|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 16, 2012 13:38:18 GMT -5
Ah, I am sorry. I did not realize that facts and expert opinions that do not support your claims have no relevance. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 16, 2012 14:27:18 GMT -5
I think we can agree to disagree on what the most effective method to enact the change we are looking for is. You can try to get those grand juries going to expose the truth about 9/11, and myself and others will be working on building consensus around and public support for campaign finance and electoral reforms and then perhaps branching out to attempt to make some headway on other issues.
|
|
|
Post by timothykprice on Jul 16, 2012 21:45:58 GMT -5
On the contrary, if anyone here would state one fact that contradicts the controlled demolition explanation for the 3 WTC buildings, that would be of interest. I do not make the evidence support the explanation, I have seen all the evidence I can find, and it all is consistent with the controlled demolition explanation.
Please, if you really do have facts that are consistent with any other explanation, that would be news.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 16, 2012 22:10:28 GMT -5
I'll be honest.
After years of reading the arguments, I'm still waiting for actual facts from the conspiracy crowd.
But, hey, when multiple engineers, architects, and specialists use scientific principles to state that the buildings fell exactly as they should have, when physics properly plays its role, we should all simply ignore it. Because, hell, the Super Committee of World Domination obviously has the power to bribe the immutable laws of the universe.
You know what one of the defining factors is for a conspiracy theory? Implying that all evidence not supporting your claims is not factual. It's the best defense in the world for crazy talk.
Just add me to your fancy traitor list. I've watched films, read information... and I'm just not buying that brand of getting off my rocker.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jul 16, 2012 22:46:52 GMT -5
Timothy:
It doesn't matter whether your theory is correct or not. The point that Matt made earlier, and what I had said when this was brought up on the original forum, is that even if you are completely correct, there will NEVER be an objective investigation until and unless we FIRST get the money and corporate influence out of politics, and then elect new representatives under a fair system that allows everyone who wants to run a fair shot by leveling the financial playing field (ie: publicly funded elections).
Until and unless that happens, you are asking some of the very same people who were in office when 9/11 happened to investigate themselves and their allies in government. There is no way they are going to do it, especially if they think that it will bring trouble on them or their allies, or cause their campaign donations to dry up. Instead, any group that embraces or champions that cause is going to be immediately painted as fringe lunatics who aren't worth anyone's time. Which means that WE cannot embrace or champion that cause or we may as well all go back to doing nothing, because we will never accomplish anything that way.
So, while this may be your #1 priority, it cannot be at the top of our list of causes we are fighting for right now - any more than my wish to see Bush/Cheney investigated to see if they committed any international war crimes and get them prosecuted for that before they die of old age as free men. I believe that they would be found guilty, but it doesn't matter. It's not something that can be done right now, and I know that.
So I'd rather spend what time and energy I do have working on things that ARE possible and have at least some chance of succeeding. THEN, IF we are successful on those causes, we can start working on the other issues.
But not now. For now we have to stay focused on the one thing that is causing the most problems for all of America - the influence of money on our political system and the laws being created.
|
|
|
Post by timothykprice on Jul 17, 2012 7:31:00 GMT -5
Hi Maureen,
Thank your for organizing your list of concerns is a form that can be directly addressed. That is helpful.
Upon reading your latest post, it has occurred to me that you have not understood the grievance as it was written and why it is possibly the only process that will work for us. It is very possible.
The grand jury is composed of ordinary people. The Continental Congress 2.0 may be ideally situated to be the agency that calls for the grand jury and oversees the work. It would need to be an entirely transparent process. There are no officials or Congressmen, state's attorneys or anyone involved except as witnesses or as people of interest called to testify under oath and recorded.
This removes most of the concerns that you have rightly expressed.
Your comments apply to the process, and do illustrate the concerns we all have as how to have the investigation, and what not to do. This is how we plan to go forward:
Please review Grievance #88, (6):
"Reinstate the Grand Jury Process to represent the People of America, call for the arrest and extradition to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, any person indicted or charged with War Crimes on or upon probable cause for intentionally and knowingly engaging in warfare based upon a false premise or pretext.
9/11/2001 represents probable cause for action by a special Federal Grand Jury to indict government officials who are implicated."
Now that this has been explained to you, please support this effort and get the rest of the CC2.0 to sign on.
Best wishes,
tim
|
|
|
Post by timothykprice on Jul 17, 2012 7:46:46 GMT -5
Frankeespeaking: It would be best to stay in solidarity, so suggesting that I work on "these grand juries" while you and other do something else, is not what i would suggest. It is unfair that some of you use this organization to further your projects, and exclude the 9/11 issue form being a grievance, or from being a fully supported part of the CC2.0 effort. By the way, it is not "grand juries" that we are first seeking, it is "A Special Federal Grand Jury" for the WTC demolitions. See below: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Special_grand_jurySpecial grand jury A "special grand jury" is one of two types of grand juries that exist in the U.S. federal system. While a regular grand jury primarily decides whether to bring charges, a special grand jury is called into existence to investigate whether organized crime is occurring in the community in which it sits. This could include, for instance, organized drug activity or organized corruption in government. As provided in 18 U.S.C. ยง 3331(a), the U.S. District Court in every judicial district having more than four million inhabitants must impanel a special grand jury at least once every eighteen months, once in 18 months.[14] [edit] _______________________________
It is the WTC demolitions which have the most completely documented evidence that proves controlled demolitions, not planes and fires. After that, the the Pentagon and the plane shoot-down over Shankesville will go more smoothly.
