Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Listen up People -

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 18, 2012, 9:19 p.m. EST by rickMoss (435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Things will continue to deteriorate despite your best wishes, efforts, sacrifices and whatever. I know you won't appreciate this now because most of us like to believe we know what's going on and what to do about it. But if that was truly the case then things wouldn't be this bad. Our problems have grown vastly in numbers, size and magnitude. Most of us don't want to admit we don't know what the hell to do. Most of us have to admit that all we have done is vote, complain or protest which has gotten us absolutely nowhere while things continue to rapidly deteriorate

My advice to everyone is to start listening to the scientists that have been warning us about these problems for decades. And what did we do through our arrogance and ignorance. We shrugged them off as alarmist when they were trying to save our asses. Well your ass is in a lot of trouble for ignoring warnings about technological unemployment, climate change, global warming, peak oil, economic collapse and on and on an on. We don't listen.

This is not a scare tactic to scare people. This is a warning to save our asses. Because today is nothing compared to what is coming. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

My point is this: We have to start listening to the smartest people on the planet not the dumb people. The scientist and engineers are our only hope. We need smart people (Scientist and Engineers) to fix this mess(s). Politicians, lawyers and bankers have failed. They're idiots and we know it. I'm not willing to let them screw up the rest of my life and the lives of my off-springs. I'm for getting the smart guys to fix this mess. They actually think and create real things instead of lies and paper money. Think about it! Use your common sense.

We have to meet the scientist and Engineers half way. It's called the "Nuclear Option". It's our only option. You may not be ready yet but you will see. I hope we don't wait until it's too late.


U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )

Non U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.2” at ( http://SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org )

If you know the world around you is collapsing and you do nothing about it, then who’s really at fault when you stood by and did nothing? We have to stop whining and do something about it. We don’t have to live like this anymore.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Sorry, It’s too late. The politicians can’t fix the problems at this late date. The masses don’t have a clue what to do or how to do it. No one has a viable solutions.

At this point buy guns, lots of ammo, horde food and learn to live off the grid. I’m being a little crazy here. But only a little.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

This is a viable solution - the only solution I've found out there. Everyone else is just like you. Flapping there mouths or complaining. The problem is you were too busy or lazy to even read the link. Buying guns and ammo is a good idea. But you still have to come out of your hole sooner or later. And guess what? The problems will be much worse and you'll be out of ammo. Do yourself a favor.



OsiXs (Revolution 2.0)

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

slightly less radical than nuclear - but can you think of ANY problem that would not be on its way to being fixed by:
Citizens United & Corporate Personhood Amendment
For a complete analysis of the amendment issue,
and the text of all amendments,
and our comparison of all of the amendments,
and the Citizens United case transcript,
and the Citizens United decision,
and the Buckley decision,
and analysis of corporate personhood,
and analysis of Article III,
and the ABC News poll on CU / CP,
and the PFAW poll on CU / CP,
and 50+ videos on CU / CP from Chomsky, Hedges, Witchcraft, Reich, Warren, Lessig,
Hartmann, Maher, Sanders, Hightower, etc. and our voting bloc petition & plan.

no password or signup
OWS Working Group: http://nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy


Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Remove ALL money from policitics.

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

It is impossible without a constitutional amendment

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

umm, actually . . . there is an argument that insists Article III section 2 of the Constitution establishes the prerogatives of Congress v the Supreme Court and that this is a clear instance where the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority.

Validation of this argument by Constitutional scholars - which I am not - might provide avenue to paint the entire court as completely illegitimate, I don't know - but I do know that if repelicans were constrained by extremity to chose between a Constitutional Amendment and simply asserting that their opponent were illegitimate, they would indeed opt for accusations over action. They have done just that, repeatedly.

In any case, I find the argument interesting, even though the person I have heard put it forth isn't very articulate.

You've quite a list of resources - any of them cover this angle?

Here's the relevant text:

  • (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

  • In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I'm not at all certain a Constitutional Scholar would interpret this to mean Congress and only Congress has the authority over issues of campaign finance - I am not an attorney.

