Forum Post: Protect the U.S. Constitution, but make it even better!
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 7, 2011, 8:51 p.m. EST by asauti
(-113)
from Port Orchard, WA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
There's really only one person "on the stage" who will do this: Ron Lawl. I voted for him in 2008 and I will vote for him again in 2012.
The OWS crowd does not seem to support Ron Lawl, but it's really quite funny as I have to wonder... just WHO WILL THEY VOTE FOR, then? Oh yeah, that's right, I remember now what happened in '08... they'll vote for whoever the media serves up to them! Wow, thanks people! (pure sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it.)
Ron Lawl?? If Ron Lawl's name is dorked up here, it is probably the work of the elites that control mainstream media to ignore him.
Anyway, the only problem with our Constitution is with our elected and appointed representatives violating their oath of office to OBEY and protect the Constitution. If we could hold them to that, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.
http://www.constitutionattacked.com
Troll.
Care to back yourself up there with some semblance of intelligent discussion? Oh, sorry... guess not.
RonPaul is the antithesis of the OWS movement. Read the OWS Declaration, then read RonPaul's positions on the issues.
"Intelligent discussion" on idiocy is not possible.
I may or may not vote for Dr. Paul. But that is my choice as a citizen. I don't think OWS should back any candidate. Nor could, they considering the diversity of opinion here.
I don't think they need to back a candidate as "a whole", either. I'm all for each person voting for who they truly believe in.
Having said that, I imagine that we are going to have a president of the U.S. in 2012. So who will it be? Who should it be, if we are to return to "Power to the People"?
If we are going to get real change we need to start small and work up. Probably by focusing on state legislatures first, then Congress, and then Presidential politics.
The 2012 election is right around the corner. Do you think we will have a president next year? I imagine you think there will be, so who will it be? Who do you want it to be? Cain? Obama? Gingrich? Paul? Who?
Oh, and one more thing... would you care to define "real change"?
Name just one thing you would like to change.
Article 5 of the US constitution will allow the people of the states to ratify amendments properly and improve the constitution. Article 5 is our first and last constitutional right. If we do not use it, we will lose all rights.
Article V conference, Mark Meckler Lawrence Lessig at harvard 9/25/11-video comments http://vimeo.com/3146474
Lessig power point on article V http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk
Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
A vote for Ron Lawwwwl is basically a vote for Obama since Lawwwwl can't win.
I'd advise against it...
And you are going to vote for.... who, again?
vote Republican.
A Ron Lawwwwwwwwl vote is useless, he has no chance of winning. And an Obama vote means BIGGER Govt and HIGHER taxes and 4 more years of 9+ unemployment.
I do appreciate you actually answering my question - most on here do not.
However, I must disagree with you. I will be voting for RP, who happens to be a Republican in the truest sense of the word. (He defends our Republic in the way our Constitution commands him).
I will not vote for "one of the two" that the media serves up on a silver platter, unless of course, one of them is RP. I'll write him, if nothing else.
By telling me that I would be "wasting my vote", reminds me of a great quote from John Adams, our sixth U.S. president:
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
vote for principle...but know this, a vote for Ron P.aul, who has no chance of winning, is a vote for Obama.
just make sure you factor that reality into your principled logic
I can really do no more than vote for the person I believe in.
It sounds like you will go forward with voting who the media puts in front of you on the Republican ticket - and that's fine. You should vote for who you believe in.
And hopefully you believe in a candidate that will truly protect the U.S. Constitution.
There are 10 Republican candidates, one of which is Ron P.aul. They have debate after debate, they discuss the issues...they get voted on by Republicans from various States all over the country.
I fail to see how this = Media putting them in front of me or choosing them for me.
You voting for P.aul is no different than me voting for the eventual Republican nominee who gets a majority of Republican support.
If P.aul stood for things I believed in, I'd vote for him...but he's an isolationist and not a realist. I agree with him on things, but disagree with him on many more.
I disagree that voting for Ron P.aul is "no different" than voting for the eventual Republican nominee. Why? Because the media and the elite will do everything they can to put a candidate in that position that will do their bidding. The media is a tool of those in power. And I believe they are purposely trying to give RP as little time in the spotlight as possible. But we... his supporters are growing and growing, it's becoming harder and harder to keep down the message of : Liberty!
