Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I have been saying Attack the Lies.

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 10:35 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I have been saying Attack the Lies.

Some disagree. Let me see if I may, using an example, demonstrate how and why this is effective. In fact, it has already been done, by us. Perhaps this is not clearly understood.

We know, for example, that lenders have in many instances engaged in fraud in creating the sub-prime lending mess. If we were to have possession of proof, in just one instance, where fraud has been unaddressed by our legal system, and then set up a candle light vigil outside their home, this would do several things at once.

It would terrify the individual who had committed the fraud.

It would terrify all those who had behaved the same, not knowing if they would be next on our list.

It would terrify all those who have depended on and profited handsomely from other kinds of lies.

It would bring into question the credibility of our legal system before the eyes of the public, in such a way that the legal system itself must respond if only to maintain their credibility.

Make no mistake, what I suggest has a certain cruelty to it. Were such a protest to take place, I would recommend targeting individuals who are childless, that the children not be made to know fear through us.

It is cruel, because targeting one individual with a mob, even one standing in silence outside their door holding candles, will inspire fear. Yet I say such a tactic is not unjust. The legal system is designed to protect the guilty, and society as a whole, from vigilantism. Failure to do its job will in time result in nothing else. Our system is designed to provide a measure of fairness even to the guilty, not just the innocent. When it fails, it fails both the innocent and the guilty.

There are many lies. I do not care if this kind of protest is adopted or not. That is not my point - although I do believe that it is both appropriate and has the potential to be highly effective: at producing fast and measurable results, at drawing people to us, at creating openings for those in media who would amplify our message and expanding opportunities for them to do so, which in turn feeds back into the entire process.

Everything is connected. There are feed back loops we can harness to our advantage.

Confronting the lies should be easy - there are so many, all you have to do is pick one. Pick one, and focus public attention on it, in a way that is irrefutable and that demands results.

This is what the Occupy Wall Street protest did, even if we are not yet aware of it. That we are not aware of it is simply because no specific lie was identified and articulated in a clear and consistent manner. It is not a short coming. It demonstrates the power of what we have already done.

Even without articulating with precision what specific lie we wish addressed, those who depend upon lies have already responded. They already know fear.

So I say - pick one. There are many to choose from. Just pick one, and begin.

114 Comments

114 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2033) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Global warming?

WTF!

It was freezing last night!

Say it together now, RE... PUB... LI... CON!!

They don't get "DONE"! What part of Hoover, Nixon, Raygun, and Cheney don't you get??

They are a Zombie Cult for the 1%!!

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

how are t-shirt sales doing?

[-] 2 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

Good idea. Excellent actually. Nonviolent peaceful protest is the way to make positive change, while we still have time. It might take some work to get going, but then will pick up momentum.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I think you've stumbled on the problem. "We know, for example, that lenders have in many instances engaged in fraud in creating the sub-prime lending mess. If we were to have possession of proof, in just one instance, where fraud has been unaddressed by our legal system..." You're acting on feelings without enough proof.

You need to do more then just believe that fraud has been committed. You need to go out and prove it. If you expect any change at all to ever happen you need to do more then shout slogans. Expose the fraud you can prove and stop wasting time just believing unproven crimes have been committed.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

It has been proven in some cases - like the head of Countrywide out in California - see 60 Minutes.

Robo signers have been caught from Maine to Florida.

The evidence is out there. The practice hasn't been conducted in Vermont as far as I know - if I find out differently I will be agitating for just this kind of action right here.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I have mixed feelings about this type of fraud. I do agree GMAC should be sanctioned in some way for this practice. On the other hand it doesn't address the question of the mortgages themselves. Were they fraudulent somehow or is the owner in default and, in spite of our feelings, deserve to be foreclosed on?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

there has been an abundance of research on this point, sources include media reports, 60 Minutes, and the movie Inside Job.