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

Your point is legit.
Congress CAN vote for a "Regulation" to restrict the court from making any campaign finance decisions.
You can find our Article IIl document #6 on our document page http://corporationsarenotpeope.webuda.com
and 64 videos on the amendment on our VIDEOS page

with virtually NO support for the Article III approach in congress,
and amendment support based on
1.9M petition signatures &
over 350 state & local resolutions &
28 Senators &
92 Representatives &
12 amendment bills already IN congress

there is only one real path

between the tortoise & the hare, the tortoise cannot win if the tortoise is dead

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

umm, that link is offering web hosting . . .

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I would have thought Congressional action might have been faster than amending the Constitution - at least potentially - and it might provide leverage toward removal of those who oppose the idea and are therefore clearly on the side of big business - it should be clear enough already I guess.

I wonder - that there is no bill in Congress, no support for . . . an argument between Congress and the Supreme court over authority . . . and who has it . . . that authority . . .

That would undermine the authority of the federal government, which is presumably what repelicans want. But do they? Really?

In the absence of the question of legitimacy posed by this issue - I was originally wondering if this lack of enthusiasm by Congress for an approach that should, under more normal circumstances, work fine -

  • is this an indication that OWS is correct, that most or even all legislators have been corrupted?

  • or rather is this evidence of fear, and of Congress accepting that things have gotten so bad they need an angry public to back them up against the forces of . . . conservatism . . .

I think I've answered my own question - we can't have the Congress and the Supreme Court bickering like school children . . . I think that must be the calculation in Congress -

and this ignores the facts. We already have that, and we have it thanks to John Roberts.

I wonder if this explains his support for the health care bill in the recent court decision. I wonder if the President offered the possibility of undermining both Congress and the court with Congressional action -

probably not but it does seem like a possibility and there certainly must be some explanation - some source of leverage used by someone to get the decision we got on the Health Care question.

Document 6

I'll see if I can read it.

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

I cannot answer the "why" on no Article III bill
No other legislative solution can overrule SCOTUS
Also, an Article III bill cannot override the key decisions-
it can only restrict FUTURE SCOTUS actions.
Not that an amendment is fast, but if it was done, it would "erase"
CU & Buckley, restore McCain Feingold
but 92 reps & 28 senators are supporting amendments today

our #6 document is a word 2000 document - [ 15,000 characters ] if you dont have word, and you download it, you can read it ( rough formatting ) with wordpad

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I would use both approaches. Congress should assert that it and only it has authority to set the rules on campaign finance.

Simultaneously we should seek to Amend.

If the Supreme Court cannot uphold the laws of this nation, then the Supreme Court should disband.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

It is, but lets not settle for suggesting that reversing CU will be enough.

This system was corrupted and bought out long before CU came around

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

of course it is not enough- but it is a first step - and 75%-85% of Americans already favor it.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Settling for crumbs is for idiots. Stop settling for minor victories and start demanding the whole thing is fixed.

[-] 3 points by PandoraK (1678) 1 year ago

Oh wouldn't that be nice...just fix it all at once. Can't do it that way, but it'd still be nice...

Imagine the country is a house, your house. The roof leaks, it needs insulation, but the real problem lies below that...the foundation is crumbling. Can't fix it all at once, that foundation is a priority. Without that foundation the whole thing collapses.

So we do the sensible thing, we prioritize, fix what is the most important. First the foundation, but we don't follow that with the insulation, we fix the roof second...

Our political system is crumbling, the simple fact that there are those who believe America and along with it, Americans can be bought means fixing that system first.

Like when repairing a crumbling foundation, we have to work at all the parts, figure out why it's crumbling fix that part, then start building up the parts that have failed, we can put in improvements along the way.

Repairs and change don't get made without getting dirty, and they don't get made by standing outside and yelling at the top of our lungs, look at that falling apart.

We have to work both inside and outside to affect change, to make improvements. Don't like the 'crew bosses'? Then work to get them changed.

It's time to grow up and get to damned work.

Vote. That's the inside, promote like minded people to run for office, even if it's only dog catcher and vote again.

Every one on these forums and millions of others can hire and fire 'crew bosses' but not if you don't step up and participate.

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

twinkle ☼☼☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ ..T W I N K L E
☼☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ ..tWiNkLe TWINKLE
☼°○oΟ ☼°○oΟ ☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ ..
T-W-I-N-K-L-E ☼/☼/☼