Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 27, 2013, 8:33 a.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

68 Comments

68 Comments


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

the debt is a scam

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

Yes, it is...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - I mean - consider for a moment. Who is owed that money ( national debt )? The Public/People - Right? Ummm if we ( The People ) were to treat it like wallstreet treats their just issued instruments ( not matured ) as trillions of dollars of cash/profits - should not every single USA citizen be rich off the National Debt? Filthy rich just off of the interest that is piling up. Hey - Guy's(?) stop sending me bills - take it out of some of my interest in the national debt.

Umm and really(?) poor and homeless people? Really? National Debt = some odd 16 trillion dollars? That money is owed to the public? Right? 16 trillion divided by 300,000,000 ? Wow I am thinking that this country is really treating it's wealthy individuals ( the public ) pretty poorly when each has so much wealth/value/worth and yet are out on the street and starving and not getting proper medical care...........................................

I mean our money has been loaned out - this loaned money is collecting interest - collecting interest for who? The Public.

Ummm paradox much?

How can you charge the public interest - if the public is the one who is owed?

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

The corporate takeover of government has allowed banks to not only rob the people with legislation like the GLB Act which let speculators steal and gamble with personal investments, but also later let them comepletely loot the treasury with bullshit like TARP and monetary policy which no one even attempts to actually discuss.

Our monetary policy is literally based on creating trillions out of nothing and then giving it to banks and corporations. One of the earlier forms of "trickle down" theory.

Where did the banks get the trillions in the first place? Where did those trillions come from? Simple questions most people seem to just blow off.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Whole hell of a lot of smoke and mirrors.

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

Shouldn't we be talking about guns?

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

I gotcha. Hold up.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ummmm not sure - caulking? They have been improved a bit since I 1st used one - real easy to lay an even bead. Squirt? I really like the amount of water carried and the distance it will travel to soak someone - still I think that the main design is awfully cheap - I think they could be a much higher quality.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2503) 1 year ago

If you don't pay it they will take everything you own and ruin your life...with interest. Ironic

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

All that is not privately owned/earned is owned by the public - so it is laid out.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

In a perfect world - there would be no concern over ownership.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not a problem - it is a process - continuous improvement process - you and I may be dust before society/humanity comes close - but - operating on a continuous process improvement program for all phases of society for all phases of the individual - over time - everything will be so much better then it is now as time goes by.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah - that is kind of a given - if the continuous improvement process were to be undertaken.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So? what? Time and long past for an overall continuous improvement program - don't ya think?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

At what other time in history - has the world been so small - at what other point in history have we had the technology to make abundant clean cheap energy - at what other point in history did we have the technology and ability to plant enough crops to feed the worlds population???????

All this and more - we have never had the abilities that we have at our disposal - right now. This is all due to growth struggle advancement.

Now is the 1st time in history when we really do not need to have strife for resources - food or otherwise.

You don't think that now would be a good 1st moment in history to promote peace?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You obviously overlooked the part where I said it likely that you and I would be dust before society came close to perfection. But even that taken into consideration - if a target is never set and aimed for - it damn well will never be hit.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BTW - I would not be surprised if pigs have flown before - airlines.

Seems the problem you need to work on solving is your negativity.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I think so. First, Glass Steagall has to be be passed, to eliminate the vast fictitious debt existing in the system. Then a national bank would be created to finance large scale infrastructure development, providing good jobs to millions, and creating facilitates that would generate the revenue to pay themselves off for decades, if not centuries, to come.

Such infrastructure construction would also require the development of many small to midsized private manufacturing firms to provide the products and materials that would be needed.

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

" Well, it is not the peoples fault that there is poor/ mismanagment in government spending.. "

100+ years of hiring the same criminal parties to manage the country has some interesting side effects.

[-] 1 points by cell81 (29) 1 year ago

That is an awesome idea! I agree with this. I do think that the private sector should maintain it relevance and see this as fair and much needed competition. The government should see this as a way to enforce its own independence on job growth.
We need people that can entice the government to invest in them. There would most likely have to be limited funds and work done out of goodwill. But we need people to believe in what they are doing and someone or something backing them. The government is a good place to start. If they fail it would just be like are student loans.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2503) 1 year ago

I love the basis of this argument though I think there needs to be mandated budget balancing like paygo your argument is entirely valid private entities doing the work of government is rife with corruption and not in the interest or welfare of the people unfortunately under the law these corporations are considered people there is another argument against that I think that they are separate under the law we can not be separate and equal and they either have the same rules or the government is segregating and descriminating against non corporate persons.