Countrywide for example -

  • insisted to the borrower that the loan product was fine

  • loaned the borrower as much as 98% of the value of the home, by way of payoff

  • incentivized these loans with bonuses to the loan officer

  • engaged in fraud regarding bank assessments of borrowers ability to pay, often not even conducting the research such statements were based on

  • bundled all of these subprime loans that had interest rates that would reset to a point beyond the borrowers ability to pay - and sold them on the open market to companies like Goldman Sux

  • Goldman Sux took these bundles, advertised them as tripple a investments, sold them, and then bet against them through AIG - thus AIG had to be bailed out.

  • rating agencies knew these investments were bad as well, and never said shit.

And everyone says I'm innocent

That's what they all say . . . our prison system is chock full of the innocent . . . .

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

Pick one what? One person? I bet you mean one party...

Remove them both. What are you scared of?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Let no lie go unpunished.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And let all liars be drawned & quartered.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Funny thought about that ( kinda ) - when I was a kid I wondered why they called it drawing and quartering. I knew how they did it as it had been explained to me - tie an arm to one horse the other to another horse - do the same with each leg - then slap the horses in the but and they try to take of in four different directions - pulling the limbs out of their sockets - at which point the limbs would be cut off - Now that was the part that confused me for awhile - I was pretty young and I thought to myself - shouldn't that be called drawing and fifthing(?) not quartering - four limbs and the torso 5 (?) - it did take me awhile to figure it out - it is quartering because once 3 limbs have been removed the fourth horse is running free - so you end up with four pieces.

Sorry - the comment brought up an old old old old old old old memory.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well that was a very interesting sidetrack. And can I ask did you figure this out after tieing a gi joe to 4 dogs perhaps? Now that would be taking initiative. ;)

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think we did something like that! I mean we didn't know it, but we invented drawn and quartered!

Oh yeah. Good times. Good times.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Hey that was someone historic wasn't it? Are you royalty? Should we be referring to you as King Zenny of So. Burlington. Or maybe the Zen King.?

Whatta ya think

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Off with his head". "We are not amused"

"get me a pig. I need a pig over here".

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - no but it did take me a while to fully visualize the concept in action - I think I was like 6 or 7 at the time.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - no but it did take me a while to fully visualize the concept in action - I think I was like 6 or 7 at the time.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Precious boss. Precious.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - YES I WA.....AM.

I saw that you did take initiative - how old were you when you reinvented D&Q? ( no not Dairy Queen ) {:-])

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I suppose I'm exaggerating but we were under 10 when we were abusing GI Joes.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

snips and snails and puppy dog tails that's what little boys are made of. {:-])

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We were disturbed and dangerous. But I grew out of that phase.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The unmonitored curiosity and explorations of children - Hey?

I am sure it must have been a case of corporal punishment - Did G.I.J do something he really should not have?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There was the ken doll/barbie episode by we've been told never to speak of it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - no public flogging? What did Barbie do?

( just kidding - whoa - scared myself - thought I was a corpoRATist in office for a second there - blaming the victim )

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

exactly! It was what GI Joe did to Barbie and Ken. But there was GI Joe the plumber who claimed she was wearing very provocative clothes. But we never bought that BS.

Ok thats enough we've gone as far as we could with that one.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The unmonitored curiosity and explorations of children - Hey?

I am sure it must have been a case of corporal punishment - Did G.I.J do something he really should not have?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Bastards.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

How about Klingon Targs.? maybe that is better.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Far superior than my poor example. Your poetic powers are unmatched. They are indeed "steaming piles of BULL SHIT encased in a sausage wrapper".

Yes. It feels right. So Let it be written. So let it be done.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

My pleasure. Truly

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Read through this a bit. Great post Zen

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Take action. See samples of how below.

