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

[Josf]

"True, but the whiskey rebellion fiasco was more Hamilton than Washington. That is really a different discussion, however."

That is not a different discussion when the importance of a Criminal Banking Cartel is understood. Before the Whiskey Rebellion there was Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts, explained here:



Revolutionary thinking, which must exist before Revolutionary action is taken, was once called Regulation as explained in that lecture above. The criminals knew that the Liberty of the people was secure in a Federal designed government based upon free market choices made by people voluntarily associated within that defensive, voluntary, federal government. That was proven to be the case in Shays's Rebellion, which then inspired the criminals to begin their fraudulent Constitutional Convention which was based upon the idea of a rule of law at first, meaning it was based upon the idea that the voluntary union would remain voluntary, yet the criminals "consolidated" the government instead of abiding by the rule of law, in other words the criminals perpetrated an obvious fraud in order to form a more perfect criminal, involuntary, union. That was all very well explained during the process that became known as ratification. Those with revolutionary thinking explained precisely what the criminals were doing as the criminals took over a working, voluntary, defensive, federation.

Once the criminals take over, they work to make everyone criminals, and that is what Revolutionary thinking opposed.

Today people are working to bypass, peacefully, the criminal connections that include the fraudulent banking cartel.

Examples:
The ArBuck Facebook
TimeBanks USA
Arizona panel OKs gold silver as legal tender
Utah officially makes gold and silver legal tender Marketplace.org

This is not news:
The W rgl Experiment Austria 1932-1933 Currency Solutions for a Wiser World

It is history.

2 points to consider:
Those who refuse to acknowledge the lessons of history invest in reliving it.

And:
Survival of a Fitting Quotation

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

 

[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.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

On the original framing convention perhaps your right on that, but I believe the ratifying conventions were specially elected delegates...perhaps even purposely excluding current legislators.

 

[Josf]

"All very nice, with absolutely no relevance to the real world. People revolt because the idea of blood in the streets is preferable to the way they live. We are not even vaguely in that situation. So revolution remains in the realm of talk, not action."

The tactic there is hyperbole as a form of misdirection. The word choice "absolutely" constitutes hyperbole; as does "not even vaguely," adding to the hyperbolic misdirection.

"All very nice," on the other hand offers a pretense of authority concerning the individual's viewpoint concerning what was offered by a forum member.

What was offered was not at all nice. The criminals took over a working Federation in 1787, and that criminal takeover ended the fruits of the Revolution, which was only a Revolutionary "war" because the criminals insist upon war (aggressive war for profit) as their means of defeating Liberty in the minds and in the actions of their targeted victims.

If revolutionary thinking is defeated in some minds, then that is not good for people who prefer Liberty, but there are still many people who still cherish revolutionary thinking which then leads to revolutionary actions as expressed so well in Statute #1 of the working Federal government, which is known as a Declaration of Independence.

People all over the globe are waking up and sharing revolutionary thinking which leads to revolutionary action and unless criminals insist upon aggressive violence as a means of keeping people chained to blind obedience to criminal orders, without question, there is no need for any violence whatsoever.

"So revolution remains in the realm of talk, not action."

If only a few more people read the following link, and to do so a few more people may have to fight against the knee jerk reaction to condemn the following words in the following link before investigating the validity of the following words in the following link, then a few more people will know how the palladium of Liberty worked in the past, does work now, and can work in the future to peacefully act in defense of innocent people against criminals who may have counterfeit badges and counterfeit claims of authority.

An Essay on the Trial by Jury LysanderSpooner.org

_____________________________________________quote:
In this corrupt and lawless manner, Congress, instead of taking care to preserve the trial by jury, so far as they might, by providing for the appointment of legal juries incomparably the most important of all our judicial tribunals, and the only ones on which the least reliance can be placed for the preservation of liberty have given the selection of them over entirely to the control of an indefinite number of state legislatures, and thus authorized each state legislature to adapt the juries of the United States to the maintenance of any and every system of tyranny that may prevail in such state.

Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hand of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States.

There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.

These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.

