|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 18, 2012 15:15:25 GMT -5
For 101 years our first constitutional right has been violated. That violation has lead to the problems the grievances we are trying to assemble describe.
That's a very big grievance because Article V represents the greatest constitutional authority in existence. If redressed properly, we gain an opportunity to see all the rest redressed within an environment capable of doing it.
We need a list because there is a way to be certain it's items are actually redressed. Otherwise it can be seen as simple complaining. Logically our biggest complaint is that due legal process was not followed by congress 101 years ago and that had devastating consequences.
If the government is not called out on this, the problems will continue and few grievances will be redressed. There is no other mechanism of law that puts our will over the federal government. When we control our state legislations, they create the fed.
This is about the right to amend. The right to "alter or abolish" abusive government.
I speak of amendments only to reduce fears of a runaway by showing how Article V can be used to protect its own purposes by preparing the people to use it. Making a more constitutional population by ending the abridging of free speech, by effecting campaign finance reform, by securing voting systems.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 19, 2012 13:54:04 GMT -5
Shame on the unaccountable who voted without explaining their reason for not recognizing Article V as their first right or that it has been violated for 101 years causing all the problems we now know. This is why I conceived of the the Poll_to_Post forum in 2002. I've attached a .pdf summary of the concept. Within that concept, poll responses with no text justifying the response, have no weight unless they are in agreement with responses that have explanations. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 14:49:00 GMT -5
I've responded to this elsewhere, but here goes again.
Every time the states get close to passing an article V for a specific reason, the Congress is compelled to act by passing a Constitutional Amendment by 2/3 vote and sending it to the states for ratification by 3/4 of the legislatures. If the amendment passes, holding an article V convention becomes pointless.
I'm all for using the document we create to pressure states to call for an article V, but I think most of us here see the root of the problem is the conflict of interest created by the influence of money in politics. That is much more concrete and easy to understand, and hence more powerful than some grievance about the process which is going to go over most people's heads and doesn't really fix anything in and of itself.
It's like you're building momentum for this one thing that doesn't seem to have that much support, and can only be used as a vehicle anyway. We don't necessarily need an article V to happen to get where we want to go, we just need to put the pressure on the states and the Congress to make the changes, and we already have a vehicle to do that right here with this document if it's done right, so I don't know why we'd instead use the document to call for another vehicle to be created.
So yeah, it doesn't make sense to me to include this, but as Jon Denn and I have both said, it is part of the strategy to push for an article V...but we don't necessarily need to include it in the main petition to accomplish this...
Also, starting multiple threads on the same topic is a good way to lose the privilege of being able to start new threads. We've already got way more topics than most people are capable of reading through, and we really don't need duplicates.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 19, 2012 20:03:33 GMT -5
I've responded to this elsewhere, but here goes again. Every time the states get close to passing an article V for a specific reason, the Congress is compelled to act by passing a Constitutional Amendment by 2/3 vote and sending it to the states for ratification by 3/4 of the legislatures. If the amendment passes, holding an article V convention becomes pointless. Thank you for posting your concerns Frank. I think I understand what the basis is, and, its easily resolved. Here is Article V. Article VThe 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.Article V has nothing to do with congress amending, at least not within Article V. Congress has used Article V, or the states interest in it when congress is not amending in ways the states demand, as a measure of when they need to amend to avoid an Article V. Such behavior shows how afraid they are of an Article V. Rather than risk the states agreeing by 2/3 that an Article V convention. The fear of Article V is because congress, nor the senate nor the POTUS have any authority whatsoever when 3/4 of the states are ratifying proposed amendments at an Article V. Congress likes the money in politics and have been trying for years to get unlimited finance