CDZ Do you think that a revolution or uprising in America is inevitable in the future? Or incredibly unl

[Disir]

My thoughts are so clear and simple:
Given the state of the economy, the growing disparity of wealth, joblessness, and increasing negative views of the government, do you think it will hit a breaking point where Americans decide to revolt and overthrow the government/wealthy elite?
Or is that more likely an extreme scenario that will never happen?
Your opinion of the future of America's state of affairs?

The push back is already underway.

Convention of States

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Not really. An organization that wishes to restrict federal power while promoting States rights is exactly what we need.

Besides, it will be the State Legislatures that will be calling for the State Convention. It will be those legislatures that will set the agenda and priorities, along with the subject matter of the convention.

Returning power to the States and limiting the Federal government to working on our behalf in world affairs is the correct thing to do.

This is from ALEC
Article V Handbook - ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council

They are most active in the states. These folks write state legislation.

National Chair
Mr. Bill CarmichaelAmerican Bail Coalition




Private Enterprise Council Members
Ms. Cynthia Bergman
Exxon Mobil Corporation

Ms. Sano BlockerEnergy Future Holdings


Mr. Jeff BondPhRMA


Mr. Josh BrownPfizer Inc.


Mr. Steve DelBianco
NetChoice

Ms. Marianna Eterno
Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company

Mr. Kenneth LaneDiageo North America, Inc.


Mr. Bill LeahyAT&T


Mr. Don LeeK-12, Inc.


Mr. Kelly Mader

Mr. Stephen Moore

Mr. Michael MorganKoch Companies Public Sector, LLC


Mr. Daniel Smith
Altria Client Services

Mr. Roland Spies
State Farm Insurance Companies

Mr. Pat Thomas
United Parcel Service

Mr. Bob Williams
State Budget Solutions

Mr. Steve Woods
National Federation of Independent Business
Private Enterprise Advisory Council - ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council

 

[Darkwind]

My thoughts are so clear and simple:
Given the state of the economy, the growing disparity of wealth, joblessness, and increasing negative views of the government, do you think it will hit a breaking point where Americans decide to revolt and overthrow the government/wealthy elite?
Or is that more likely an extreme scenario that will never happen?
Your opinion of the future of America's state of affairs?

The push back is already underway.

Convention of States

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Current political climate coupled with government greed and out-of-control power grabbing require that the States (and by extension, the people) reclaim the power that has slowly been eroded away. If that is a bias, then it is a healthy one and not something to be ashamed of.

Already, the left have lost control of 66 of the 99 state legislative bodies. Another few elections that go against them and the way will be clear for a convention call. That is why people who believe in the Constitution should focus on electing representatives to the US Congress that believe in a return to strict constitutional governance, along with requiring them to cede back their power to the States. However, the most important focus needs to be on state legislatures.

On the spending issue alone, our debt is unsustainable and will ruin our country.

If we do nothing more than require term limits and a limited ability to spend the national treasury, we'll have gain 50 years on the current process.

 

[Darkwind]

The push back is already underway.

Convention of States

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Not really. An organization that wishes to restrict federal power while promoting States rights is exactly what we need.

Besides, it will be the State Legislatures that will be calling for the State Convention. It will be those legislatures that will set the agenda and priorities, along with the subject matter of the convention.

Returning power to the States and limiting the Federal government to working on our behalf in world affairs is the correct thing to do.

This is from ALEC
Article V Handbook - ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council

They are most active in the states. These folks write state legislation.

National Chair
Mr. Bill CarmichaelAmerican Bail Coalition




Private Enterprise Council Members
Ms. Cynthia Bergman
Exxon Mobil Corporation

Ms. Sano BlockerEnergy Future Holdings


Mr. Jeff BondPhRMA


Mr. Josh BrownPfizer Inc.


Mr. Steve DelBianco
NetChoice

Ms. Marianna Eterno
Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company

Mr. Kenneth LaneDiageo North America, Inc.


Mr. Bill LeahyAT&T


Mr. Don LeeK-12, Inc.


Mr. Kelly Mader

Mr. Stephen Moore

Mr. Michael MorganKoch Companies Public Sector, LLC


Mr. Daniel Smith
Altria Client Services

Mr. Roland Spies
State Farm Insurance Companies

Mr. Pat Thomas
United Parcel Service

Mr. Bob Williams
State Budget Solutions

Mr. Steve Woods
National Federation of Independent Business
Private Enterprise Advisory Council - ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council

Yes, and what they do is:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives that drafts and shares model state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States.[4][5][6] According to its website, ALEC "works to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America's state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public".[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_note-about-7

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

Doesn't sound like some evil empire thing to Me.

