Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Real Solution inspired by John Lennon

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 12, 2012, 1:51 p.m. EST by louisrocc (74)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A Real Solution inspired by John Lennon

Yes we want a revolution Well you know We are gonna change the world Its progressive evolution Well you know We are gonna change the world We’ll do it without destruction Can we know that we can count you in Don’t you know we’ll make it be all right All right, all right

I say we have a real solution Well you know Its a very simple plan Outlaw the campaign contribution Well you know With an amendment we can Without the influence of people with minds that hate
All I can tell brother we don’t have to wait Don’t you know we’ll make it be all right All right, all right Ah

Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

Amendments for the constitution Well you know A few have brought us ahead They can improve the institution Well you know Fair representation instead But without a campaign finance amendment vow You ain’t having fair representation anyhow Don't you know it's gonna be all right All right, all right All right, all right, all right All right, all right, all right

sponsored by www.campaignfinanceamendment.org

87 Comments

87 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can? I admit, I can't (or it's at least very challenging) :)

I can imagine no religion, no wars, etc. (but I like shoes, running water, the faucets and water pipes that go along with it, and it's probably not very healthy to share shoes)?

So, how far do we take this idea?

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

Thank you Francis. I'm just working for fair representation.Privately funded campaigns leads to disproportionate representation due to disproportionate wealth. www.campaignfinanceamendment.org

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yeah, this is a big problem, but even if we had publicly funded campaigns, it still wouldn't stop partisan advertising (as this form of political advertising is considered protected speech under our First Amendment), and focusing efforts exclusively (or even mostly) on a constitutional amendment to change this is I think unwise (because I think it has a low probability of success). This is why I favor laws that prohibit members of congress from holding private meetings with lobbyists (and require meetings open to the public instead), prohibit fund raising events where wealthy contributors are allowed exclusive access, having public fundraising events instead (where everything happens in open view). I also think we need better ways to deal with the revolving door (an inherent conflict of interest). I have some ideas (like getting rid of federal statutory liability caps, which give federal regulators almost exclusive power over industry, making it much easier for corporations to game the system).

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

These are all important issues. We will not be able to make progress on them until we define contributions as 'not speech' in the Constitution. Otherwise the Supreme Court ruling would block all new laws made regrading money and speech. The issue I am addressing in particular is contributions made to influence legislation. Private advertising of ideas is another issue. These issues overlap when the funding for the advertisement comes from influential contributions.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Really it's the PACs where we see unlimited spending, and overturning Sect. (b) of McCain Feingold has had disastrous consequences. However, if we read the Court's decision, we'll find that merely passing an Amendment, which states corporations are not persons, will not overturn Citizens United. If we are to push for an Amendment, then I think we should at least change its wording so it will be effective.

Moreover, legislation can also have a powerful impact, so we should vigorously support both (along with other issues, like restoring Glass Steagall, trade reform, education reform, raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting military spending, getting rid of indefinite detention, defeating SOPA, and so on). Right now there's broad consensus on political corruption, financial reform, SOPA, and probably also trade reform, so we have momentum. But now we can expect the waters to start getting choppy. Not that they haven't already been somewhat choppy, but we can expect that the establishment won't just roll over.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

You have listed many fights here that need to be fought. We can all lend support to each other for the particular efforts we are each pursuing. I am giving priority to the influence that contributions have on legislation. Since campaign contributions that affect legislation are made throughout the year, not just before an election, the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org is designed for this particular bird. I am happy to assist with the other necessary stones.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

What about PAC spending on advertising? PAC's "supposedly" aren't affiliated with candidates (key word, "supposedly"), and PAC spending is where the real money is at. Also, won't public funding of campaigns just put more power in the hands of incumbents? The amendment proposal isn't terrible, but it's also sort of obscure.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

The Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment www.campaignfinanceamendment.org would not put more money into campaigns but less because incumbents would not have to raise as much to compete, and eventually it would eliminate all contributions. PAC's are another fight for additional legislation after money is not defined as speech within the Constitution. Perhaps Truth in Advertising laws can be applied to paid advertisement for campaigns.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I refuse to live without sewers.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Or antibiotics (shit, I don't want to live without my computer) :)

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

So that means you need power as well. Hmmm its amazing the snow ball effect this has.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Indeed, but of course none of this implies the power must emit massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, or we can't have more democratic workplaces, better healthcare, less political corruption, etc. etc. (but the idea of no possessions, or denying the benefits of modern technology, is I think a hasty and not well thought out position).