183,361 signatures so far for Bernie Sanders petition as of 10:15am central time 01/15/2012

http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100081904.557411.411&gen=1&mailing_linkid=34578

The petition to save abandoned houses has 15 signatures. We picked one up at around 9:50pm 01/13/2012. Were just rolling right along.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Savingpeople-savinghomes-payingdowntheNationaldeficit/

Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.

http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ag8nw/zL2Q/B18Bb

Sierra Club has some good things to take part in as well. Set-up and ready for you to take part in. http://sierraclub.org/

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

We have to take this protest to the corporate media, the main source of all the problems.

The corporations and the politicians could not have gotten away with any of this bullshit without the complicity of the corporate media.

It is their job to expose corruption, not the occupy movement.

They make fun of us for not having a message, when they don't even know they are supposed to report the truth!

The editor of the New York Times recently asked if it is their job to fact check?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/

It is time to hold the media accountable for not doing their job. It is the only way to reach the masses that still do not understand this movement(because of the corporate media!)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.

http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ag8nw/zL2Q/B18Bb

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

"Don't terrify those with children"

I would also include:

those who have elderly in their homes

those who have servants who would become innocent victims

those who have innocent spouses

those with animals who may become afraid

maybe crapping in the offenders left desk drawer would be a better solution?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

If the legal system will turn it's eyes away from fraud, especially fraud that has become this pervasive, this destructive, of average American's financial well being and future prospects -

then at some point it is inevitable these criminals will begin to reap the harvest they have sown. It is called natural consequence.

Rather than wait for such events to begin, what I suggest is a method whereby the process of natural consequence can both:

  • be harnessed

  • be controlled

and so shorten the duration of our common suffering and the attendant ill repute that will most naturally append to our entire system of Justice.

  • Occupy the sidewalk

  • day and night

  • right outside the homes of the guilty

[-] 0 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

they have a name for people who take the law into their own hands....but I'm not sure I can spell it.

zendog, you still have my vote.....and I have candles. big ones.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you may be looking for the term vigilante

I'm really not in favor of vigilante justice - but if our institutions will not act that is all that may be left to the people.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

We already have. Every post to this blog exposes documented examples of the corporate greed that has corrupted our government:

http://corporategreedchronicles.com/

[-] 1 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

For proof of financial services fraud escaping Justice from our legal system, read Matt Taibbi's article "Why Isn't Wall Street In Jail"

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

60 Minutes has run several great spots on it.

and then there is the movie Inside Job.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Great post ZenDog. This is a good strategy. Focus attention, be effective as possible and be relentless.

Never stop. Standing up for your rights and demanding them is a way of life. When the citizens in this country get invloved this will start becoming a much better place. Many in the past fought hard to get us here, let's never stop.

If we ever stop. The clowns come in again. The repercussions are horrifying.

RELENTLESS

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Y.E.S.

[-] 0 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

nice post ZenDog.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Just

pick

one

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Should we not attack the lies?

[-] 0 points by PatriotSon01 (157) 2 years ago

The important issue to remember, is to not change your position. If you change position, you are ripe for misquotes and ripe for misinterpretations and slander. I hate to bring a term I openly thwart as being related to politics, however, one must have 'faith' in the truth. Speaking it over and over and over again, until you are blue in the face will ensure that you become known as one who speak truly. Choose your truth and hang onto it like a pit bull. Then argue from a position of power and indomitable/ unassailable strength. Then those who discredit and slander and others inhabiting this site, will lose footing most assuredly...

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Sounds too rigid to me, choosing a "truth" and holding on to it no matter what. I think people should be willing to listen to reason and rational discourse and always ready to question everything, even themselves and their own beliefs.

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

This attitude brings you into trouble if you intend to do anything political.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yes

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

How 'bout "Yes, we can"? We could start there, no?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

We should agitate for arrests of fraudulent lenders -

I don't know why the President seems to have been soft on this point. I suspect the moneyed interests have or are in effect holding the economy hostage, threatening a worse economic downturn if arrests are made.