 

[dcraelin]

The push back is already underway.

Convention of States

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Current political climate coupled with government greed and out-of-control power grabbing require that the States (and by extension, the people) reclaim the power that has slowly been eroded away. If that is a bias, then it is a healthy one and not something to be ashamed of.

Already, the left have lost control of 66 of the 99 state legislative bodies. Another few elections that go against them and the way will be clear for a convention call. That is why people who believe in the Constitution should focus on electing representatives to the US Congress that believe in a return to strict constitutional governance, along with requiring them to cede back their power to the States. On the spending issue alone, our debt is unsustainable and will ruin our country.

If we do nothing more than require term limits and a limited ability to spend the national treasury, we'll have gain 50 years on the current process.

I dont think your "by extension, the people" necessarily works if the movement towards a convention is steered by partisans.
YOu have to be aware that some on the left (not all) do not want restrictions on spending in certain areas......the same actually of some on the right (think military spending) that is why those genuinely interested in a fair society will concentrate on structural Constitutional issues that both sides can agree on.

 

[Darkwind]

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Current political climate coupled with government greed and out-of-control power grabbing require that the States (and by extension, the people) reclaim the power that has slowly been eroded away. If that is a bias, then it is a healthy one and not something to be ashamed of.

Already, the left have lost control of 66 of the 99 state legislative bodies. Another few elections that go against them and the way will be clear for a convention call. That is why people who believe in the Constitution should focus on electing representatives to the US Congress that believe in a return to strict constitutional governance, along with requiring them to cede back their power to the States. On the spending issue alone, our debt is unsustainable and will ruin our country.

If we do nothing more than require term limits and a limited ability to spend the national treasury, we'll have gain 50 years on the current process.

I dont think your "by extension, the people" necessarily works if the movement towards a convention is steered by partisans.
YOu have to be aware that some on the left (not all) do not want restrictions on spending in certain areas......the same actually of some on the right (think military spending) that is why those genuinely interested in a fair society will concentrate on structural Constitutional issues that both sides can agree on.

The movement to get a States convention is a grass roots movement. By the very nature of it, it is "the people". However, the concept is that State governments are closer to the people than the Federal Government, therefore, States rights deal with governance in the hands of the people, not some lone bureacrat in an office, across an entire country.

 

[hortysir]

Not likely at all. There is always a possibility of a very few idiots who think they are about to begin a revolution to do something really stupid. But that will be just another news day.

Funny thing about that. People who think they can change the world are usually a bit crazy. Except that it is the people who THINK they can change the world are the people who ACTUALLY do change the world.

Thinking you can start a revolution in a stable society (and this is a stable society) is a tad more than a bit crazy. The phrase "bat shit" comes to mind.

Its not a revolution. It is the free exercise of our liberty.

Free expression of ideas is exercising liberty. Armed revolt is treason. Of course, it's only treason if you lose.

??

Where exactly is it written that a revolution requires violence?

Every two years or so we get our chance

 

[dcraelin]

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Current political climate coupled with government greed and out-of-control power grabbing require that the States (and by extension, the people) reclaim the power that has slowly been eroded away. If that is a bias, then it is a healthy one and not something to be ashamed of.

Already, the left have lost control of 66 of the 99 state legislative bodies. Another few elections that go against them and the way will be clear for a convention call. That is why people who believe in the Constitution should focus on electing representatives to the US Congress that believe in a return to strict constitutional governance, along with requiring them to cede back their power to the States. On the spending issue alone, our debt is unsustainable and will ruin our country.

If we do nothing more than require term limits and a limited ability to spend the national treasury, we'll have gain 50 years on the current process.

I dont think your "by extension, the people" necessarily works if the movement towards a convention is steered by partisans.
YOu have to be aware that some on the left (not all) do not want restrictions on spending in certain areas......the same actually of some on the right (think military spending) that is why those genuinely interested in a fair society will concentrate on structural Constitutional issues that both sides can agree on.

The movement to get a States convention is a grass roots movement. By the very nature of it, it is "the people". However, the concept is that State governments are closer to the people than the Federal Government, therefore, States rights deal with governance in the hands of the people, not some lone bureacrat in an office, across an entire country.