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

Amending the Constitution will require an Article V convention be called. Congress refuses to do so, in clear violation of their Constitutional duty. If you are serious about compelling Congress to call an Article V convention, perhaps you'll be interested in the following...

From a Constitutional perspective, we are experiencing a breakdown in representation at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists.

This issue is basic to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

The democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.

The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited duties, powers and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement between Americans, individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, local elections serve to elect local citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business.

Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.

But there can be no meaningful consent absent an equal ability to withhold that consent, to dissent...

If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any American withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as voting is the only Constitutional means of determining the people's intent and political will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that an American withholding their consent casts a vote against all candidates for office.

Individually this is political dissent in the only poll that counts -- our ballot box. Collectively it becomes American democracy -- an expression of our free intent and political will.

And its practical effect? All Representatives are elected locally, in Congressional districts, and the entire House of Representatives stands for election every two years. By withdrawing our consent, a plurality of Americans can present a lame-duck Congress with an undeniable Constitutional crisis, if we keep the next House of Representatives from seating a quorum come January.

Although there is no precedent, a Constitutionally logical course of action is that Congress immediately call an Article V Convention. Thus, perhaps this ought be the direct Constitutional object of our withdrawal of consent in a general election -- calling an Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

As far as linking our withdrawal of consent at the polls with calling an Article V convention, what else can we do Constitutionally speaking? This is not a rhetorical question.

An Article V convention is our means of amending the Constitution that neither Congress, Court or President can control. Any amendment proposed by the convention must be ratified by a majority of voters in thirty-seven (3/4s) states. Because we elect all delegates to the convention and must ratify any amendment the convention proposes before it becomes Constitutional law, we democratically control the process. Needless to say, it scares the hell out of the rich, right and politicians.

In Walker v. Congress, the Supreme Court held that Congress' continuing refusal to call an Article V convention was a political question and refused to rule, even though plaintiffs proved sufficient state applications had been tendered and that Article V's plain language, "shall call", left no doubt that Congress refuses to fulfill its Constitutional duty.

Constitutionally, the only democratic way to compel politicians is in the voting booth, and the Supreme Court ruled this a political question...

We are the governed. All legitimate governance arises from our consent to be governed. We have the power to say no under our Constitution, to withdraw our consent to be governed by a corrupt political order.

If not, government of the people, for the people and by the people no longer exists, if ever it did. The republic has fallen and our Constitution is myth. We have no rights or liberty, only privileges easily revoked and votes worth nothing... Nothing beyond that which money can buy.

DSams

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

Why do we need a convention to change the constitution?

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

It's the means the founders wrote into the Constitution in order to change the Constitution from time to time in response to changing political conditions.

[Deleted]

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

You're welcome.

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

Some truth you may find valuable:


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.

We even have a warning directly from James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” concerning the inadvisability of calling for a constitutional convention. When the states of New York and Virginia formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Madison wrote a letter in 1788 in which 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.
For the purposes of house representation, women are counted as 3/5.
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?

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


and the full story that does not rely on alec BS:


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


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

Why not these instead?

Some possible Amendments to come from an Article V Convention :

The Separation of Wealth and State

Popular election of President (elimination of Electoral College)

Jury nullification

No corporate personhood

Money is not free speech

Corporate and financial regulation and prosecution

Public financing of elections / NotA

Privacy

Environmental conservancy / sustainability

Free college tuition

Single payer national healthcare

Violations of public trust (by elected and appointed officials)

Dismantle the National Security State

Reaffirmation of the Bill of Rights

[Deleted]

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

Nebraska 1,855,525
West Virginia 1,855,413
Idaho 1,595,728
Hawaii 1,392,313
Maine 1,329,192
New Hampshire 1,320,718
Rhode Island 1,050,292
Montana 1,005,141
Delaware 917,092
South Dakota 833,354
Alaska 731,449
North Dakota 699,628
Vermont 626,011
Wyoming 576,412

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

Truth? Most times I've heard people claim truth, it's been BS.

As far as the right-wing wanting an Article V convention: The conservatives, neocons, and Tea Party supporters with whom I have a correspondence sure don't. They are convinced Soros is funding exactly the same thing on the left and that godless commies (disguised as mere socialists) are coming for their guns, land and women. They even cite the same sources.

Couldn't be propaganda. Nah, not with a corporate mainstream media committed to truth, justice and the American Way... We've got three cable news networks -- left, right and center, take your pick -- and talk radio to tell us what we need to know. Why do you think it's the twin party? Do you have any idea what we actually face? ALEC is the least of our worries. Everything is organized to keep us from uniting -- including some posters here. I'm not the smartest guy on the planet, but geez, guys, its been almost eighteen months since OWS woke you up -- get a fucking clue.