from corporations passed. The SCOTUS did it for them. II'm all for using the document we create to pressure states to call for an article V, but I think most of us here see the root of the problem is the conflict of interest created by the influence of money in politics. Yes and congress likes it so asking them to end it is not logical. That is much more concrete and easy to understand, and hence more powerful than some grievance about the process which is going to go over most people's heads and doesn't really fix anything in and of itself. The problem is always the first thing to understand, but if the solution is not understood, it might be all over. It's like you're building momentum for this one thing that doesn't seem to have that much support, The PTB have been working for over a hundred years to deprive the public of Article V, meaning the infiltration of social activist groups doesn't support it because they are funded and manned by the PTB. The dumbing down very carefully left Article V out of education. I remember 6th grade, the teacher was embarrassed and said he was told to not talk about that part. Seriously. Others have told me similar stories about our educational system. Here's a man that knows and filed a lawsuit against all members of congress. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEgA video I edited of attendees from the Article V conference at Harvard in the fall of 2011. vimeo.com/31464745and can only be used as a vehicle anyway. Yea, . . . the entire social contract is a vehicle that guarantees rights, freedoms, equality etc. ~May God let us use our first and last constitutional right . . . well~ We don't necessarily need an article V to happen to get where we want to go, Congress has been avoiding Article V for a reason. Also, this is a need, something greater than a want. we just need to put the pressure on the states Now you are talking! State capitals are easier to assemble populations at anyway.and the Congress to make the changes, and we already have a vehicle to do that right here with this document if it's done right, so I don't know why we'd instead use the document to call for another vehicle to be created. Considering the right to petition for redress is a limited vehicle its logical to use for what its worth, some unity. Unity upon grievance and order of issues, equity between states and the peoples priorities. To see the 99% declaration as a preliminary assembly is proper. By law, all it can do is complain. Congress does not have to listen or act. With unity across states THEN we assemble at state capital and show we are the masters of the congress and the courts by using reason to define constitutional intent demanding Article V. So yeah, it doesn't make sense to me to include this, but as Jon Denn and I have both said, it is part of the strategy to push for an article V...but we don't necessarily need to include it in the main petition to accomplish this... True, you can complain without having the problem, solution and authority to address it defined, but please Frank, do not get your expectations up. Also, starting multiple threads on the same topic is a good way to lose the privilege of being able to start new threads. We've already got way more topics than most people are capable of reading through, and we really don't need duplicates. If the polling feature was there when I posted the "Mother of All Grievances" thread, I didn't see it. I noticed the thread about the poll function and immediately made a poll rather than referring offsite to another forum with a polling function. The location of the "poll" option is different than I've seen. A poll is a separate action here whereas with the other forum software it is a function accessed from the thread posting window. The forum currently doesn't have a delete so I couldn't get rid of the first.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 20, 2012 0:15:41 GMT -5
I understand article V perfectly well, and why Congress has always acted before it happens.
You claim it is 100 years overdue. I am saying there has never been a case where Congress did not pass an amendment that was acceptable to 3/4 of the states and thus avoid the need for an Article V convention.
I have laid out a multi-pronged plan that starts the main Petition off dealing with what the consensus seems to indicate most people agree is the most important grievance, and the root of all our other problems: the corrosive influence of special interest money on our democracy, and on our society.
The strategy ALSO includes pressuring states to call for an Article V, but that to me is a TACTIC, not a GRIEVANCE, and I'm guessing that if you poll people and ask if they are aggrieved that an Article V has not been called, most of them will look at you like you have 3 heads.
I am laying out concrete grievances and solutions on campaign finance, gerrymandering, judicial appointments, taxes, infrastructure, agriculture, health, education, and others. You are talking about calling for a convention.
