone who tries to say otherwise are probably just trying false equivelency to minimize the failure of 30 years of anti 99% ideology.

[+] -5 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Theres obviously some differences, its a key part of divide and conquer.

Focus on those differences while the march to despotism continues.

And please dont put EW in the same category as Wasserman. Thats a major insult to EW, who actually has a brain.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

DWS supported EW
do you support both?

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think EW has good intentions, but that party is not going to let her do what needs to be done, and obviously she left the Republican party because of that reason to begin with.

DWS is pretty much useless at this point. Just happy to be in the club. Pretty much just a PR person.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

You push stupidity and disengagement which is thousands of years old!

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

That was republicans.

Who also:

  • created indefinite detention,
  • appointed the independent FED chief who create QE1, 2, & 3,
  • Started the drone strike program, and
  • created the health care mandate while defeating the democrat proposed public option.

Just so ya know.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago
  • created by republicans, and appealed for and put back in place by the Obama administration.

  • From Greenspan to Bernanke, both appointed by R's ands D's... neither party has done jack shit for reform on monetary policy.

  • Republicans, Bush administration, started drone program, it was accelerated and used for Americans under Obama administration.

  • health care mandate was pushed by corrupt lobbyists doing everything they could to stop anything that posed a risk to them. They left Kucinich in the dust when he tried to push for public option single payer system. Republicans are proudly anti-health care.

you guys really like to spin. When you going to wake up and smell the Wall Street corruption?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I can smell it. My comment wasn't spin it was truth.

Why do you object? I don't object to your comment. Is yours spin.?

I mean lobbyists did push the mandate but that WAS a republican concept for 20 years, and repubs in congress did push it. In addition it wasn't just the great Kucinich that pushed public option/single payer. Many dems did.

Does that mean you are spinning to make repubs look better (leaving out their mandate support) and minimizing Dems positive efforts (leaving out Dems support for public option)?

What do you have to smell? The truth?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Simply put, I despise the 2 party system that has been manipulated by corporations and banks.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Yeah man, They all suck! Mostly I believe it is corp 1% oligarchs that have screwed us.

but of course I know that repubs who push the anti 99% agenda are the main problem.

Spineless dems who support corp 1% policies are the biggest disappointment but they're getting cleaned out slowly but surely.

Occupy (and other newly emboldened progressiuve groups) is facilitating that 1st priority. Retire the cowards, bring in pro 99% progressives, battle the corp 1% puppet repubs!!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

NDAA of 2013... 98-0

you should check out manufacturing consent, if you haven't read it.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I have thanks.

NDAA indef detention is an obscenity, I support the court case. currently awaiting a ruling I believe.

You do realize that the entire defense bill is not the best measure right?

Are you familiar with the votes specifically for indef detention or only the entire defense budget bill?

Are you familiar with the politicians who have offered any opposition to this violation of our rights?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

war is the enemy of the poor. Any vote for the NDAA is a vote against human rights and a vote against funding education and social programs. The NDAAs have allowed for funneling trillions into the hands of war profiteers. They are abused for acts of imperialism.

Sorry, but I think war is the most atrocious side affect of the corporate take over. It kills hundreds of thousands of civilians. So it is precisely the best judge of character.

"The nation embraces the dangerous delusion that we are on a providential mission to save the rest of the world from itself, to impose our virtues, which we see as superior to all other virtues - on others and that we have a right to do that by force. This belief has corrupted both democrats and republicans." - Chris Hedges

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder the hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Amen!! I agree.

Thank you

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

come on - be nice - no one's perfect
nixon-watergate reagan-Iran-Contra bush-wmds

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

You're right and I recognize that Dems greatest failure is the spinelessness they exhibit when they've supported anti 99% policies.

Fewer are doing so. Our work and the efforts of numerous progressives groups have stiffened Dems up.

We must maintain our pressure. Force any pol to stand up to the anti 99% monied interests.

You are a great example ofthe relentless efforts we should all emulate.

Thanks for that.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

and both have collectively sold us out to Wall Street and war profiteers.

Greenspan and Bernanke. Look up how this financial fraud came about. Who's injecting trillions into wall street fraud? GLB ACT etc.

Please also google TARP, NAFTA

Both parties, funded by oligarchs, have constructed a monetary system solely based on giving trillions to Wall Street and corporations.