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

True. Have you heard of company that builds stirling engine electricity generators?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

No and it would do very little for anyone other than fill them with pangs of longing and remorse.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

"imagine" having good sewers, clean air, and clean water safeguarded through representation of the 99% in Congress without the special interests blocking representation for what is good for the people at large. This is what the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org is designed to do.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I think that zero contributions is just a tad over the top. I think I would rather have a maximum contributions of $50 per person which at the moment includes corporations.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

Now many people can make $50 contributions directed by PAC's that are directed by a corporation? Employees of pharmaceutical have even been forced to make contributions to a PAC in order to keep their jobs. Why must a citizen have to pay a representative to be represented when that representative already receives very nice publicly funded compensation? The elected official must not have a special interest to represent the constituency. www.campaignfinanceamendment.org

[-] 0 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 2 years ago

At this point in time, world peace is both impossible and undesirable. No war would result in internal chaos and the refusal to liberate the oppressed people of authoritarian regimes.

[-] 2 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

That is just an absolutely ridiculous statement. How were you even able to hit Enter after typing it? Wow.

[-] 1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 2 years ago

And how is it ridiculous, may I ask? Should those in Saudi Arabia just remain in their oppressed condition, unable to be liberated because of this 'world peace' prospect? How do you expect civil rights to be satisfied without revolution in some of the more oppressive areas of the world?

[-] 3 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Do you even understand the terms "world peace"? Let me clarify it for you in laymans terms. It means "world peace". The whole world at peace. No need to be liberated because there is world peace. I would think if there was world peace people would not be oppressed anymore. If there is oppression than world peace would not have been achieved yet. With world peace there would be no need to revolt. No need for revolution. Clear enough?

[-] 0 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 2 years ago

Whether that is reachable is questionable. It is impossible to achieve at least in this day, because violence is needed for revolt.

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

Thyat's not true. There have been many peaceful revolutions, even in recent history. Phillipines, Egypt, Romania, and probably more that I'm not aware of. People power can be very persuasive, if en masse.

[-] 1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 2 years ago

Many peaceful revolutions doesn't mean all peaceful revolutions. Sometimes violence is needed.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Violence is never needed. You may need to defend yourself at some point. But this doesn't mean being violent. Its just taking action to keep from being overcome. Violence never makes sense.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

It will only be possible when everyone wakes up and sees how simple it really is. Until then it seems improbable.

[-] 1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 2 years ago

Being simple doesn't imply being achievable. It's absolutely impossible for everybody to jump on the same pacifistic bandwagon after a stage of relative tranquility has been achieved.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Uh.....yes it does. That's exactly what simple means. Do you even read your comments before you hit enter? You are not making any sense to me. There are many things that are impossible but they don't includ any of the things you said. I'm kinda over this anyway. Your arguments don't hold any water. Have a nice day captain optimism!

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

That's a very cynical world view in my humble opinion.

[-] 1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 2 years ago

I'm not being cynical; I'm being realistic. If world peace were to be attained now, people would be unable to revolt from oppressive government. Political reform isn't always feasible, and sometimes violent revolution is needed in order to rebel from oppressive and cruel authoritarianism.

[-] 2 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Again, another statement that should have been deleted before you hit Enter.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

There are also times when violence can be avoided through diplomacy. The founders of our nation provided us with a Constitution to which amendments can be added. Such amendments gave women and minorities the right to vote. It is now time for an amendment that protects the representation of all the people. www.campaignfinanceamendment.org

[-] 1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 2 years ago

I understand that violence can be avoided through diplomacy, which is why a revolution in the U.S. is absolutely silly. I do agree with you that campaign finance reform is a good decision. But an absolute regime and a first world country are two different platforms to stage change.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

Certainly they are very different platforms. We can have a non-violent revolution through a mobilization of the 99% supporting a real solution ti disproportionate representation such as the Zero COntributions Campaign Finance Amendment www.campaignfinanceamendment.org.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

"imagine no possessions", that's funny coming from a millionaire who had a lot of stuff.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

"Imagine all the people represented in Congress. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the nation will have a true democracy" www.campaignfinanceamendment.org

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

the usa was NOT founded as a democracy. It's a representative republic.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

True, but still, can you, "Imagine all the people represented in Congress."