Tell me WHAT SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS do you think should be proposed at this Article V. I'm not interested in anything else.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 20, 2012 8:13:41 GMT -5
I voted "No...I am afraid" because - I believe that asking only for an Article V convention would bury our message of "Get the money out of Politics" and open the possibilities for a right-wing-libertarian-T-Party-like deconstruction of our government's vital functions and structure.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 20, 2012 11:00:08 GMT -5
I understand article V perfectly well, and why Congress has always acted before it happens. Hmmm, not sure why you posted this then. I've responded to this elsewhere, but here goes again. Every time the states get close to passing an article V for a specific reason, the Congress is compelled to act by passing a Constitutional Amendment by 2/3 vote and sending it to the states for ratification by 3/4 of the legislatures. If the amendment passes, holding an article V convention becomes pointless. You claim it is 100 years overdue. I am saying there has never been a case where Congress did not pass an amendment that was acceptable to 3/4 of the states and thus avoid the need for an Article V convention. There was a reason that so many states applied for an Article V in 1911. foavc.org/file.php/1/AmendmentsNot all the manipulations amount to a demand from states to congress for amendment. Some can pass through the corporate world and cause covert governmental actions. The actions of this politician could qualify as leading up to the federal reserve and appear easily motivated by corporate connections to the elite. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_W._AldrichAll very likely related to the gold standard. After April 15, 1912, when the titanic sunk, there were far less wealthy people opposing the move away from the gold standard which started with Aldrich. And, Bill Walker PROVES an Article V is 100 years over due. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEgThe fovavc.org link above has the actual documents. I have laid out a multi-pronged plan that starts the main Petition off dealing with what the consensus seems to indicate most people agree is the most important grievance, and the root of all our other problems: the corrosive influence of special interest money on our democracy, and on our society. But all grievances completely lack any authority to do anything about the corrosive influence of special interest money. Only Article V has that power. The strategy ALSO includes pressuring states to call for an Article V, but that to me is a TACTIC, not a GRIEVANCE, Article V is a law, and your first constitutional right. Your right has been violated for 100 years and despite the corrosive action on our nation, you still do not want to place your right to have a convention and the deprivation of each Americans right positioned first and fulfilled to see that Americans have the power to get the money out of politics. Strange. and I'm guessing that if you poll people and ask if they are aggrieved that an Article V has not been called, most of them will look at you like you have 3 heads. Hmmm, so now the society that suffered the dumbing down is the authority? And, you've used a cognitive distortion to justify that such authority has merit. Examine this list. You've just used #4 and #10. The list was developed by cognitive therapists to show patients how they were distorting to justify behaviors that were not functional. Cognitive infiltration www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsdiYUnKyzk www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ uses the same phrasing in the context of discussion to mislead and confuse. COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS 1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure. 2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure. 3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected. 4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other. 5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality. 6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established 7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes. 8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation. 9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules. 10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied. 11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you. 12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned. I am laying out concrete grievances and solutions on campaign finance, gerrymandering, judicial appointments, taxes, infrastructure, agriculture, health, education, and others. You are talking about calling for a convention. Grievances or problems are real, which means that REAL solution is needed or people are going to suffer. You have not laid out where the authority comes from under law compelling government to act in the peoples interests. Instead you are trying to justify lawlessness at the highest levels of government relating to the deprival of your first constitutional right. Strange. Tell me WHAT SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS do you think should be proposed at this Article V. I'm not interested in anything else. There are 2 aspects of amendment. First, to control the convention and render it constitutional the nation must be made more constitutional. Education and the formation of informed opinion are vital. 1) End the abridging of free speech. Then, unlimited campaign by corporations must end. They've been trying to get unlimited campaign money so corporations can basically elect politicians because media will not inform the public of any alternative candidates. 2) Reform campaign finance. WIth the diebold open source code and the fact our votes are counted in Spain, the vote needs to be secured and election practices need to be reformed before we can actually have a democracy. 3) secure the vote and reform elections. Those 3 amendments need to become the peoples demand upon delegates who are elected on the condition they propose and ratify amendments that return this minimal level of constitutionality. AFTER America is informed through actual free speech, THEN they/us/we will decide what other amendments need to be proposed and ratified. I would imagine that corporate personhood and the federal reserve would be next.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 20, 2012 11:04:57 GMT -5
I voted "No...I am afraid" because - I believe that asking only for an Article V convention would bury our message of "Get the money out of Politics" If you examine the preparatory amendments that need to be ratified before America conducts an Article V convention generally, you will see that "getting the money out of politics is an integral part of preparation. articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By-Layers-Of-Priority-Amendment-Package-Making-CONST.-Intentand open the possibilities for a right-wing-libertarian-T-Party-like deconstruction of our government's vital functions and structure. With freedom of speech restored, Americans will learn enough to get over the many manipulations which created such groups and dismantling of check and balances while the preparations securing our democracy will dynamically protect us.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 20, 2012 14:40:12 GMT -5
I have, if you've been listening. James Madison and many of our founding fathers and past Presidents and intellectuals have stated in one way or another that the People are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the Constitutional charter is formed, and the several branches of government derive their power.