Which parties voted to kill american citizens without due process? - BOTH OF THEM

May I suggest reading manufacturing consent?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I never said one party was all good and one party was all bad You dont understand that there is a difference?

ONE party was the primary force to privatize prisons ONE party was the primary force to privatize the army ONE party was the primary force to privatize the post office ONE party was the primary force to privatize the schools

remind me - WHICH ONE party was that ??? Are you afraid to answer those questions?

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

which party ordered the crackdown on Occupy in New York and Oakland?

The republican party sucks balls, and is corrupt to the core. This is no reason to vote for other people who also are corrupt. it is people like you that are the reason the democrats are not more liberal. Every election you flock to the booths voting for the guy on tv instead of the real liberal you either failed to research, or completely deny because you "have to vote for the corporate guy or else"

which party wants to fill the prisons with idiotic and insane drug laws?

Both of them

which parties support monetary policy giving trillions to Wall Street and corporations allowing for the monopoly crushing the working class? Both of them.

Which parties voted for the war in Iraq? Both of them

which parties voted for the war in Afghanistan? Both of them

which parties voted to kill American citizens without due process? both of them

sorry but your argument is invalid. Both parties are corrupt to the fucking core. their voting records prove this.

if you want to push establishment corporate agenda that is the 2 factions of the corporate state, then you are no better than they are.

this is occupy wall street, not democrat blind party allegiance group.

do you even know how this financial collapse and exploitative process got setup? it's been decades of corporate bought politicians in both parties setting up this system. The corporate takeover of government is real, and you're voting for it.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I favor "pushing" an achievable agenda.
Nader will never legalize marijuana - Obama might
Stein will never end DOMA - Obama might


perhaps our most contentious issue - killing Americans wit hout due process
do I need to re mind you that there was a President who was
responsible for killing over 300,000 Americans without due process?

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

TM is a hopeless, dedicated, true believer, Unicorn Chaser... or a covert Con. Either way, he espouses almost entirely abject failure. If he had his way, we'd be faced with a Con WH, only this time on steroids. Deliberate or delusional, does the motive of this dangerous sabotage make any difference??

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

No you favor SSDD.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Super Secret Democrat Demons

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

More bullshit. Obama is on record saying marijuana should be illegal.

This isn't about Nader either.

So you're saying killing Americans and indefinite detention is okay because a different president was also corrupt?

Real reform is achievable. Its people like you that do not support it that are part ofe the problem

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

it's a giant douche and a shit sandwich.

You do understand there are real liberals that run for office? Stop pushing for Wall Street hacks and back the liberals.

Trying to act like people giving billions to Wall Street are on our side is a joke.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

A landlslide Dem vicotry would solve it all. Especially if it was fool proof.

Oh wait, that already happened. In 08. And we got a big shit sandwich.

I dont want anymore shit sandwiches.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

No, it didn't happen, that is straight up RW propaganda! Do you and Rush sext at night!??

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

And one party is allowing 85 billion a month to be yanked out of the system. One party decided that forcing us to purchase stuff from huge corporations was a great idea. One party has decided that indefinitely detaining Americans is OK. One party has decided that killing Americans instead of prosecuting them is OK. Seems to me that we are in some serious trouble when you combine what I just listed with what you just listed.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

This is the age old problem...

...If everyone transcends one’s narrow interests and thinks of various alternatives facing the society solely from the perspective of common good, then it makes perfect sense to argue that, more often than not, what the majority will decide after debate and discussion will be the correct decision from the perspective of social good. But Gandhi realized that given the institutional structure of parliament there was no possibility of such a scenario ever materializing.5 see page 42

http://www.irnc.org/Recherches/Items/Economie/Documents/actes_Bhopal_Schwartzentruber.pdf

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Wow, good point.

Another reason to forget support for partisan politics and instead focus on principles, as in "constitutional intent", as in ART5, you know schills here use ALEC to make a dumbed down public afraid of the only thing that can protect it.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The Existential Danger of an Article V Constitutional Convention ver 4.2

IT CAN DISCARD OUR CONSTITUTION AND
CREATE ONE FROM SCRATCH

ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by [state] Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.