Working in the two party system is a dead end. The Democratic and Republican parties are run for and by the corporate and financial elite. If you want to know the "truth" of the matter, try reading the BS they feed the other guys' -- it sounds remarkably like the BS they feed you... as they funnel you into a tyranny of 501c3s.

Pervasive civic ignorance is indeed a well founded fear.

Well hell, both the left and the right dislike this -- must be doing something right. We need a little more democracy around here. But I'd rather have a lot.

Unfortunately real democracy takes work -- you have to think clearly and vote. And in a spinning, classified, national security state truth isn't hard to come by... just tune in.

Tell you what, let's make this deal; you vote your conscience and I'll vote mine.

P.S.: It's good to see ya'll got the talking points down.

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

"They are convinced Soros is funding exactly the same thing on the left "
and your proof of this is?
Are these the same people who believe in creationism & Obama is a Muslim

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

Are you on the left? Are you planning to amend the Constitution? Are you associated with Occupy? Many on the right believe Soros funds Occupy hence: They are convinced Soros is funding exactly the same thing on the left.

And yes, some of them do believe in creationism and the muslim thing. But frankly, that's not too much worse than some of the thoughts I've seen posted here.

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

"Many on the right believe Soros funds Occupy hence"
it must be true!
I always believe what I'm told by lying idiots.

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

Never said it was true, merely that they believed it.

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

You cant handle the truth-


ALEC and the Article V Convention

So how does ALEC fit in this picture? We know ALEC is interested in inserting the states into the amendment process because they have proposed resolutions to rewrite Article V to that effect. ALEC has passed three separate resolutions re-interpreting Article V so as to circumvent Congress and to allow the States to call a convention or propose amendments directly. The first resolution implies that the U.S. Constitution can be amended in such a way as to give "two thirds of the states the explicit right to propose amendments without having to obtain the consent of Congress." The second resolution proposes an amendment "allowing the states to call a limited convention." The third resolution proposes an actual amendment allowing states to propose amendments which "are valid for all intents and purposes two years after they are submitted to Congress." It is important to note that these resolutions are not “model bills” to be passed by State legislatures … these are attempts to mess with the U.S. Constitution!

In its handbook ALEC is telling its members that state legislatures can amend the Constitution “by calling an Article V convention of the states." Under current law, the state legislatures must apply to Congress under Article V and have Congress call a convention to propose any amendment. The ALEC intent seems to be to alter the balance of power between the federal and State governments. Given the corporate sponsorship and involvement with ALEC, this is nothing less than corporate invasion of the federal realm!


go here
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/12/1097380/-ALEC-on-Article-V-Conventions
then click on the orange "handbook"
to goto the alec site & view the alec convention manual


You cant handle the truth


http://www.alec.org/docs/ArticleVHandbook.pdf


[Deleted]

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

Virtually every member of congress "takes" millions from non-voters
There is NO leagalized method for appointing delegates
Imagine scott walker & rick scott & jindall & kasich appointing their state delegates - as ordered by the kochs & alec


If there is constitutional problem - pass an amendment in accordance with Article V with no convention.

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

You think the problem will be solved by Congress proposing an amendment? "[E]very member of Congress tak[ing] millions from non-voters" will switch their spots tomorrow and suddenly do the right thing, just because...

What you propose is not equal to the task we face.

Delegates are not appointed. Delegates are elected just like Congressmen, by Congressional district.

Moreover you, apparently like ALEC, wish to change the Constitution without public involvement. Without democratic involvement. Imagine that. What's the difference between your people and their people. You're right and they're wrong -- is that it?

I also note that you protest judicial over-reach. Bravo. So why is it that you cite prominent justices, those guardians of judicial power with whom you so markedly disagree about corporate rights, to argue against an Article V convention simply because the government cannot control it.

That is precisely the point of an Article V convention. Democratically speaking, a convention is exactly what we need because it has the power to do what is necessary and cannot be stopped or controlled by the government. The point is we, the people control a convention democratically by electing its delegates and ratifying (or not) any amendments the convention proposes.

This is the best and most democratic means we have of throwing off a corrupt political order. It is the most likely means of getting money out of politics and ending the twin-party farce.

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

"Delegates are not appointed. Delegates are elected just like Congressmen, by Congressional district."
Where does the constitution state that?


"Moreover you, apparently like ALEC, wish to change the Constitution without public involvement."
since you are lying about ME - can I call you a LIAR?