If that is true, and if the economic downturn it were to get worse, it would -

  1. create more social instability; which in turn would
  2. make our numbers grow; which in turn would
  3. threaten their hold on power

With a clarity of purpose, and a clear signal of intent to capitalize on their threat, we might see

  1. the threat is empty, or
  2. the threat is real

Would this help or hurt the President's chances for reelection?

Either is possible.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constitunfit.html

Here is why it simply does not and will not happen..........

You really don't want Obama back in office. He flipped the minute he was handed the black book. You'l never read me typing he had bad intentions upon being elected.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/07/national/inauguration09/main4703673.shtml

http://newamericatoday.com/na/2010/09/will-obama-be-a-clinton----or-a-carter.html

or a bush?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I do want the President back in office - I happen to think that he has done fairly well with what he has to work with.

Another repelican in the White House is simply unacceptable.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Ok, I don't know how to make it any clearer to you that Obama has no interest in restoring our Republic or ever bucking those who hold the bankruptcy note.

I don't believe you want to accept reality.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111121142446.htm

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Perceptions of reality are rather interesting - like personality, perceptions of reality can be shaped in some rather interesting, and highly subversive, ways . . . .

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

oh, do think Ross Perot's plan, during the 1992 election, of giving the government back to the people was timely then, or would be now?

Do you recall what he proposed to do, and without pay?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That I don't - I didn't start paying attention until a bit later.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

His plan was quite amazing.

Abolish the congress and senate to be replaced with "electronic town squares" in which The People will craft and vote on laws

just for starters, it's hard to imagine anyone our age missing that, it's worth looking into, Ross understood the nature of the beast and the root of the problems.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That's nice. It is now 2011, and the repeliKans are intent on the utter destruction of the United States Government that they may hand over the public to the rule of corporatocracy.

I'll stick with the President, if you don't mind.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You hear him admit he has a problem with THE ORIGINAL Constitution, and yes he knows there are two, yet blindly accept he doesn't call for a A5CC to restore and/or repair it?

There is a huge disconnect with your cognitive reasoning.

Does it not bother you at all that he doesn't demand his DOJ even to prosecute congressional insider trading activities?

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Is that the Organic Constitution????

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Some refer to it that way. It was altered in 1871 when DC was incorporated.

Obama should know the truth and his admissions lead me to believe that he does, otherwise he would have popped back like most here do and answered, "whachu mean which one?"

Perhaps all those OWS'ers that do not believe this truth, and there are many that do not, should petition the Whitehouse to tell the simple truth.

The altered version changed our entire justice and legal systems. Citizens HAVE NO RIGHTS under the non-original Constitution as they have been unknowingly, by most, waived by implied consent and agreed to be doled out as license-able and revokable privileges.

The first 100 years of our nation, the Constitution was the highest law of the land and our justice system utilized Article III courts and common law. There was no such thing as presumptive guilt or being charged with crimes of which there was not harm or injury to somebody or something.

Ignore the blue lodge and NWO stuff, compare right and left columns.

http://www.gemworld.com/USAVSUS.HTM

I'm sure I can conjure up the SCOTUS ruling that agrees that both Constitutions, and forms of governance, exist but the seats of the original form are all vacant.

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

Paul Mitchell's jousting with both forms are well documented and easily verifiable. The Federal Zone clearly shows the distinction between Article III and Article IV courts, as well as clarifies the differences in their jurisdictions.

Worthwhile study material. It's for real.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Really????

[snip]

There are several corollaries to the myth of the organic Constitution which inform Christian Patriot "common law." In the following statements can be found much of the meaning of the catch- phrases and slogans of Christian Patriots:

The organic Constitution is God's law and the only law of the land.

"Natural rights" come from God, not the state. The rights enumerated in the divinely inspired organic Constitution are expressions of God's laws and can not be altered by the laws of men.

The federal government is an "unconstitutional" tyranny and the Constitution must be "upheld" by resisting that tyranny.