If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced.
______________________________________________end

Revolutionary thinking is the stuff that inspired rule of law, and this is not news.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

On the original framing convention perhaps your right on that, but I believe the ratifying conventions were specially elected delegates...perhaps even purposely excluding current legislators.

There would be no such ratification however, and the Constitution is silent as to how the delegates are selected, and how many delegates there will be. So that is left to the states. As I indicated, there is nothing in the Virginia Constitution which says how this will handled, though we are one state which has requested a convention. New Mexico apparently will use members of the existing state legislature. The decision as to the method of selecting delegates will be in the hands of the politicians. I strongly suspect those delegates will be those politicians.

My own take is people are making the mistake of thinking the problems in our society are the result of the system. That really isn't true. The problem is that the system is run by human beings who act like human beings. Change the system, you still have the same human beings. "Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss."

 

[Josf]

"My own take is people are making the mistake of thinking the problems in our society are the result of the system. That really isn't true. The problem is that the system is run by human beings who act like human beings. Change the system, you still have the same human beings. "Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss.""

The word choices worthy of note above are these "That really isn't true."

There are systems created by criminals and then there are systems created by people with revolutionary thinking driving their actions, so the truth in this case is that the system in question is a criminal system, and therefore the obvious results of investing in a criminal system will return to the investors as a rule, not as an exception to the rule.

The rule (the truth) that applies here is such that the transfer of power from those who earn anything worth stealing is power transferred to those who are best at stealing anything worth stealing. The obvious result is such that the criminals who create criminal systems grow more powerful and those who produce anything worth stealing grow less powerful as that power flows that way through that criminal system.

If that is not the truth then the evidence that proves that it is the truth, beyond a reasonable doubt, ought to be explained in such a way as to inspire some doubt where there is no doubt when investigating the actual, existing, evidence proving the fact.

Example:
U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

Example 2:

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

On the original framing convention perhaps your right on that, but I believe the ratifying conventions were specially elected delegates...perhaps even purposely excluding current legislators.

There would be no such ratification however, and the Constitution is silent as to how the delegates are selected, and how many delegates there will be. So that is left to the states. As I indicated, there is nothing in the Virginia Constitution which says how this will handled, though we are one state which has requested a convention. New Mexico apparently will use members of the existing state legislature. The decision as to the method of selecting delegates will be in the hands of the politicians. I strongly suspect those delegates will be those politicians.

My own take is people are making the mistake of thinking the problems in our society are the result of the system. That really isn't true. The problem is that the system is run by human beings who act like human beings. Change the system, you still have the same human beings. "Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss."

No, I disagree, some systems magnify problems of "human beings acting like human beings" ....as Our currently system does.

The politicians should take instruction from the way it was done in the past. The public will way in heavily no matter what methods are chosen..and in something so important I believe the politicians would be suicidal to ignore them.

 

[Josf]

American history is the story of revolutionary (peaceful solutions to criminal takeover of government problems) thinking and revolutionary action. In the first place those who fled Europe to escape (run away) enslavement by criminals who took over the peaceful governments of Europe solved their problem of enslavement by liberating themselves with the investment of relocating to another place on the planet. Those runaway slaves, known as pilgrims, took with them the revolutionary thinking of trial by jury as a peaceful solution to any criminal problem anywhere anytime, also known as rule of law, also known as due process, also known as the law of the land, also known as legem terrae before English was a language used by anyone.

American history is also the history of defensive violence when the criminals insist upon aggressive violence as the criminals demand blind obedience to their criminal orders to pay, and pay more, and pay more, without question. That was the story of the Revolutionary War; after which there was a time of voluntary federation lasting from at least 1776 to 1787. Then there was the criminal takeover of America in 1787. The revolution certainly did not end in all the minds of all the people when the criminals "consolidated" the working federation into one despotic, tyrannical, criminal cabal, or counterfeit federation.

All during the American history that is not taught in counterfeit federal funded "public" schools the revolutionary thinkers and actors fought against the criminal takeover, including the examples of Shays's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the emergence of the Democrat-Republican Party, and the battle to end the fraudulent counterfeit federal central bank first started as The First Bank of The United States.