I agree with that largely...except that very little media attention is paid to state politics as compared to national politics....this tends to let crooks weasel their way into state governments despite being closer to the people. But your right in that the call is more likely to come from them since national politicians will reflexively be against change. ..Its a bit of a dilemma.

 

[Disir]

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Not really. An organization that wishes to restrict federal power while promoting States rights is exactly what we need.

Besides, it will be the State Legislatures that will be calling for the State Convention. It will be those legislatures that will set the agenda and priorities, along with the subject matter of the convention.

Returning power to the States and limiting the Federal government to working on our behalf in world affairs is the correct thing to do.

This is from ALEC
Article V Handbook - ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council

They are most active in the states. These folks write state legislation.

National Chair
Mr. Bill CarmichaelAmerican Bail Coalition




Private Enterprise Council Members
Ms. Cynthia Bergman
Exxon Mobil Corporation

Ms. Sano BlockerEnergy Future Holdings


Mr. Jeff BondPhRMA


Mr. Josh BrownPfizer Inc.


Mr. Steve DelBianco
NetChoice

Ms. Marianna Eterno
Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company

Mr. Kenneth LaneDiageo North America, Inc.


Mr. Bill LeahyAT&T


Mr. Don LeeK-12, Inc.


Mr. Kelly Mader

Mr. Stephen Moore

Mr. Michael MorganKoch Companies Public Sector, LLC


Mr. Daniel Smith
Altria Client Services

Mr. Roland Spies
State Farm Insurance Companies

Mr. Pat Thomas
United Parcel Service

Mr. Bob Williams
State Budget Solutions

Mr. Steve Woods
National Federation of Independent Business
Private Enterprise Advisory Council - ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council

Yes, and what they do is:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives that drafts and shares model state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States.[4][5][6] According to its website, ALEC "works to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America's state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public".[7]

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

Doesn't sound like some evil empire thing to Me.

So, you wished to be ruled by corporations?

 

[suplex3000]

In my opinion, it all balances on food prices. Once food becomes to expensive for most people, that is where you will start to see an uprising.
I think we are pretty far off from that in the U.S. but if food prices reach a critical level, pressures will need to be released in some manner.

 

[|electric|foxy|]

So, you wished to be ruled by corporations?

You say that as if they haven't ruled a decade or teo decades ago. The US ruled by politicians but not corporations is a nonsense.

 

[Agit8r]

Young leftists might think it is a good idea, until they lose their iPhone service.

Old right-wingers might think it is a good idea, until they run out of their free medicine.

Americans just have too many entanglements with the things they "hate"

 

[Josf]

A Con Con was already tried and what happened was a criminal take-over of an existing Federation where the original was based upon rule of law, and then the replacement (counterfeit) "Federation" was, is, and will always be based upon rule by (criminal) tyrants. There is a revolution and that revolution is caused by an increase in connectivity through such technologies as the so called Internet/World Wide Web/and the power of encryption. Add to the steady reduction in power used to deceive the targeted victims a steady increase in the power individuals have at their command to not only know how to avoid victimization, the former victims also have the power to manufacture their own power, and their own capital goods. That revolution where power is diminishing at the so called "Elite" (Criminal) level and power is increasing at the so called "tax payer" (Victim) level is well underway. The linchpin is monopoly money power, also known as "World Reserve Currency," which can be replaced peacefully (revolution) by encrypted transactions peer to peer. Those who refuse to know the facts are those who will be left behind as the revolution follows through.

 

[Asclepias]

My thoughts are so clear and simple:
Given the state of the economy, the growing disparity of wealth, joblessness, and increasing negative views of the government, do you think it will hit a breaking point where Americans decide to revolt and overthrow the government/wealthy elite?
Or is that more likely an extreme scenario that will never happen?
Your opinion of the future of America's state of affairs?

Dont see how. The people that run this country have crowd control down to a science.

 

[jwoodie]

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

That is a bunch of malarkey. Any amendment of the Constitution would have to be approved by 3/4 of the States. Most of the people opposed to this process would like to abolish individual State sovereignty and replace it with a dictatorial national government.

 

[Two Thumbs]

My thoughts are so clear and simple:
Given the state of the economy, the growing disparity of wealth, joblessness, and increasing negative views of the government, do you think it will hit a breaking point where Americans decide to revolt and overthrow the government/wealthy elite?
Or is that more likely an extreme scenario that will never happen?
Your opinion of the future of America's state of affairs?