Because the 13th and 14th Amendments are unconstitutional, there are two or more classes of citizen, with only white Christian property-owning males possessing the natural rights of first class citizenship -- "sovereign citizenship." All others are "14th Amendment citizens" and possess inferior rights.

These "sovereigns" are the only people empowered to interpret the organic Constitution as the law of the land. The upshot of the myth of the divinely inspired organic Constitution is that Christian Patriot sovereigns can do whatever they want if they convince other sovereigns that such an action is "constitutional." According to the Christian Patriots, no other laws apply but the ones that they recognize.

[snip]

Do you also believe that whites were born from Adam's seed and all others were from the seed of the snake (the devil) which tempted Eve???

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well I agree with your pal, Obama, that the document is not perfect and there is an Original Constitution. This begs the question again, why doesn't he call for an A5CC to restore and correct it? why doesn't he buck the note holders and reclaim our nation's sovereignty? Money? You betcha. He's paid for.........

Get over the assumption that I, or anyone for the Constitution, is a racist. I'm not and it's a lame argument and broad sweeping attack on persons whose character you do not know.

I never agreed that slavery, or what was done to any large number of ethnic groups was right, or should continue happening.

The 13th amendment that Lincoln vaporized would have prevented a huge number of problems we have today.

Common law is real simple, injure or harm nobody or nothing. You can drag jesus all through it if you want, but, it dates back to the Magna Carta and served our nation's people very well for the first 100 years.

Let me guess, next you want to also assume I'm christian or even religious? That I am white? You'd be wrong and your innuendo is quite racist on your behalf.

I'm not sure which page you snipped that from, if it were the left and right page comparison page, it means little to me. The difference between our governance forms, past and present, are quite accurate and everyone could learn from it.

I never said I agree with all it's content.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

I asked a couple of questions and you decided once again to deflect, thats cool, I understand. I'm sorry you brought up the subject of the organic constitution which is based on racist neo-Confederate conspiracies going back to the Civil War. Perhaps you thought you could slip that by without any sort of vetting. ;)

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYDnYgQ5MQ

ignore your sugar daddy in this video too, the first five seconds is all it takes

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

so says the poorly educated and successfully programmed psychopath

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Hehee the programed one is you Mr deflection. I don't fault you though since those who are brainwashed have no clue this has occurred.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Obama brought it up in the video because it's true. I know you chose to slip past that without any getting on you.

Your questions were answered and it wouldn't matter if they were tattoo'd inside your eyelids since you are ignorant, prejudiced and blind/

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

I did not watch the Obama video so once again you are wrong. I asked you if you were talking about the Organic Constitution and you said yes. Then I gave you an example were that Bullshit began. Everything old is new again....

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Right, jump in the middle of a conversation and ignore the beginning. You are a psychopath.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

I just wanted to see if you knew of such Bullshit and as I suspected you did. It seems we have a Neo Confederate on our hands here. By the way look up the meaning of that word and you will see Ron Paul and many Paulbearers fit that description perfectly.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The 13th amendment that Lincoln vaporized would have prevented a huge number of problems we have today.

What's this?

From Wiki

Amendment XIII

  • Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

  • Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.2

The History

The first twelve amendments were adopted within fifteen years of the Constitution’s adoption. The first ten (the Bill of Rights) were adopted in 1791, the Eleventh Amendment in 1795 and the Twelfth Amendment in 1804. When the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed there had been no new amendments adopted in more than sixty years.

Given this, how did Lincoln vaporize something that simply did not exist prior to its approval on February 1, 1865?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Zen, it's very accurate and all records of it being ratified do indeed exist. Don't try discrediting it by overlooking it's substance and playing the race card, that's cheap and lame. I never said I had a problem with the 14th being about slavery.

Do your research and open your mind to truths of which you were never educated.