TO CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
( 2/3 of House + 2/3 of Senate ) OR ( 2/3 of State Legislatures )
RATIFICATION OF CON CON PROPOSED & PASSED AMENDMENTS:
( ¾ of State Conventions ) OR ( ¾ of State Legislatures )


This language clearly states that only the Convention itself is authorized to determine the amendments that are to be proposed and what subjects will be addressed in those amendments. During the first 100 years of the Republic, applications for a convention did not try to tell the convention which amendments to propose, that is, they were, as stated in Article V, general applications for a convention.

Early applications, since 1788, properly left the determination of the content of the amendments to the convention. As time passed, the state legislatures lost sight of the clear language and intent of the U.S. Constitution. Later, they attempted to dictate to a convention what amendments it could propose. They did this by stating in their applications that they sought only a limited convention with authority to propose an amendment on a single subject. By issuing single-issue convention applications, legislatures sought to turn the convention into a rubber stamp, which could do only what the applications stated. These unenforceable, unconstitutional limitations defy the intended purpose of the convention, which was to deliberate and decide what amendments to propose. Most recent calls for a con-con has been dressed up as a movement to require Congress to call a convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment requiring a balanced budget; to ban flag burning; to ban abortion…. Topics to which a convention is to be limited are designed to be appealing, but most jurists agree that Congress has no authority to dictate or limit what subjects to address in a convention.

The Article V ratification process was not sufficient to stop the runaway convention which met in 1787. The delegates were specifically called to meet in Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. Yet it did not take the delegates long to assume upon themselves powers they were not given. In fact, they completely discarded the Articles of Confederation and wrote a completely new Constitution – defining the first “runaway convention” - discarding the original document and starting from scratch

The primary argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to propose whatever amendments it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” - exactly like the 1787 Convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened.
U.S. Supreme Court justices and the nation's leading legal scholars have stated that these single-subject limitations cannot be enforced; that if a convention is called, it will be free to propose any kind and number of amendments to the same effect, as if the limitations in the applications did not exist. In other words, although applications are effective, all such limitations must be ignored.

A warning directly from James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” concerning the inadvisability of calling for a constitutional convention. When the states of NY & VA formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Madison wrote that he emphatically warned against convening such a convention: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... An election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans ... [and] would contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the [nation’s] very foundations.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger, vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention wrote on June 22, 1988: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. The 1787 Convention ignored the limit stated by the Confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose”. Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.”

Associate Justice Arthur J Goldberg: "One of the most serious problems Article 5 poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from passing wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups, whose self interest may be contrary to our nations well being"

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe stated that a “Con-Con could not be limited to a single issue. The stakes in this institution are much greater because you are putting the whole Constitution up for grabs. In 1787, there was at least agreement on the direction we should move ... today, we don't even agree what direction we should move. In 1787, America had a treasure of enlightened leaders such as Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson. I don't know how you feel about the current cast of characters." Tribe also noted that a runaway convention could even change the rules of ratification, as the 1787 convention did, and make them ratifiable by national vote or some other method. (The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification by all 13 state legislatures, but delegates at the 1787 convention recognized this might not be accomplished, so they changed the ratification rules to three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions.)

Professor Rex E. Lee, former law school professor and president of Brigham Young University : "In short, if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is 'No', but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is 'Yes'. In our history we have only one experience with a Constitutional Convention, and while the end result was good, the 1787 convention itself was a definite runaway"

Professor Charles Allen Wright, a Professor of Law at the University of Austin. "I feel quite certain that even opening the door to the possibility of a constitutional convention would be a tragedy for the country."

Professor Gunther, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School wrote "The fear that a constitutional convention could become a 'runaway' convention and propose wholesale changes in our Constitution is by no means unfounded. A convention, once called, would be in the same position as the only other convention of this kind that we have had in our history - the 1787 Philadelphia Convention - the first runaway convention."

However, if we use precedent of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, that includes one vote per state, just 14 states – a majority of a quorum [ 26 of 50 states ] is 14 states - representing less than 16,000,000 Americans could write & propose a completely new Constitution!

Some possible Amendments to come from an article V convention :
No one can own a gun.
Evolution cannot be taught.
No corporate tax.
No inheritance tax.
The gold standard.
Labor unions are illegal.
The EPA & FDA & SEC are abolished.
Islam is banned.
Abortion is illegal.
Birth control is illegal.