The most recent example of revolutionary thinking driving revolutionary, defensive, action, so as to deter aggressive violence, is the Oath Keepers stands in Bunkerville, Nevada, and Ferguson, Missouri. That is peaceful thinking followed by peaceful action in direct opposition to criminal thinking and criminal actions perpetrated by criminals posing as federal agents.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

On the original framing convention perhaps your right on that, but I believe the ratifying conventions were specially elected delegates...perhaps even purposely excluding current legislators.

There would be no such ratification however, and the Constitution is silent as to how the delegates are selected, and how many delegates there will be. So that is left to the states. As I indicated, there is nothing in the Virginia Constitution which says how this will handled, though we are one state which has requested a convention. New Mexico apparently will use members of the existing state legislature. The decision as to the method of selecting delegates will be in the hands of the politicians. I strongly suspect those delegates will be those politicians.

My own take is people are making the mistake of thinking the problems in our society are the result of the system. That really isn't true. The problem is that the system is run by human beings who act like human beings. Change the system, you still have the same human beings. "Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss."

No, I disagree, some systems magnify problems of "human beings acting like human beings" ....as Our currently system does.

The politicians should take instruction from the way it was done in the past. The public will way in heavily no matter what methods are chosen..and in something so important I believe the politicians would be suicidal to ignore them.

The politicians do not live in the past and they will act in accordance with current conditions. The public may well weigh in, but to think they will weigh on one side more than another is simply not true. This country does not have a majority on any significant issue that would call for an amendment. So the politicians will do what they see as their own best interest, and that does not include limiting their own authority.

That there will be a convention is unlikely. If there is, it is even more unlikely they will actually pass an amendment. Far more likely they will just point fingers at each for failing to do anything. If they do pass an amendment, there is no chance at all it will have any significant impact on how we do business.

 

[Josf]

"If they do pass an amendment, there is no chance at all it will have any significant impact on how we do business."

Ignoring the facts is not revolutionary thinking, but that does not stop individuals from choosing to ignore the facts. The way that the criminals do business is one way, and that way is easily understood, as it is the same way all criminals do business, utilizing deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence, so as to take whatever a criminal will take from a victim or any number of victims. That is one competitive way of doing business: the criminal way.

The other way, in direction competition to the criminal way of doing business, is often ignored by criminals, of course, as criminals choose the criminal way, but the other way does exist, and the other way will always exist, so long as people prosper because people choose the revolutionary way of doing business, in peace, and in harmony, voluntarily, in free markets.

The criminals in America have run out of options as their eventual end of their chosen way of doing business, which can be called many names, such as Empire, or Central Banking Monopoly, or World Reserve Currency, or whatever false name works best to hid the fact that it is a criminal way of doing business. So the words quoted can be quoted again in this light:

"If they do pass an amendment, there is no chance at all it will have any significant impact on how we do business."

The power to enforce a Federal Reserve Dollar World Reserve Currency Crime spree is no longer possible. That is part of the reasoning behind the "Giant Sucking Sound" reported by Ross Perot during his run for President of the counterfeit Federal Government.



The impact of the end of an age where the Federal Reserve Counterfeit Currency Racketeers dominate most of the world is a significant impact on the way "we" do business, inspiring such things as the breakaway civilization reported in the following report:



Another two examples of how the end of Federal Reserve Counterfeit Currency dominance impact how "we" do business is the stories of two of the founders of the competitive Pay Pal venture as those two competitors sold that start up and invested in a number of high impact businesses currently working today in revolutionary ways.

 

[Josf]

________________________________________quote:
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?
_________________________________________end

People all over the world are waking up and realizing a crucial fact concerning the meaning of government and that is the defining (in real time) of the revolution. That is the same type of thinking that inspired a Declaration of Independence FROM criminal versions of government.

Given the state of modern productive capacity there are few and fewer obvious causes for mass starvation of people on this planet, as the most obvious, and accurately accounted for, causes are the criminals who have taken over defensive governments, as those criminals willfully, and with malice aforethought, cause mass starvation of people despite modern productive capacity.