"argue against an Article V convention simply because the government cannot control it."
I argue against it because it will be controlled by the likes of alec
http://www.alec.org/docs/ArticleVHandbook.pdf
the manual alec sent to every legislator in every state


"The point is we, the people control a convention democratically by electing its delegates and ratifying (or not) any amendments the convention proposes."
where does the constitution say that?

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

Describe, exactly, what you hope to accomplish. Please address both the substantive (amendment) and process (Constitutional means). Include as much detail as you wish, but please explain your plan throughly with an emphasis on both its democratic aspects and control of process (and specifically who will control the process).

Turn off your lines and caps and bold -- character formatting adds nothing to the discussion and argument.

ALEC, the right-wing, and the corporate-financial elite want to amend with a balanced budget provision. ALEC is simply a front group, much the same as the old DLC from the Bush-Clinton years that pushed corporate globalization. (Al was a member too.) At this point globalization is pretty much complete, insofar as transferring productive capacity from the US to low wage countries is concerned.

The next step is to lower US wages significantly by dramatically increasing the number of unemployed and under-employed while also effectively removing the social safety net. That is the point of ALEC's balanced budget amendment -- it will make it possible to strangle social spending. Meanwhile our very own Manichean devil, al-Qaeda and terrorism, will provide the excuse to maintain extremely high levels of military, police and prison spending as well as continued suppression of civil liberty.

The social unrest this economic dislocation and suppression of civil liberty will cause, will in turn provide the government with an excuse for instituting martial law in order to prevent domestic terrorism. A "terrorist" incident or attack will precede imposition. Civil liberties will soon be non-existant, the internet censored and travel restricted. Surveillance, fueled by unlimited computing power, cheap cameras and drones, and self-righteous patriotism, will become (is already) ubiquitous.

What you do not understand is that we lost at the Watergate and Church hearings, and again at the Iran-Contra hearings. The Ds and moderate Rs rolled over and the chickenhawks and greedy bastards took over. The "truth" of this can be found in the thrift and Savings and Loan bailouts, the first M&A and greenmail scandals... not to mention the scapegoating and rehabilitation of Richard Nixon. You need to look at the roots of this thing.

Soros is the bugaboo for the right. Koch brothers for the left. They feed a rumor mill, a propaganda machine, and you and I live in a hall of mirrors. Cui bono.

The most likely avenue for ALEC's balanced budget amendment is that after well-publicised lobbying by "conservative and moderate' governors, Congress itself proposes the amendment. Since it poses a threat to their power, Congress will not call an Article V convention under any circumstances. They can still be bought, but Ds will have to roll over, yet again, to make it happen. What are the odds?

We will not prevail without both great numbers and great risk.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 1 year ago

Correct-Congress will not call an Article V convention under any circumstances.

Meaning alec is a double fraud. If congress would, alec would work for unconstitutional amendment.

This petition we are working on can show that, IF enough people understand the test.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/975/440/does-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

If alec was sincere, they would be all over preparatory amendment, because it assures constitutional intent. Testing them in this way hones the publics ability to know constitutional intent.

alec is posturing to make people afraid of Article V.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

What is Bensdad not 'telling us the whole truth' about now?

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

Better yet, is that not the pot calling the kettle or what?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I kinda thought so but felt I should ask to see if they could verbalize anything logically.

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

Imagine that...

[Deleted]

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

"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." -- Copernicus

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

All of my answers, and answers by Chomsky, Sanders, Ron Paul, Udall, Kucinich, Reich etc are there too - around 200 names all together
plus polls that show 80% support
but polls don't prove anything
ask Nate Silver

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

Are you afraid to answer my questions?
Do you know the answers?


since you have difficulty with formatting:


"Delegates are not appointed. Delegates are elected just like Congressmen, by Congressional district." Where does the constitution state that?

"Moreover you, apparently like ALEC, wish to change the Constitution without public involvement." since you are lying about ME - can I call you a LIAR?

"The point is we, the people control a convention democratically by electing its delegates and ratifying (or not) any amendments the convention proposes." where does the constitution say that?

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

http://www.foa5c.org/

Since you are unable to describe succinctly what you intend, its difficult to understand what it is, exactly, that you hope to accomplish.

And further, since you persist in personal insults, refer to the above web site for your answers...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You think the problem will be solved by Congress proposing an amendment? "[E]very member of Congress tak[ing] millions from non-voters" will switch their spots tomorrow and suddenly do the right thing, just because...

No if they don't support a proper change = removal of corpoRAT person hood. Then they just volunteered to be removed from office ASAP.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Boil it down a bit - you will find it more receptive - others will find it more concise.

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

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.

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

"Well hell, both the left and the right dislike this -- must be doing something right."

Hey, that's the result of critical thinking!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

ALEC provide you with that comment? opt out idiot.