If I am guilty of 4 and 10, you seem to be guilty of #1 at least, unless I am misunderstanding. You seem to think that the states calling for a convention is the ONLY way that this can be solved, when Article V CLEARLY STATES 2/3 of the Congress can also propose an amendment, WHICH WOULD HAVE THE SAME LEGAL AUTHORITY UPON RATIFICATION by 3/4 of the states. I think we can agree that some of the redresses we seek require constitutional amendments, and others require legislative actions. I am of the opinion we should be pursuing BOTH avenues at our disposal to propose and ratify amendments, and at the end of the day it doesn't matter if the amendments are proposed through Congress or a Convention, but again, these are tactics to achieve proposed solutions, which in my mind is distinctive from a grievance, and I don't think I've misunderstood anything, or that that is an over-generalization.
And I wasn't trying to minimize your argument either. I was simply giving you what seems to be the majority opinion. You keep talking about legal authority. I'm more concerned about gaining popular support (see my first comment in this response) because whether we start by petitioning for an article V convened by the states, or for ending the undue influence of money in politics,you have stated, and I agree, the document we are creating has no legal authority in and of itself.
I have said before, and this also seems to be the general consensus among the delegates, that the only authority the document(s) we create will have will be derived from the popular support they gain. Therefore, I am attempting to help create documents that will generate as much popular support as possible, and you have not managed to convince me that the way to do that is to start with procedural tactics, however important, at least not in the petition to redress grievances.
Also "to control the convention and render it constitutional the nation must be made more constitutional" is totally vague. You need to state what this means and how it would be achieved. And I take offense to the notion that I am somehow trying to "justify lawlessness at the highest levels of government." I have clearly explained why a Convention has not been called, and I could go through and cite the actual applications for a convention and dates of amendments, but I think you are the one that has the burden of proof here. I do not think I or the people have been "deprived of a Constitutional right" for the length of time you have indicated, or for that matter, that if a Convention had been called the times you think it should have been, that it would have resulted in any functional difference in the amendments that were ratified. You have just chosen to ignore my arguments and claim I am making a cognitive distortion. Which brings us back to #1 on that list--I understand you are very passionate about this, but you need to understand that this is a complex matter with a lot of grey areas, and that there is room for difference in opinion. And on this point, we are probably going to have to agree to disagree.
When you actually get down to the substance of the changes we seek though, I think we are largely in agreement. The only major difference I see is that I think calling for an Convention is part of the strategy to yield solutions, whereas you would frame it as a grievance as well (which I do not think is necessary and may detract from our message).
Anyway, you've proposed this as a grievance, so the delegates can debate and decide how this fits in to our overall plan, and that will be that.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 20, 2012 22:54:54 GMT -5
You seem to think that the states calling for a convention is the ONLY way that this can be solved, when Article V CLEARLY STATES 2/3 of the Congress can also propose an amendment, WHICH WOULD HAVE THE SAME LEGAL AUTHORITY UPON RATIFICATION by 3/4 of the states. Okay conceded, I generalize with more certainty than is easily explained and present that congress refuses to make amendments we need, therefore has given up the job to us. Not sure how this reality is avoided. And I wasn't trying to minimize your argument either. I was simply giving you what seems to be the majority opinion. You keep talking about legal authority. I'm more concerned about gaining popular support (see my first comment in this response) because whether we start by petitioning for an article V convened by the states, or for ending the undue influence of money in politics,you have stated, and I agree, the document we are creating has no legal authority in and of itself. Here is where you perhaps over looked the word "unity" I employed. Unity implies "popular support". If the petition has no authority, at least make it have veracity within legal process. I had written this as a way to place it first, just as a matter of precedent and inclusion. Whereas the People of the United States of America have been deprived of their right to propose amendments to their constitution for 101 years. From that deprivation has come great destruction and continued deprivation to a degree where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, guaranteed 236 years ago, are in question for many citizens. The right to petition for redress of grievance is hereby invoked by petition influencing and relevant to a majority deprived of free speech and truth of the conditions of their nation over the preceding 101 years.