Some people believe that the ratification process is a check on the insanity.
What if the Democrats, as they are so co-operative [ like they gave up on single-payer ],
agree to cut defense spending by 50%, in exchange for eliminating the inheritance tax & capital gains tax –
how many billionaires would turn this down? They spent over a billion dollars to try to buy the White House. How much would they spend to buy a constitution? There could be as few as 50 delegates, and with the math above only 14 delegates would need to be bribed. At $100,000,000 each, that would be a bargain for koch & alec.

American Legislative Exchange Council & the Koch brothers
Everything, absolutely every fact and opinion stated above –
warning against the inherent dangers of a con-con -
carries the weight of a flea compared to one single item:
ALEC & the Kochs are doing everything in their power to initiate a Constitutional Convention.

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
http://www.alecwatch.org/
http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

That was not a spam request.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

No spam, just wanted you to know who is for this ( alec )
and who is against it ( various SCOTUS Justices )

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

We were aware they are against the constitution, but that's no excuse for you trying to dismiss the only way to defend it.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I'm glad that you know that alec & koch want an article V convention.

How am I "dismissing the only way to defend the constitution" ???

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

You dismiss the right to alter or abolish.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"You dismiss the right to alter or abolish."
I still do not understand

The Article V convention can legally abolish the entire constitution & the bill of rights.
&
There have been 27 altering Amendments already passed via the Article V amendment process - without a convention

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Is an amendment abolishing the constitution, constitutional? All amendments must have constitutional intent according to ART5.

There has never been an ART5. The 27 amendments you mention we're done by congress.

Btw, according to the Declaration of Independence, it is government that is altered or abolished, not the constitution.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

there is nothing in the Constitution's Article V about "constitutional intent"
Is that your personal invention?

The 27 Amendments were not "done by congress"
They were all proposed by 2/3 of congress &
approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures - as stated in Constitution's Article V

FYI- the Declaration of Independence does not govern our country -
the constitution does.


here is Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


Ask any lawyer what this phrase means:
shall be valid to all intents and purposes


AFTER an amendment is proposed & ratified, it shall be valid to all intents and purposes
as a part of the Constitution.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

You keep forgetting to bold the entire clause: "...shall be valid for all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution..."

Thus, in an Article V convention, the Constitution cannot be abolished, merely amended.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Either in a convention, or by the much used amendment process, the entire constitution or any part of it can be abolished - by amendment.


MY EVIDENCE: Consider the 18th Amendment that became part of the constitution when it was ratified. The 21st Amendment, when it was ratified, became part of the constitution & abolished and repealed the 18th Amendment.


So the first line in the "new" amendment COULD state that
"ALL previous amendments are "abolished & repealed" along with the Constitution itself."


[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

GET A GRIP - on the constitution - that never refers to
"preparitory amendment"
or
"constitutional intent"


did you get these silly terms from ALEC's Article V handbook?
or the kochs, or AFP?

I've seen you are unaccountable to consider preparatory amendment and its effect on an ART5 convention. N ow you've said that it could somehow show constitutional intent to abolish the constitution.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

who is bill walker?

From another Article V ding-a-ling: Robert Thorpe:

I do not have the time or energy to pick apart and refute Walker’s entire essay, but for the record, I will site a few notables:

1) Walker states that the ALEC Handbook is "Secret." It is not, and it can be read and downloaded at: www.alec.org/handbook. This is a terrific handbook, required reading for state legislators or anyone who wants to help their state regain and exercise their unused Constitutional Article V authority to propose needed amendments, such as a BBA or congressional term limits.

2) Walker states that Constitutional Scholar and retired Law Professor Robert G. Natelson’s 2010 Goldwater paper was written without once referencing the actual 1787 Convention proceeding vis-à-vis the amendment process. In fact, Natelson’s Goldwater paper references the convention proceedings at least 15 times, including those pertaining to the amendments process.