If OWS is successful in taking the movement to the next level, then every nominee is going to have to work to win the support of the movement. I think the good doctor could win that support but he can't take it for granted. The problem is lack of time, both for OWS and Doc.
I tested Ron Lawl. Being an MD, I considered he might have unconditional support for things that are fundamental to natural law and our development as being a part of the constitution the masses can easily use. That wasn't the case with a letter sent certified to him. My letter was unanswered and instead sent to my own congressperson who is completely unaccountable. Well, now at least 2 are proven that way. A scan of the letter from Pauls office notifying me of the forwarding.-----
http://i51.tinypic.com/eipj0l.jpg
you could get support for that in Direct Democracy...just post the defined issues so others can support openly:
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/issue
www.uponloca.coml - Direct Democracy
Testing your site a little with a very important general question that I would like to see appraised with efforts to answer.---
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/content/article-v-us-constitution-our-first-and-last-right
I like the idea. Don't find it intuitive at all, but then its new.
agree not intuitive..yet..we focused first on database structure and functionality...
Okay. So does it publicize itself somehow? Is it like a petition site with a tally of opinion?
it gets much traffic from all the media and news content on the site...and we are just starting to promote it now and reach out...need Board Members..and still developing features in meantime..
I'd like you to take a look at this concept I came up with in about 2002. It could be another way to get your data base loaded with issues and choices upon them.---
http://algoxy.com/poly/poll_to_post.html
It exploits people desire to see their concepts engaged by others. What it does is creates a rating system that has aspects of cogency as criteria. The goal is to gather dynamic opinion that is cognitively accurate and conprehensive.------
I think what it may do is what people are trying to do with message boards but they don't cooperate in the cogency department enough. Or break things down to determinate elements and this may impel that in order to be understood better, which gains a more complete response. Or more finite determination.
The first of three poll options, for optimized performance seems best as, ON TOPIC?. When a person responds to that poll option they express whether or not the post they are reading is in the realm of the topic at all. The next is a rating of how relevant the post is in the order of the topic issues in the forum. In the beginning of a topic this sets the initial order of relevancy of issue in the forum, later it rates the posts for relevancy of posts in the thread.
Ok, I see....
What we are suggesting is a debaters test..or an Online Voters Test...and some rules..people stay on topic themselves or..penalties. and we all learn certain rules of logic...before entering into serious debate..and having a right to post or comment..
we allow issues and solutions to be set to poll...and re written..and set to ballot by author..
commenters can open their comment to a poll on comment itself. when posting on an issue or topic...
For an issue or solution to win in a vote, it needs to be well defined, detailed, etc etc by those who wish it set to Vote ...the Author.. It allows all of us to propose ....anything...so long as you come to the debate as a mature person fit for meaningful debate...or you get suspended or booted for a time..
If it were turned into law..we want a Voters License... and some rules of good conduct with acceptable penalties.....for rude, etc...
anyone without a Lic stays off the debate, and just votes like normal..
Wow, that is a very similar concept and might be very useful in states ratification of proposed amendments. I've posted the poll (is that the right term) I made,---
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/content/article-v-us-constitution-our-first-and-last-right
on a skype chat that deals with article v and getting the needed understandings. Ratification by voters in states is an excellent way to refresh the validity of the constitution which will adjust laws in beneficial ways for people.-----
But the informal rolling dynamic of message board discussion is missing so participation will not be casual, missing a good sized portion of people and opinion. The lack of an intuitive format will also be a limit for some people, like myself. I don't use facebook or ning, stuff doesn't compute as why I should click.----
I am Christopher A. Brown on skype and elanuslecurus@lycos.com Get me a contact so I can learn more.
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/issue
once it is a defined and voted as a confirmed issue, it goes to a data based list,
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/Confirmed-Issues-Direct-Democracy
and then
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/solutions
once voted as a defined solution, it goes to the big vote
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/Ballots-Defined-Solutions-Confirmed-Issues-Direct-Democracy
anything voted as passed by the majority goes to be listed as the Public Mandate...