The expert witnesses are to be found in the coordinated testimony from such existing groups as 9/11 Truth.org, and AE911Truth.org, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, etc. . There groups would welcome an impartial, transparent organization to help facilitate this process.
Would like to hear more of your thoughts.
thank you for contributing,
tim
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 17, 2012 11:26:13 GMT -5
We are not in solidarity about this, Tim.
I think I qualify as someone who holds the actions of the Steering Committee at the Congress in low regard. I'm pretty sure the majority of the Steering Committee hold mine in similarly low regard.
I suspect we couldn't manage to be in cahoots together to choose a breakfast cereal, let alone suppress the point of view you've expressed. Repeatedly.
Nonetheless, I think you're going to have to accept that, on your most pressing, urgent concern, you're surrounded here by incorrigible dupes and/or evil-doers.
I understand that you find this distressing. I don't really blame you. If I felt myself to be the advocate of an obviously self-evident, important truth, and I was met with near universal dismissal, derision, contempt and willful blindness, I'd be distressed, too.
I urge you to recognize that, for better or worse, you're drilling in a dry hole here. I'm confident there are more productive ways and places for you to carry on your advocacy. Your work on these boards, in various email chains, and in the comments section on the 99%D site is nearly guaranteed to yield no progress and mounting frustration.
Unless you're the most resolute of masochists, I can't see you getting much satisfaction here.
I wish you peace.
Elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 17, 2012 12:44:50 GMT -5
I thought we were mostly in solidarity for not including this David.
I've seen the evidence for both sides Timothy. I was at the Zeitgeist premiere. I'm not convinced it has all been a massive conspiracy though, and there are experts that disagree with your experts about the controlled demolition and other things.
No one is using this organization to further their projects, in fact those of us that do have separate projects don't really want them associated with the CC2.0 at this point because we don't have much confidence that what the CC2.0 is producing is going to gain popular support.
And that's what it's all about, gaining popular support. Which is why I really think you're really putting the cart in front of the horse with your grievance. You should know better than anyone that perception is reality; that whether your assertions about 9/11 are ultimately correct or not is not as important as what people believe. Your grievance has had ample time to gain popular support but has not done so. I understand you believe that the CC2.0 could legitimize your grievance, but I and many others believe just the opposite: that including your grievance would destroy any chance this group might have at gaining legitimacy in the eyes of a large majority, and make it impossible for us to rally popular support for the things that we really are in solidarity on, such as more transparency and less corruption in government.
Just like Citizens United is a red herring, so is 9/11. The problems we are attempting to deal with are as old as governments themselves, and were spoken about in some form by Washington and Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln and Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and FDR among others. Addressing the corrupting influence of special interest money over our democracy is the first step to forming a government that will be more likely to address your grievance, and less likely to commit such acts again. Because really, it is about addressing the systemic flaw that creates an inherent conflict of interest for our government officials, making it nearly impossible for them to do what is right by the people on the truly important issues that we must ultimately address, such as infrastructure, education, healthcare, entitlements, energy, the environment, immigration, deficit and debt, and a host of others.
So the long and short of it Tim is that you are never going to get myself and a substantial number of others to agree your grievance should be included, and were it included, it would cause myself and I'm sure others to completely disavow ourselves from the document and the organization, such as it is. If we are truly attempting to speak for the 99%, then we really need to find what 99% of us can agree on, and 99% of us certainly do not agree that your proposed course would be the most effective one in getting where we all fundamentally agree we want to go.
Reasonably, respectfully, and responsibly,
Frank
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 17, 2012 13:19:06 GMT -5
I responded in the from the Ashes, hope thread. In my assessment, it's not the only process that will work, and in all likelihood it's a process that would not work at all. There is absolutely no reason to believe that whatever grievances we ultimately agree on or whatever solutions we suggest will be heeded by our elected officials, or acted upon by the courts in a manner which we would desire. We have the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances, but as of now we're really only petitioning on behalf of our little group of less than 100 people, and the government has the right to decide whether or not our grievances are legitimate, and what sort of solutions offer the best redress. So unless our grievances and solutions can gain mass support, it does not seem our organization will have any power to do anything about your grievance or any other.
I therefore suggest what many others have here, that we focus on the core issue of special interest money in politics, which is what is really needed to get at your grievance, as well as more or less every other one on that list.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jul 17, 2012 16:07:13 GMT -5
Thanks, Frank :-) well done!
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jul 17, 2012 21:35:11 GMT -5
From the Focus On Solutions thread... But I say lets stop wasting time reinventing the wheel and get on with the solutions. There are two types of solutions: amendments and legislation. The legislation solutions will only get implemented if we have a cooperative Congress that is not partisan and not influenced by Super PACs. How can we do that? Only via amendments such as the following. ================================================================= The CC 2.0 agreed on "No legal person shall be permitted to contribute more than 100 times the federal minimum wage per year to federal campaigns or political action committees." ================================================================= It neither mentions corporate personhood nor mentions money as free speech. We need to work on Constitutional Amendments like the one above to get the democracy we so desperately want. All of us. This is our common thread. I don't care how many people read this document. Please join me in working on the real possibility of changing our country for the better. Lets celebrate the not perfect CC 2.0 approved solutions and work on getting the Constitution amended. Thanks Mike Kelley CA-24 Read more: 99declaration.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=213&page=1#1352#ixzz20wBLxtf9
|
|