[-] -2 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

John Lennon couldn't either. LOL. Even when he was living, "imagine" him not defending his copyrights. "Imagine" him moving out of his luxury apartment and handing it over to a homeless person. "Imagine" him handing over his bank account numbers.

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

It's too bad there are so many punks like you who wouldn't even have enough talent to shine John's shoes. Jealousy hurts, doesn't it?

[+] -6 points by shadz66 (17627) 2 years ago

Re. John & "Imagine" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVg2EJvvlF8&feature=related and 'With Lyrics' ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIFY9h8DImg&feature=related .

As for me, I always liked George : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qdKZBXMX5E&feature=related but Bob is your man on a Friday Afternoon ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdB-8eLEW8g&feature=related !!

Can't beat a decent tune ;-)

"1<3" & ommm~{:-)

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I don't have to wonder about the no possessions thing. Apart from this laptop, and a funky little action camera, my "stuff" fits in a backpack.

You wanna know freedom? Give away your stuff to charity.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

I would like representation to be free as opposed to a price affordable be only the 1% www.campaignfinanceamendment.org

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I wouldn't go so far as to say we should all become homeless nomads walking around naked, but I do believe we have way too much vested in our stuff. There is a certain amount of freedom in knowing how little you can live on and be happy. There is also a certain amount of joy in sharing with those who have unmet needs. If each of us pays attention to these two things, buying less and sharing more, it will change each of our lives a little, and our society a lot.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

The 99% will have more to share when they have proportionate representation. This can be achieved through the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks for the link.

[-] 2 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

I hope this gets in. I may be pushing the rules, but... I think we need to cut through the crap and use the power of the unions and labor to effect world transformation. My idea is simple. The ramifications are enormous, though. I say a movement might be started on the web to get as many workers and unions around the world, on a pre-set date, to walk-out, and lead to a possible, (at-least partial), global work shutdown. With OWS supporters helping on the picket lines. And stay shut down until the powers bend over and accept a new one- world, democratically-elected representative body of all the planetary citizens, and an end to borders. As well as wars, poverty, human rights abuses, discrimination, etc. You see, we either all sink, or we all swim to better waters. If enough people jumped on board... Something must be done to get the ship back on course. Things could then be constructed in a way that distributes power more equally among the world’s populations. Local committees from each region, comprised of elected officials could then be connected to the rest of the representative bodies around the world. No need for a central power. No need for military or police. Any sort of global police force would be potentially feared, and could lead to more problems than without. Especially if only law abiding citizens were allowed to arm themselves. I’m against weapons, morally. But it beats having to have police. And police show up after crimes are committed, anyway. It’s a little late by then.
Then a type of economy that gives the profits back to the workers, while at the same time being co-owned by all the workers, would work well in conjunction with competition from within to keep prices down, and diversity in the marketplace.

[-] 2 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

I second the motion!

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

Thanks. I'm glad someone agrees with me, and possibly the only chance we have as a world community to save ourselves.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

Dear london2z, Big change takes a step by step approach. I ask for your help in taking steps in the right direction through the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment, www.campaignfinanceamendment.org. The right steps have been taken in the past through amendment that gave the vote to women and minorities in the last century. The fight of the century is representation of the people at large over special interests.

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

On the other hand, if big change takes too long- many oppressed people continue to suffer. Just because large-scale changes haven't occured in the past, doesn't mean that they can't happen, if enough people decide to make it happen. Power to the People! Of-course I will support any legislation that heads us in the right direction.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

I would love to have big change overnight. Big change needs a functional mechanism of action. This is why the grandfather clause is added to the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment www.campaignfinanceamendment.org. I wouldn't expect elected officials to vote for it otherwise.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

John Lennon was kind of a jerk.

[-] 1 points by Lardhead2 (67) 2 years ago

Barf.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

John Lennon was rich, smart and definitely not a revolutionary. He could imagine a lot of things but the reality of a Manhattan apartment at the Dakota is better.

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

Just because he was rich, doesn't mean that he didn't want the same things the OWS movement wants. What did he write Imagine for, anyway? I mean, why would he say things in that song that he didn't believe? And making a lot of money was more of a pleasant side-effect from his music than a necessity, to him. He just enjoyed making music, and adding to the heightened spirituality of humanity. He would have done it even if he never got paid.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

Dear Carlitini, The Issue I am addressing is contributions made to influence legislation. I am not protesting people being rich. I am working to end the practice of the interests of wealthy persons being represented more greatly than the interests of the people at large.