Citizens that have not been provided their right to work through their states, as the states duly applied for the Constitutional right to do so, and provide solution to problems as needed by amendment now list the grievances authority needs to begin to redress now.I have said before, and this also seems to be the general consensus among the delegates, that the only authority the document(s) we create will have will be derived from the popular support they gain. Therefore, I am attempting to help create documents that will generate as much popular support as possible, and you have not managed to convince me that the way to do that is to start with procedural tactics, however important, at least not in the petition to redress grievances. The grievances exist for a reason. The deprival of our first right is the reason. Saying so will gain more support because people don't realize that is the case. The 99% will be informing the general population. Because of that deprival, the list of grievances is long. The 99% will be doing a great service by ordering the many grievances in advance of implementing the solution Also "to control the convention and render it constitutional the nation must be made more constitutional" is totally vague. You need to state what this means and how it would be achieved. Not vague, very well defined. articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By-Layers-Of-Priority-Amendment-Package-Making-CONST.-IntentPeople are going to need to get up to speed. I can take the horse to water but cannot make it drink And I take offense to the notion that I am somehow trying to "justify lawlessness at the highest levels of government." I have clearly explained why a Convention has not been called, and I could go through and cite the actual applications for a convention and dates of amendments, but I think you are the one that has the burden of proof here. foavc.org has all the proof of the nonfeasance of congress. Most questions can also be answered here. Not intending to offend, but you must admit that it is logical to assume the infiltrators would not want us to use the solution so would direct us to only present problems. www.foa5c.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=2I do not think I or the people have been "deprived of a Constitutional right" for the length of time you have indicated, or for that matter, that if a Convention had been called the times you think it should have been, that it would have resulted in any functional difference in the amendments that were ratified. Bill Walker explains 1911. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEgand the FAQ page linked above has the rest. It comes down to repeated intentional misinterpretations after the 1911 event for avoidance of Article V. You have just chosen to ignore my arguments and claim I am making a cognitive distortion. Which brings us back to #1 on that list--I understand you are very passionate about this, but you need to understand that this is a complex matter with a lot of grey areas, and that there is room for difference in opinion. And on this point, we are probably going to have to agree to disagree. Constitutional intent is the only thing we need to agree upon. With it, we can be "masters of the congress and the courts" as Lincoln described us. Think about what official discretion is in light of manifesting constitutional intent. Basically Americans are so ready to give up their first constitutional right because they don't understand it or cannot logic past the gate keepers, they haven't even experienced the "intent" aspects. Examine the preparatory amendments to see the "intent". Then, if you get it, ask HOW free speech would best be unabridged. When you actually get down to the substance of the changes we seek though, I think we are largely in agreement. The only major difference I see is that I think calling for an Convention is part of the strategy to yield solutions, whereas you would frame it as a grievance as well (which I do not think is necessary and may detract from our message). Anyway, you've proposed this as a grievance, so the delegates can debate and decide how this fits in to our overall plan, and that will be that. It is the deprival of that right begat all the other grievances. If it's not brought out, the deprival's can continue and will. There is no need to present it in the petition as if we are proposing an Article V convention through the petititon. We only need to recognize it as our first right and that we were deprived of it, then list, with priority the long chain of usurpation's and problems damaging us unlawfully
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jun 21, 2012 11:57:11 GMT -5
I'm trying to follow this, but I can't. The "proof of nonfeasance" does not seem like it is clearly proof at all.