3) Walker states "Natelson wants a convention ruled by smoke filled rooms setting up, not as he contends, a convention free of the worries of a runaway convention but an actual runaway convention." I personally know and highly admire Robert Natelson, and I am deeply concerned and puzzled why Walker felt the need to publicly demean Natelson’s character, research and scholarship. Unfortunately, if Walker has something meaningful to offer in his essay, it is completely lost to his negativity and incessant sniping. This essay is nothing more than a mean spirited smear job, pure and simple, and Walker owes Natelson and the thousands of ALEC members an apology.

Natelson is a true American patriot who has done some of the most important historic research on Article V and the Founding Era conventions since Russell L. Caplan wrote Constitutional Brinkmanship, including Natelson’s most recent documentation of the minutes from the 12 Founding Era interstate conventions, including the previously only-hypothesized Yorktown Convention.

The state’s use of Article V to propose amendments is but one tool at our disposal, but if used wisely and correctly by the people and states, it has the potential to transform our nation, returning it back to the Constitutional Republic envisioned by our Founders. Natelson and ALEC have created an invaluable, historically grounded Article V handbook that gives our state legislators a historic overview and valuable step-by-step instructions that are sorely needed in order to correctly use their Constitutional authority to propose important amendments that will reform and restrain our federal government.

Instead of helping us regain our lost Federalism and the ideal of government by consent of the governed, Walker’s essay only muddies the waters, pitting patriot against patriot. My black Labs and I agree: far too much barking, and not nearly enough wagging.

Robert J. Thorpe is Co-founder of the Balanced Budget Amendment Taskforce and an Arizona Tea Party Vice President. Thorpe is a former UCLA Ext. instructor, a Constitutional lecturer, researcher and author of "Reclaim Liberty: 3-Step Plan for Restoring our Constitutional Government". Thorpe is a member of a national team of Constitutional scholars, academics, experts, and lawmakers who volunteer their time assisting state legislators by promoting Constitutional education, solutions, and several important amendments including a federal Balanced Budget Amendment.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

In response to more RW bullshit from bensdad....

Full text: http://www.foavc.org/reference/file6.pdf

A Question of Accuracy

What Else Can You Tell Me About The Burger Letter?

By Bill Walker

In an earlier column I discussed questions of authenticity regarding the so-called Burger Letter. Since then FOAVC has conducted further research on the so-called Burger Letter and uncovered additional facts discussed in this column.

The so-called Burger Letter is a one-page letter purportedly written by Supreme Court Justice Warren E. Burger in 1988 at the behest of Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, a conservative political action group. Mrs. Schlafly is best known for her political opposition to the proposed ERA amendment during the 1980’s.

Article V of the Constitution requires Congress call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for a convention call (“on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments”). All 50 state legislatures have submitted over 700 applications for an Article V Convention, nearly twenty times the number of applications required to cause a convention call. Article V limits an Article V Convention only to proposing amendments to the current Constitution (“as part of this Constitution”). An Article V Convention is thus not constitutionally empowered to rewrite or propose a new constitution to replace our current Constitution. Hence, an Article V Convention, authorized by Article V of the Constitution, and a constitutional convention, not authorized by Article V of the Constitution, is two separate and distinct conventions. The former is constitutional. The latter is not.

In the mistaken belief these two bodies are identical, Phyllis Schlafly and other right wing organizations such as the John Birch Society, has opposed an Article V Convention call by Congress despite the fact the terms of Article V requiring such a call have been more than satisfied by state applications. Thus, in assuming this opposition, Phyllis Schlafly and her allies in fact are supporting the veto of the Constitution by the government. These anti-constitutionalist opponents believe current political leaders would use a convention to assume total political power and take away all rights currently enjoyed by Americans by rewriting our current Constitution. They would impose this new constitution on America by simple fiat. They present no proof of their allegations. Indeed, their evidence of this belief is so flimsy they cannot even name a single political leader who has advocated using a convention to achieve political power much less be in a political position to mount a coup d’etat of the Constitution.

There are practical political problems associated with their position. Primarily among them is the fact their opposition has existed for several decades. During this time, both conservative and liberal political leaders have been in power in America. None of these leaders has done, or even suggested doing, what these opponents, such as Phyllis Schlafly, have said they would do if they could call a convention. Based on public record the fact is if these political leaders wanted to use a convention to achieve the political power Schlafly says they would exercise, they could have done it at any time in the past century.