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

Good Morning All, I feel like this is Lennon's Living Room and we are all hanging out together in this big communal house forum. Some thoughts on the Gestalt of this post, if I may. First off I think, boy and girl Fridays should get a room of their own to bicker in, I have enough of my own thank you! Secondly the song wasn't Imagine it was revolution, so if you are going to argue the content of lyrics; Please, in future, stay on topic! London2z Love the Plan totally feelin' it. Have a nice big I AM Not going to work today, day. And while were at it we could plan a party with accordion music and dancing in the streets!

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

I'll dance in the streets as much as anyone once the motives for war, oppression, and financial inequality have been removed by a one-world democracy.

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

That'll be the Day!

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

Thank you for remembering the accordion. Now my fellow patriots, I am not asking you to face a British bayonet or march for many miles in the snow without shoes. I am only asking you to continue the struggle for representation though the keyboard. Please contact your elected officials in support of the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org for a step in the right direction to achieve 'A Real Solution'. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMoAMnFczY&feature=related

I just found out about Buddy Roemer, who only accepts $100 contributions. What do you think about him?

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

I like the font you used for the campaign finance letter; it looks classyical. IF, a candidate could take the initiative and only accept a certain amount; for example $20 from an individual and $50 from an association. Maybe have a Max of $100 per year (I am partial to BF). And could even refuse to accept money from interests she/he didn't support. Then have the money tracked transparently into interest fields. For example if environmental concerns were important for you as a contributor, your $20
would be tagged environmental. Contributions could be broken up into interest fields. So the contributions would also serve as a barometer representing what the citizens considered important. THEN, we could speed track in the right direction and model how it could be done in a more "evolved" way.

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

Nice alterations. Can you play it on something? Somewhere?

[-] 2 points by louisrocc (74) 2 years ago

I would like to have a Utube contest. I hope everyone outdoes me playing the Beatles on my accordian.

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

I think your on to something there. Your ideas are quite to the point and have a harmonious ring to them. Thanks for your input.

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

Keep me posted.

[-] 0 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

he is way over rated.. This whole movement is way over rated. pathetic

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

You are overrated.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

John Lennon is an overblown myth of a figure..with debatable talent.

[-] 2 points by guitarmywin (158) 2 years ago

It's the content, man, not the delivery. It's was the substance of the ideas that spoke for the people; The Zeitgeist. You could do the same. It just gave people permission to say things that hadn't been said out loud before.

[-] 0 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

I don't know....I think that's a myth too. Sorry....George Harrison was absolutely the best Beatle. (however sorry to say....Don't think Beatles were as excellent as they are made out to be)

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

It's people with no talent that vent their jealousy at others who are obviously more gifted.

[-] -2 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

oh shut up. brain dead cracker, joker, w/ white trash taste....Lennion 2nd rate crap

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17442) 2 years ago

Cool story, friend. Why don't you go tell it to someone who gives a shit.

[-] -1 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

stop harassing me..I thought I told you to go take care of that weird black hair on you face.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17442) 2 years ago

It is alright, you know, that you're such a fucking dick cheese.

[-] -1 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

take care those weird hairs.. and the ugly wart on your forehead and ass. you might have a more pleasant disposition. good night

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17442) 2 years ago

You are so hideous that having your flesh eaten by weasels would make you more beautiful.

[-] -1 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

why thank you for your beauty tips. you are so kid to share them. Have they worked for you?

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17442) 2 years ago

Wow, you are sexy. Just kidding, you're a son of a bitch.

[-] 0 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

girl friday..you must have something else to do. Certainly alot of guys must be chasing after a fox like you.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17442) 2 years ago

Isn't this fun?

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

you are my favorite insulter, so creative and brash. well played:) i love your rants--they bring a smile to my face. and i am not being sarcastic or smart ass.

[-] -1 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

Who me? You can't be referring girlfriday...she/it is a bummer.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

sorry bro: i was referring to girlfriday--she's a computer and i've seen her go off on about 10 people--it's hilarious

[-] 0 points by boyFriday (-67) 2 years ago

no your uninspired rhetoric is repulsively predictable and dull. Just because you can post your thoughts...does not mean you should.