I mean you managed to miss the 1992 elections, I doubt you were any more awake in the 1820's.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Where? Where is this Amendment XIII you refer to? I gave you the wiki link - and I have a copy of the Federalist Papers right in front of me, with the Constitution in the back, and there is Amendment XIII, ratified in 1865.

the text I'm using was printed in 1982 - it's pre Wiki.

So I just don't get what you are saying

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

http://www.amendment-13.org/index.html

You're kidding, right?

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

This actually prevented Lincoln from holding either a congressional seat or presidential office, he was a lawyer.

http://www.amendment-13.org/ratifications.html

Wikihistory, nice.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/lincoln13th.html

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I don't know where this stuff all comes from, but it appears to be inaccurate. It's probably from David Duke or some related think tank.

  • Amendment XII [adopted in 1865]

    • Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    • Section2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That is Amendment XIII. According to the wiki source above, this measure didn't pass until it became a platform that Lincoln ran on during his reelection campaign.

The whole thing you are citing is most likely smoke and mirrors blown up by racists and white supremacists still fighting the Civil War.

the fools

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

From Wiki:

The Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) was proposed as an amendment to the United States Constitution in 1810. Upon approval of a resolution offered by U.S. Senator Philip Reed of Maryland, during the 2nd Session of the 11th Congress, TONA was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. While the time for TONA to be ratified was not limited by the Congress, so that it is technically still capable of being ratified by the states, it has not been ratified by three-fourths of the states, and so has never become part of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You don't have to get it and I don't expect that you would even if I piled up all the official papers to substantiate it. It happened alright.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Does it not bother you at all that he doesn't demand his DOJ even to prosecute congressional insider trading activities?

Yes it does, a great deal, and that is why I have advocated as I did in this very forum post.

Perhaps you haven't read it.

My take on the whole thing is that the President is an attorney, not an economist, and perhaps has not understood the depth or the breadth of the corruption that has taken place, or the ways in which the system has been broken.

And so he has turned to those who are most intimate with that breakage to help fix it - a short term solution to be sure.

If we examine what happened to both:

  • jobs numbers

  • the stock market

in the run up to the Aug 4 deadline on raising the debt ceiling, we see these numbers stagnate and then fall off as that date approached. Uncertainty over whether or not the U.S. would default on its debt was largely cited as the reason for the precipitous drop in numbers.

Never before had Congress engaged in brinkmanship over this issue - and the debt ceiling has been raised numerous numerous times since the turn of the last century.

My point- both jobs numbers and stock market indices fell on the basis of uncertainty.

Were the President to appoint to his cabinet one of the economists opposed to the ideological cleansing of their profession this would likely create the same kind of uncertainty regarding the market.

The same thing is likely if he announced plans to hold Wall Street players accountable in a court of law. The economy at the moment is fragile. I'm sure he doesn't want to make things any worse.

It doesn't make for great iconography, having so many of them in his cabinet - and I don't like it.

But I think I understand it. And who can say that the whales of wall street have not demonstrated an ability to hold the entire economy hostage to their own demands in some way - just as repeliKans often do with legislation.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

two words, incredible rationalizing! I'll say your perspective and reasoning are amazing as well as your very generous benefit of the doubt.

You hang onto the bi-party distraction and I'll remain not nearly as tolerant, regardless of gang colors or affiliation.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You hate me, I know. That's OK. But, can we agree on one thing? Conspiracy theorists are damn nuts! This little frog with wings just doesn't realize that what he reads on dubious Internet sites is nothing but lies and crap. It's unbelievable. There's no arguing with these mentally disturbed freaks. They're always right cause Mr. Icke says so.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I absolutely agree - a lot of the conspiracy bullshit is just that - bullshit.

That does not change the basic fact - conspiracy exists in our society at a level that is today unprecedented. The War on Drugs is a very clear demonstration of that simple reality.

If you go to the Air Force report of 1995 regarding Roswell, you will find that it was a pair of intel guys that started the whole aliens craze. This isn't conspiracy theory - this is what the Air Force report states. They told the press the weather balloon was an alien space craft - to cover up research into V2 rockets by a bunch of scientists who weren't even supposed to be here.