I'll make the same argument I made to the 9/11 truther guy...perception is reality. Even if
"People of the United States of America have been deprived of their right to propose amendments to their constitution for 101 years..."
Most people don't see it that way, and I don't think you're going to be able to convince them that this is the reason for everything else even if you are correct.
When people like Lawrence Lessig and Noam Chomsky speak about this they speak about special interest money in politics, not something that happened over 100 years ago. I'm sure you know Lawrence was the keynote at that conference you spoke of, which I have watched the video for, and have spoken to him directly on a couple occasions. He has been instrumental in RootStrikers as well. They talk about campaign finance and lobbying reforms, not whether people have been denied their article V rights. The money in politics issue is powerful, easy to explain, and polls well over 90% when framed properly. This issue gets you mired in debate that doesn't really seem to go anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 21, 2012 14:06:42 GMT -5
I'm trying to follow this, but I can't. The "proof of nonfeasance" does not seem like it is clearly proof at all. [/quote When Article V says that 2/3 of the states apply for a convention to propose amendments, and 31 of 46 states apply, AND congress does not immediately call a convention, THEN it is nonfeasance. We can go a lot further with this simple logic that explains how sooooooo many problems have developed in the last 100 years. I'll make the same argument I made to the 9/11 truther guy...perception is reality. Even if "People of the United States of America have been deprived of their right to propose amendments to their constitution for 101 years..." Most people don't see it that way, and I don't think you're going to be able to convince them that this is the reason for everything else even if you are correct. A first reaction because I know what happened on 9-11 and prove it. Ph.D's in physics agree with at least the basis and the fact that everything is feasibly and technically explain in detail. Discuss my evidence while presenting yours in the area of the deprivation of our first right. Finally, I see your argument, and it is correct within the social structure we both know. That structure, at the very least is going to cause the loss of our rights and freedoms and perhaps our lives. You adhere to that structure because you do not know of the other. Notice, you have not asked about "natural law". Your selection of topic is typical for an American with a highly regulated knowledge base acting with the unconscious structure of social fears. Go the other direction with your instincts. Understand natural law and how discussion upon it and how it can empower our needs while also being uplifting and create freedom from the stigma of invisible social fears. Not your fault, there are no available options for any who might speak credibly with alternatives. Free speech has lost capacity to have meaning. Useless alternatives are promoted to a degree where efforts to share useful information for change that an individual might make, are of no consequence. All such are carefully pre disempowered by the design of dominance the current situation originates with. Decision making is critical for survival and evolution. When people like Lawrence Lessig and Noam Chomsky speak about this they speak about special interest money in politics, not something that happened over 100 years ago. I'm sure you know Lawrence was the keynote at that conference you spoke of, which I have watched the video for, and have spoken to him directly on a couple occasions. He has been instrumental in RootStrikers as well. They talk about campaign finance and lobbying reforms, not whether people have been denied their article V rights. The money in politics issue is powerful, easy to explain, and polls well over 90% when framed properly. This issue gets you mired in debate that doesn't really seem to go anywhere. Something that happened 236 years ago, the constitution is an immense need, your icons would agree. I am ahead of the curve, and others seem not willing to catch up. Nothing can be done about money in politics without Article V and that CANNOT be conducted from the closet. All icons adhere to social fears (sitting in closets) and the limits of dominance when they do not couple problems with solutions and process. The icons are fitting in with the dysfunction and hoping to be able to have effect by doing so. I think not, because I've been watching group behaviors for years and going with the mislead group ends up fitting into the agenda unrolling upon us and our futures. Change takes spiritual courage AND the other kind you would recognize the icons are using.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jun 21, 2012 20:00:33 GMT -5
Well if people seem not willing to catch up, then perhaps you need to examine your strategy, and maybe back up a bit.
It looks like you put some of your responses inside that quote box, but from everything I've looked at, I still can't find a time where 2/3 of the states called for a convention for the same reason before Congress sent them one or more amendments which they then ratified. It seems like you are claiming that this happened in 1911? The data is hard to make sense of and definitely needs some historical context, and an unbiased presentation.