Then the elected are expected to make law, or Veto .assumably with a reason....and it goes back to the process...or maybe a recall of the elected.....
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/recallpetition
But, it would still have to go through normal process of becoming law...
Okay, I see the heirarchy transiting from proposed issue for local poll, then to confirmed for local, then confirming a solution, then in greater mass as confirmed solution, then trial and recall or law. A flow chart that was an image map with an example issue followed all the way through would be a great way to introduce it.
Consider the "poll to post" fitting in nicely between a confirmed issue and defined solution in order to create an informal immersion in the complexities and flesh out much more developed solutions drawing on far greater variety and perspective than might be recognized as such without the "poll to post" environment. The informal structuring would still be visible and rated even though the person posting might not necessarily know they had inadvertantly defined a better solution, it was still noted for its value. Then again they might, and those reading and posting could support it and raise it's status because they understand it as well.-------
Basically, on the first pass for a concept it can get refinement and support rapidly at the same time because the poll reponse re positions the most valuable thread at the top rather that the newest in a forum, then the most valuable post within a thread by the same criteria. This way support can be created without adding bloating content, just poll response once users get practiced. However, if a post is added that brings up a requisite that undermines a point, then it creates another thread that is linked and the main thread is shown as dependent on that issue. The main thread may stop, and it should until dependant issues are solved. Consider at some point this as a way to simplify and encourage participation while facilitating dynamic opinion upon priorities that are absolute to solution, and always keep them in front.-----
Now, seeing that text consolidated in truly evolved writings upon the issues, with priority to solution, can use the same system but geared to finished presentation rather than conceptualizations. At that point participants can copy and paste key phrases that show major approval, together within the hierarchy of dependant subjects in priority under one final goal well described and attained by subservient solutions benefitting from the same thing.----
Ponder a question I ask to demonstrate the usefulness of systems like these. Can we stop doing all the things we are doing we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?"
here's a couple of sites that relate to what i think you are talking about. I haven't had time to study them but it's nice to see this going on out there... http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=170 ------------ http://www.ida.org.au/deliberative.php
interesting stuff here, thx. Are you familiar with The Venus Project? It sounds like what you're discussing here is the type of system that runs the cybernated cities of TVP, linked to the entire planet. A good introduction to TVP is in Zeitgeist: Addendum (it's introduced about half way through but the first half is good to know stuff too) found here: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html ----------------- What about the process and timeframe of implementation?
Flowchart, on list of todo's fyi
Exactly , this must be the goal at forefront of mind...as you state: geared to finished presentation rather than conceptualizations
Ponder: that is the question..
Flowchart...intuitive form...will help lower barriers....and if it becomes the thinking persons forum by reputation...we create a new national sport...with big payoffs for the nation...
Ok, I believe your story to be real and true. Did this ruin your belief in RP as a good person to have in government?
Yep. I asked him to support the notion that speech vital for survival be shared and understood. This is too fundamental. His campaign front is a scam. He's not the worst by any measure. Religious fanaticism really is not good in government.
Are you claiming that Ron Lawl promotes "religious fanaticism"?
Yes, it appears that way, but he fits in with lots of Americans so that's nothing new.
In which way does Ron Lawl promote "religious fanaticism"?
His position on abortion coupled with that on nuclear weapons. Inconsistent.
His position on Abortion can be summed up like this:
Ron Lawl wants to protect the life of the baby. He believes that that life is granted the same rights as you have: to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you ok with people killing babies? If so, do you not believe that that little beating heart has rights once it can be determined to "have life"?
And on the nuclear weapons thing, I'm not sure what you are referring to.
No, I'm not okay with killing babies, but anyone who thinks that you can be okay with nuclear weapons in the same breath is operating on beliefs, emotional reasoning. One bomb is perhaps a million lives, and another in residual, and all nature is trashed around it. Major global disaster. A woman and her choice is inconsequential. We bear no guilt by giving her control over her own body or karma.-------
When we collectively support nuclear weapons we are saying no babies matter, no humans matter, no life matters.