All 50 states have submitted over 700 applications to Congress for an Article V Convention. Only 34 applications are required to compel Congress to call a convention. Therefore, if any political leader was so disposed to use a convention in order to gain political control as charged by opponents to a convention, he could have done any time in the last century. Indeed, as described elsewhere in our FAQs, all of members of Congress are publicly opposed to obeying Article V of the Constitution and calling an Article V Convention. Given these facts, such charges as opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly make, regarding the political ambitions of leaders of this nation in using a convention to assume massive political power are obviously absurd.

The only evidence opponents to the calling of an Article V Convention as authorized under Article V of the United States Constitution have ever produced supporting their position is the so-called Burger Letter said to have been written in 1988. This so-called Burger Letter expresses former Chief Justice Warren E Burger’s supposed opposition to a constitutional convention meaning his opposition to an unconstitutional, unauthorized convention (not authorized under the terms of Article V), which would write a new constitution.

In the mistaken and unsupported belief, an Article V Convention is identical to a constitutional convention; opponents have used this so-called Burger Letter as the centerpiece of their opposition to an Article V Convention. Tom Deweese, an outspoken opponent to an Article V Convention, has referred to the letter as “a major and damming piece of evidence against a call for a Con Con because it verifies our fears that states cold not control the subject matter discussed at the convention.” Deweese ignores the fact that under the terms of Article V, Congress has the exact same power of proposal as an Article V Convention. Regardless of whatever body proposes amendment, the states do not control the subject matter of any amendment proposal discussed. These opponents know this and attempt to confuse the issue by referring to powers of Article V as applying to a constitutional convention, which they know, does not apply because Article V does not allow for a constitutional convention. The Founders knew well the issue of lack of control of agenda when they wrote Article V in 1787. For this reason the Founders gave the states ultimate control of any proposed amendment, be it by Congress or convention-- ratification. Without ratification, no amendment proposal can become part of the Constitution. Hence, regardless of agenda, the states control any amendment proposal by means of public ratification votes.

When examined, the entire public record regarding Burger’s comments about the amendatory process presents several problems associated with the authenticity of so- called Burger Letter. For one, the supposed statements made in the letter do not agree with other public statements made by Burger. Further, different references cite different dates as to when the letter was written. Indeed, the only reference made about the Burger Letter that states Burger wrote the letter in 1988 is from Phyllis Schlafly herself.

Therefore, it cannot be accurately verified Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the letter in 1988.

(continued) http://www.foavc.org/reference/file6.pdf

[-] -3 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I've seen you are unaccountable to consider preparatory amendment and its effect on an ART5 convention. Now you've said that it could somehow show constitutional intent to abolish the constitution. OMG! Get a grip.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Has anyone expressed an interest in supporting your Art 5 plan?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

You mean is there any interest in the framers plan for a republic that can protect its principals? Quite a bit, but people are confused easily with no trusted leadership.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

"the framers"? No, I don't care what that racist, sexist, elitist group of 1% oligarchs thought..

I mean NOW, today. any one express interest?

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Those guys secured the rights of our social contract that are now used in protest,

Can you even stand to defend those rights as the contract secures them?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Please, I believe my rights are inalienable. I did not get my rights from any elitist, racist, sexist oligarch.

Put it aside man. They are long dead. I ain't interested in discussing them.

You wanna discuss privatization as the the post dictates? I'm willing.

The dead oligarchs are unimportant to me.

[-] -2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Your rights are natural law, getting authority to recognize and abide by that is the idea. You are not going to pull that off alone.

Siding with those of the past that got the recognition and obeyance needed is logical because the world knows the quality that is there.

You might not know enough of the past to realize that the framers of the constitution were opposing greater oppression than we know. Logically, their remedy, which made the society that you are of, in it's ideal of freedom, will serve as a starting point.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I'm ok with partnering with the current "living". Building a left wing coalition today is the right medicine. And I think I know history pretty well. Just not interested in it beyond building on it.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Did you know that the framers were working to separate further from those that had signed the Magna Carta?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Whatever. That was last millennium!

[-] -2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

They knew of worse repression than we know. Should we ignore the past and those oppressors? If we do, and they position themselves for control over us, our futures are jeopardized.

What if the last century was a plan hatched a 1,000 years ago? Should we ignore how such things are done? Oppressors loooooove that.