I find it unlikely.

to many leftist in this country want government control of our lives and seek to destroy anyone who is for freedom and or against government growth.

it's like they learned from history and want it to repeat

 

[Josf]

"That is a bunch of malarkey. Any amendment of the Constitution would have to be approved by 3/4 of the States. Most of the people opposed to this process would like to abolish individual State sovereignty and replace it with a dictatorial national government."

There was no agreed upon (legal) provision in The Articles of Confederation (the existing federal government that worked to defeat the British) to create the so called "Constitution" and that was well known as the criminals took over. This Con Con idea is a byproduct of the already existing criminal version of a "Federal Government," and the words quoted above sound a whole lot like the words quoted at the time the first Con Con was perpetrated by the criminals who were taking over the existing (voluntary) Federal Union; the same voluntary Federal Union that worked well enough to defend the people from the largest criminal army then destroying and enslaving so many people on this planet in that time period.

Example:
But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention. Page 4, Luther Martin, Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1787

https://www.wshein.com/media/samples/12389.pdf

So...the people had trial by jury secured in each self-defensive State, and these people in these States created a voluntary defensive Union, also knowable as a Federation, whereby the people abided by rule of law, and the people effectively drove off the largest criminal army run by rule of tyrants (criminals) and then a fraud was perpetrated by which criminal frauds claimed to be assembling representatives of the States into a process to amend the voluntary federation, rather than amend that existing federation the criminals created an entirely new (criminal version) of government instead. A so called law based upon a fraud, in reality, is a crime. In fantasy land, where black is white, and evil is good, the criminal version of a Constitution is claimed to be just, right, lawful, legal, moral, even while those criminals claim that slavery is legal, so go on, and go on, and keep it up, keep buying into the lie, and see where your investments work to return something to you as a return on your investments in liars making an ever larger pile of lies.

 

[jwoodie]

There was no agreed upon (legal) provision in The Articles of Confederation (the existing federal government that worked to defeat the British) to create the so called "Constitution" and that was well known as the criminals took over. This Con Con idea is a byproduct of the already existing criminal version of a "Federal Government," and the words quoted above sound a whole lot like the words quoted at the time the first Con Con was perpetrated by the criminals who were taking over the existing (voluntary) Federal Union; the same voluntary Federal Union that worked well enough to defend the people from the largest criminal army then destroying and enslaving so many people on this planet in that time period.

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal or just another political diatribe?

 

[Josf]

"Is this supposed to be a rebuttal or just another political diatribe?"

That is called a leading question, or begging the question, as the (false) question merely hides (thin veil of cover) a direct attack upon the character of one of the forum members. This type of character assassination is against the rules; if rule of law is applied, then this type of character assassination is not tolerated since this type of character assassination is outside the rules that are stated and agreed upon in voluntary association.

The word choice that breaks the veil of clean debate is the word "diatribe," which is a word that steps into the move from a debate which focuses attention on the subject matter, and the subject matter is moved to a focus of attention on someone who is accused of perpetrating a negative action, this diatribe, this diatribe that is also political.

What is a diatribe?

The actual subject matter involves people who are on one side of a moral dilemma, such as rule of law is known to be on one side of a moral dilemma. On the other side of the moral dilemma are people who cause the moral dilemma as people are known to do, as people willfully intend to inure other people, with words in the form of libel, or with actions in the form of physical injury. The subject matter, in a word, is crime. The solution to crime is proposed by volunteers who volunteer to solve the crime problem, wherever it may exist, as a moral dilemma created by criminals, and the solution can also be offered in one word, such as government. So the moral dilemma can be seen in this light, and if you, or anyone, calls the light shown upon the moral dilemma in this way a "political diatribe," and you do so with a very thin coat of deception, in the form of a question, a question that hides the character assassination attempt, then you choose to do so, and you can then be exposed for what you are, as your true colors show up as a simple matter of fact.

 

[Disir]

So, you wished to be ruled by corporations?

You say that as if they haven't ruled a decade or teo decades ago. The US ruled by politicians but not corporations is a nonsense.

What is nonsense is having a knipshit over greed at the national level but wrapping it up in patriotic drivel at the state level.

 

[Disir]

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

That is a bunch of malarkey. Any amendment of the Constitution would have to be approved by 3/4 of the States. Most of the people opposed to this process would like to abolish individual State sovereignty and replace it with a dictatorial national government.

Article V is being pushed by ALEC. A group of corporations that write legislation that benefits themselves. This is no malarkey. This is fact.