But even if correct, that is an awfully old grievance, which does not rank at the top of my list, and judging from everything I've seen and heard, not at the top of many other peoples' lists either.
We both very much want to see the systemic flaws in our government addressed. I want to build consensus and find what we can agree on. You are talking down to me, and insinuating that my knowledge of the situation does not run as deep as yours, though really you have no idea what sort of knowledge base I have. I would not be so presumptuous.
You say I adhere to a structure because I don't know "of the other." This presumes only 2 structures? That seems too limiting. The reality is that I have chosen to operate within the existing structure because experience has shown me that it is generally the most effective way to achieve one's goals. I know you'll probably have some sort of response to this, but I've had about enough meta-conversation, and you seem stuck in a feedback loop complaining about people not being able to follow you instead of trying to figure out how to effectively reach people and work with others to achieve practical solutions to practical problems.
Before you can lead a horse to water, you have to have a horse.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 21, 2012 23:52:47 GMT -5
Well if people seem not willing to catch up, then perhaps you need to examine your strategy, and maybe back up a bit. That is what "cognitive infiltration" works to do. politics.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/09/1024519/-Threats-from-the-Invisible-Industry?showAll=yes&via=blog_481394 boingboing.net/2011/02/18/hbgarys-high-volume.html revolutionmessaging.com/2011/09/21/how-to-weed-out-astroturf-identifying-fake-public-support/ newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/16173.html veracitystew.com/2011/02/25/astroturfing-the-season-of-disinformation-video/ www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-truthy-memes-twitter.html www.infowars.com/cognitive-infiltration-an-obama-appointees-plan-to-undermine-the-911-conspiracy-theory/ www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspiracy/dp/1566568218Promotion of the notion that social fears are more important than the principles of a society will abandon the constitution. It looks like you put some of your responses inside that quote box, but from everything I've looked at, I still can't find a time where 2/3 of the states called for a convention for the same reason before Congress sent them one or more amendments which they then ratified. It seems like you are claiming that this happened in 1911? The data is hard to make sense of and definitely needs some historical context, and an unbiased presentation. Watch the Bill Walker video he explains it, www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEgBut even if correct, that is an awfully old grievance, which does not rank at the top of my list, and judging from everything I've seen and heard, not at the top of many other peoples' lists either. It is refreshed April 23, 2012. my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-refuses-to-call-a-convention-to-amend/It's a valid criminal complaint. We both very much want to see the systemic flaws in our government addressed. I want to build consensus and find what we can agree on. You are talking down to me, and insinuating that my knowledge of the situation does not run as deep as yours, though really you have no idea what sort of knowledge base I have. I would not be so presumptuous. Since you won't discuss natural law, you cannot show an adequate knowledge base for definition of constitutional intent. Lack of action speaks louder than silence. You say I adhere to a structure because I don't know "of the other." This presumes only 2 structures? That seems too limiting. The reality is that I have chosen to operate within the existing structure because experience has shown me that it is generally the most effective way to achieve one's goals. I know you'll probably have some sort of response to this, but I've had about enough meta-conversation, and you seem stuck in a feedback loop complaining about people not being able to follow you instead of trying to figure out how to effectively reach people and work with others to achieve practical solutions to practical problems. Before you can lead a horse to water, you have to have a horse. People can follow okay, but the secret cognitive infiltration is hard to imagine so they err on the socially safe side and assume that what they are looking at is a web page that has some kind of sincerity, however misguided; and they reject the notion of a conspiracy to mislead, disrupt, distract and diffuse genuine social activism by false social groups. Social fears controlling again. This is more a case of rustling by horse thieves. Then again, we might be talking about sheep rustling and not horses.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 22, 2012 0:15:44 GMT -5
Mike said he wasn't going to waste his time on a meta feedback loop and natural law is not the issue.
If you think you are going to build momentum for this by going about it the way you are going about it, I am afraid you are going to find you're sorely mistaken.
Time to let this thread die.
|
|