[Deleted]

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

Thanks for your kind reply.

If "[u]nfortunately, we do not have vast numbers", I suggest we change that first, if we expect to change anything else.

I am aware of the Constitution's origins, as well as the founders' concern and pains to contain "mobocracy". Read much John Locke?

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

The employment needs of most citizens has been placed at the mercy of a corporate owned state.The general welfare clause has nothing to do with an individuals own economic wellbeing.This is a false interpetation .No court has ever found that it's intent was to provide an elevated lifestyle.Again another off topic issue that has nothing to do with Ocupy.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Look,the Government/Constitution was never designed or envisioned or planned on by our Founding Fathers to be a provider of employment and "general welfare" for all Americans. There is no such thing as cradle to grave Government//tax payer funded security of the entire American population up to and including illegal Aliens.

You're contriving a premise that never existed.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

" the people never fought the revolution for fairness or equality"

Exactly right. Our Ancestors didn't fight the war for "fairness or equality". No they fought for religious freedom, freedom from tyranny and taxation without representation. They fought because they no longer wanted to be subjected to or be subjects of the tyranny of the British Empire.

Nobody back then conceived of the notion of Government caregiving and National Nanny care. These concepts either weren't conceived yet or not very popular back then.

You're trying to push a concept that is ridiculous by nature and not born of any reality or thoughtful consideration,but only a perversion of the Constitution..

Whomever tries this concept nationally in the world has proven that it is a failure and is paying the price,...Europe comes to mind.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Sorry pal,that's not how things work.

We DO all have a right to "survive". But not at the expenses of others.

How much is a minimum "living wage allowance"??

In dollars per hour?? How much is your minimum??

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Actually no. People are payed a wage to perform work,this isn't the 1800's anymore.

Where did you come up with this premise TrevorMnemonic??

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

"It is time we put a limit on just how much the greedy can take"

"keep in mind this still does not limit anyones total accumulation"

Apparently you're conflicted,....among other things.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Trev,you are a inconsistent and conflicted and your method is madness. I did re-post your own words just to show you that there are glaring and fundamental flaws with your premise. No offense.

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

how is a living wage "at the expense of others"?

Isn't profiting off outsourced slave labor the real expense of others? That slave labor is then used to decrease wages here.

You got this whole thing backwards.

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

TrevorMnemonicProblemSolver, Why don't you answer my question ?

The one I asked first,and then we'll continue.

How much is a minimum "living wage allowance"?? In dollars per hour?? How much is your minimum??

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

You going to answer my question?

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

it would need to be analyzed every year to adjust to CPI/inflation etc.

I think as of now it should be 12 to 16.

10 is the lowest suggestion from the catching up to 1968 act.

[Deleted]

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

there's a lot that needs to go into the evaluation, which is why I mention it needs to be analyzed every year. You can look into how they determined it in the "catching up to 1968 act of 2012."

I said 12 to 16 because that is what I need to maintain a healthy 2013 living standard.

Currently I make 14 an hour at 25 years of age. I also have my own side business in video which brings in some extra cash as well. At this rate I contribute to the economy, pay taxes, and have a healthy living standard.

personally I think profit share needs to be a factor.

edit - should add that I and many people in this range are only one medical crisis away from being insanely in debt.

I'd rather have monetary policy used for health care instead of giving money to banks and corporations.

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Why not $20?? Wouldn't that be more "living"??

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

What hasn't been outsourced to foreign labor will slowly or even quickly be turned into part time work so they don't have to pay benefits and further create a desperate work force willing to work for less under an employers market. That's right, they're coming for the full time jobs next. Along with stagnant wages you will slowly get pushed closer to the poverty line, or if you're already there, even further below the poverty line due to inflation.

The workers will slowly get crushed, small businesses will crumble under corporate dominance, and the very few will line their pockets like the new world kings.

Have fun supporting this system. Maybe your job will be next.They already killed US manufacturing.

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

And so you believe Obamacare will somehow make this all that much better?? How??

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

lol more assumptions. Also that has nothing to do with my previous comment which you failed to address.

Address it or no more response.

What hasn't been outsourced to foreign labor will slowly or even quickly be turned into part time work so they don't have to pay benefits and further create a desperate work force willing to work for less under an employers market. That's right, they're coming for the full time jobs next. Along with stagnant wages you will slowly get pushed closer to the poverty line, or if you're already there, even further below the poverty line due to inflation.

The workers will slowly get crushed, small businesses will crumble under corporate dominance, and the very few will line their pockets like the new world kings.

Have fun supporting this system. Maybe your job will be next.They already killed US manufacturing.