[-] 4 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

NWO? Origins? Cloak?

Wow. Let's get the oligarchs out of power. Take back the peoples govt, and correct the self destructive economic inequity.

The conspiracies will take care of themselves.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

What you suggest, because of the consPiracies, will require ART5, because is the only legal process over the oligarchs.

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

"secrecy"? "oral history"? Are you hearing secret voices that no one else hears.?

Just tell me what secrets have been passed on to you orally. I'm willing to listen.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I just read a lie.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What if everything you believe is bullshit written by creative writers 15 years ago?

There's the more likely scenario.

What if everything you think you know was "mind beamed" into your brain by aliens from Ursa Minor 15 seconds ago?

What if it's HAARP mind control beams, controlled by Bigfoot?

Did you ever think about that?

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Pretty much nonsense. Wanna try again?

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I don't support your ALEC inspired Art5 scheme.

Sorry

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I don't understand. You think there is a 1000 year old conspiracy? You mean like masons, or illumanati?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

"no duty"? What does that mean?

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Officials operate under regulations. To assure government is lawful, officials must; as a requirement, or "duty of office" act in certain ways given certain conditions. In a civil lawsuit, if someone is damaged by an official who has acted as required by regulation in official capacity, they are guilty of non-feasance and therefore liable. When this form of neglect causes physical injury or death, criminal penalty can, theoretically proceed.

This has led top common conduct of intentionally confusing the issue in order to evade duty has become common as a pre-emptive stategy by government.

My point is the WE have a right to alter and abolish. It is logical to assume the constitution errs in favor of itself, as a defense the people can use to preserve the right to alter and abolish. When officials do not accept that, it is unconstitutional. In 1911 2/3 of the states applied fopr an ART5 convention. By default, congress has been unconstitutional since then and for every second of that time had a duty to call a convention.

If "occupy congress" were to take place, and that issue were a theme, with a fresh petition for congress to immediately begin to assemble delegates from the states, respective of 100 years of unlawful deprival, meaning maximum democratic involvement with selection of delegates to be more constitutional.

Then according to those who have learned this about the government and ART5, the last stand of lawful and peaceful revolution must be done by soldiers. They came up with this. I'm still researching it. Scary logical action for a soldier in defense of the constitution from a domestic enemy. If occupy helped America to deal with the need to de traumatize their soldiers and end their fear of command WHEN it comes to defense from domestic enemies.

Occupy needs to clearly define the enemy by using the highest levels of constitutional law upon the highest officials of the land and "invoke their duty", so the soldiers can see the contempt for the constitution if any officials dare display it rather than resign.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I support the movetoamend process.

Good luck.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I do too, but it invokes no duty, it has no direct authority.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I do not believe in your scheme!!! I believe it is the scheme of ALEC who is clearly the enemy of the 99%.

Sorry. Thank you in advance for not pushing this ALEC inspired scheme on me.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

No ALEC here, now comment on the probable effect of the proposals for preparatory amendment that all citizens need to demand BEFORE and ART5 convention. It's assured ALEC will not like these.

End the abridging of free speech

Campaign finance reform

Secure the vote

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Same old song and dance? Just trust ALEC?

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Preparatory amendment to ART5 is the only way to see that amendments have constitutional intent.

Comment on preparatory amendment.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Or we could just focus on current reality. We can get plenty done, and grow our movement just sticking with current reality. (learning & understanding history is fine and important, but the focus MUST be on current reality.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Keeping the past is the first sign of civilization.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (130) 5 days ago Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

[-] -2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Still waiting for comment on preparatory amendment.

Ending the abridging of free speech, reform of Campaign finance, end the diebold vote theft.

All before ART5, to assure it is done right.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

[-] -2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

And the NWO would love that we ignore them and their origins. Their cloak becomes even thicker.

I do agree that decisions effecting the current developing reality are a priority, but am certain that some aspects of the past should control them.

If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you always got.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

How do you feel about privatization?

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12756-the-gops-privatization-pathology

You support that?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

No lie there. You must be confused. Did someone whisper secretly in your ear that there was some lie?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I ain't forgot the past. I learned that the elitest, racists, anti women founders are not perfect. I learned from them that we must govern for the times.

Seems you are forgetting the past. Not me.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I have understood it, not forgotten it.