Chief among them: Werhner von Braun. Head of Germany's rocket program. Known to have calmly stepped over the dead and the dieing at Camp Dora - a satellite camp attached to Auschwitz, where 60,000 slave laborers worked to construct an underground facility for rocket production. Twelve of them were hung by the neck until dead, by a gantry used for lifting the rockets. Ostensibly their crime was sabotage of the German war effort.

Somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 people died at Camp Dora - a place most Americans have never even heard of.

We gave von Braun a medal in 1968.

Then we took it away.

And of the 100 or so scientists brought here under Project Paperclip, in violation of both international treaty and our own immigration laws, many were wanted Nazi war criminals.

aliens

there are no fucking aliens

it's just another lie

told by actors on a stage

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

ah . . . chickens . . . .

[-] -3 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

"The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not. "

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The above statement is absurd and as such discredits everything else you posted.

The Civil War centered around the question of slavery, and whether or not that policy would be allowed to spread west in the wake of the railroad.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You would love to believe that and your stating otherwise only shows you are not educated to our nation's actual history.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/lincoln13th.html

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

http://www.barefootsworld.net/index.html

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Ahhh yeah, wikipedia as opposed to the library of congress

You win.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

just stop

either you are an idiot

or a professional shill

I don't care either way

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Your mind is closed to your own reality, which makes you an idiot.

You know things are very wrong and the answers are right in plain sight. However, they defy your preconceived notions. You do realize the United States has never even paid the Civil War debt? No, you really don't.

If you actually have special ops or forces friends, ask the intelligent ones, they often know the truth.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Yes, things are very fucked up.

Digging up issues related to the Civil War debt don't really seem to have much bearing on things like

  • Global Warming

  • Goldman Sux and AIG

  • Countrywide and the subprime mess

  • getting cash out of politics

If you happen to believe and are committed to your premise, then I apologize for sounding harsh - it's been an . . . . interesting . . . . day . . . . mildly so to be sure but hey . . . .

. . . . I am an old man after all . . .

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constructive_fraud.html

pick it up from 1933 then

ol FDR was no better than the ones we have front and center today.

I won't disclose my background, however, I have many friends like the types I suggested you ask, everyone of them know our nation's important history better than most of my college history professors.

It's really not a left or right wing thing, I'm with you on many many issues.

First priority is preserving our planet and stopping it's rape, most everything else is a close second.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm fairly sure that hammering FDR is simply more repelican myth creation - they really don't like the policies that FDR implemented to help overcome the depression.

He was handicapped - and interestingly enough, if you give someone who is handicapped a job - they will do it better than most other folks would dream of.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well, letting go of the bi-party thing is liberating.

Not to blame it on him entirely as the stage had been set even before his fifth cousin held the office, he didn't make the best decision in light of being between a rock and a hard place.

His physical condition has nothing to do with it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

Interesting, but what does it have to do with the current post?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

nothing - he's trying to sell me an idea that is so insane it will just make me look stupid if I pick it up.

It's a part of the repelican strategy -

.

They don't like my posts, like these:

and most especially -

I was getting a bit of flack earlier about global warming - and then I started posting a recent news item, and it stopped:

  • Brian Williams just reported today, Thursday, January 5, 2012, that 98% of the nation is above freezing; and 115 cities around the country set all time record high temps for this day.

  • Jim Cantore elaborated on those numbers to state that of those 115 record high temps, four of them were 41 degrees above average and all time highs not just for day, but the entire month of January.

I keep saying:

as soon as the glaciers are gone

so are the repelicans!!

bwa hahahaha

bwa hahahaha

bwa hahahaha

bwa hahahaha

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

I posted a link to the entire page, I'll edit it into the snippet

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

attack the lies indeed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvQm8Khnbjo