You never learned it. It is not taught. In fact it is erased. You believe what the elite want you to so unity is prevented.

If this was not true, then you would understand secrecy and how oral histories perpetuate dysfunctional conspiracies.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Comments like that here, on this topic, label you as a cognitive infiltrator.

[+] -5 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

And one party is allowing 85 billion a month to be yanked out of the system.

One party decided that forcing us to purchase stuff from huge corporations was a great idea.

One party has decided that indefinitely detaining Americans is OK.

One party has decided that killing Americans instead of prosecuting them is OK.

Seems to me that we are in some serious trouble when you combine what I just listed with what you just listed.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yes you two have reinforced my belief that both partes stink big time. Thanks

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Good luck on your Unicorn safari!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Thanks

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

They really like asexual non-partisan glitter, so I hear.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

No we are much more fond of learning from the lessons in history

You know, the ones where REAL change was achieved,

And people knew that it could only be done from outside

Even then though, the more placid-like people on the inside thought it was them who were causing the positive changes to occur....

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2072) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

outsider apolitical harmonic-convergence glitter

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Without the "glitter"

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

for some its snakes

for some its spiders

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

One party has decided that indefinitely detaining Americans is OK.
Which ONE party is that?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Both apparently...

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Dems control the Senate and POTUS.

Its time they start being held accountable.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

FYI- this is a tiny part of the multi-thousand section NDAA "approved" by the Senate & the House & the President = both parties
AND the president has publically stated he would never use this
His alternative was to veto the entire NDAA
Honestly, I have not read the whole NDAA, but I think that would be a very bad idea.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Gee, I hope Prez Drone keeps his promise not to use the NDAA, just like he kept his promise to close Gitmo...

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

PLEASE - dont tell me that you believe that it is Obama's fault that Gitmo is still open
how many prisoners has Obama added to Gitmo?

[-] 0 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

None He just kills them with drones.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

It is... It's the one thing there is no doubt that he could have done.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

WOW-
I give up!
I'm not wise enough to know if you are a troll, or ignorant.
You and your "team" have posted so many absurdities!
I give up!

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Don't kid yourself, you're not "wise" at all.

[-] -3 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

still giving the old Lewinsky to Obama and the Dems, aren't you

[+] -7 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

People always tend to take politicians at their word.

And just like the precedent of forcing us to buy from the corporations, who the hell knows what the next POTUS is capable of.

They are already detaining people indefinitely. Its already happening.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Can you name three Americans detained indefinitely under the NDAA?

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Do some research on Jeremy Hammond, and then determine if there may be two more of him in a nation of 300million.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

No indefinite detention
Nothing to do with NDAA
He is a convicted criminal.


In 2005, Hammond was sentenced to one year's probation for misdemeanor battery to a police officer. Hammond accepted a plea agreement where one count each of aggravated battery was reduced, while charges for resisting arrest and misdemeanor reckless conduct were dropped. The Cook County State's Attorney had told Circuit Judge Stanley Sacks that during a protest melee, police intervened when Hammond threw a bottle of "red liquid" (later identified as a plastic Gatorade bottle) at an officer

On December 7, 2006, Hammond was sentenced to two years in federal prison and three years' probation after pleading guilty to charges of breaking into the computer system of the politically conservative website Protest Warrior.

Much more info at Wikipedia

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2125) 1 year ago

Haven't we released half of those in gitmo?

[+] -6 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Who the hell knows. Theres still a ton there. Theres still secret prisons all over the planet.

And activists are still be held here.

With the machine passing and doing teh stuff it has done the last 12 years, it is amazing that anyone would trust them at this point.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2125) 1 year ago

I never trust any politician. But we appear to be keeping pretty good track of the gitmo guys. About 160 left.

Corrupt congressional pols have written laws to prevent release/trials/xfer for gitmo detainees.

The secret detainees are secret so all I can say to that is I'm against it. Besides I believe this Admin prefers killing (drones/cruise missiles/spcl team misions) than detaining, since they claim they don't torture now.

Didn't you see Zero Dark Thirty. Get with it.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

If we socially force the issues you list on the repubs while declaring partisan politics treasonous, we have their actions as evidence. For other reasons, the dems are treasonous. Making it clear that both must go.