A decision to revolt and overthrow a criminal version of government is already well underway in many individual minds which then leads to many individual actions, which then adds to a sum total of individual actions, and whenever people voluntarily cooperate toward any mutually beneficial goal (such as true government) the total power to reach the goal is much greater than the sum of the individual powers acting effectively toward reaching said goal.

Revolutionary thinking is not new.

___________________________________________quote:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
____________________________________________end

Those who reach for the goal of suppressing revolutionary thinking act accordingly, and when they succeed in suppressing revolutionary thinking then those willful actions will lessen the power of people whose revolutionary thinking would add to the collective sum total of revolutionary actions which oppose criminal takeover of government.

Example:_______________________________________________________________
And on top of this we are threatened by destruction in the fact that the physically compressed, strained world is not allowed to blend spiritually; the molecules of knowledge and sympathy are not allowed to jump over from one half to the other. This presents a rampant danger: THE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION between the parts of the planet. Contemporary science knows that suppression of information leads to entropy and total destruction. Suppression of information renders international signatures and agreements illusory; within a muffled zone it costs nothing to reinterpret any agreement, even simpler - to forget it, as though it had never really existed. (Orwell understood this supremely.) A muffled zone is, as it were, populated not by inhabitants of the Earth, but by an expeditionary corps from Mars; the people know nothing intelligent about the rest of the Earth and are prepared to go and trample it down in the holy conviction that they come as "liberators".
_______________________________________________________________________

From that same source is the following revolutionary thinking:

"Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."

Insisting upon an accurate accounting is revolutionary in the face of those who insist upon adding to the pile of lies.

 

[dcraelin]

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

On the original framing convention perhaps your right on that, but I believe the ratifying conventions were specially elected delegates...perhaps even purposely excluding current legislators.

There would be no such ratification however, and the Constitution is silent as to how the delegates are selected, and how many delegates there will be. So that is left to the states. As I indicated, there is nothing in the Virginia Constitution which says how this will handled, though we are one state which has requested a convention. New Mexico apparently will use members of the existing state legislature. The decision as to the method of selecting delegates will be in the hands of the politicians. I strongly suspect those delegates will be those politicians.

My own take is people are making the mistake of thinking the problems in our society are the result of the system. That really isn't true. The problem is that the system is run by human beings who act like human beings. Change the system, you still have the same human beings. "Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss."

No, I disagree, some systems magnify problems of "human beings acting like human beings" ....as Our currently system does.

The politicians should take instruction from the way it was done in the past. The public will way in heavily no matter what methods are chosen..and in something so important I believe the politicians would be suicidal to ignore them.

The politicians do not live in the past and they will act in accordance with current conditions. The public may well weigh in, but to think they will weigh on one side more than another is simply not true. This country does not have a majority on any significant issue that would call for an amendment. So the politicians will do what they see as their own best interest, and that does not include limiting their own authority.

That there will be a convention is unlikely. If there is, it is even more unlikely they will actually pass an amendment. Far more likely they will just point fingers at each for failing to do anything. If they do pass an amendment, there is no chance at all it will have any significant impact on how we do business.

Youre kind of a Debbie-downer arent you...Sadly I think your largely right ......I think tho that the excitement will generate attention and the self-interested element will be lessened.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Never happen.

There might be isolated riots as there have been in the past, but that is it.

 

[Josf]

"There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control."

Debate can be mutually beneficial, or not.

From here:
Anti-Federalist Papers Pennsylvania Minority

_________________________________________________________Quote
It was [after the Peace Treaty of 1783] that the want of an efficient federal government was first complained of, and that the powers vested in Congress were found to be inadequate to the procuring of the benefits that should result from the union. The impost was granted by most of the states, but many refused the supplementary funds; the annual requisitions were set at nought by some of the states, while others complied with them by legislative acts, but were tardy in their payments, and Congress found themselves incapable of complying with their engagements, and supporting the federal government. It was found that our national character was sinking in the opinion of foreign nations. The Congress could make treaties of commerce, but could not enforce the observance of them. We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate: and all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of Congress; that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the United States. With this view a convention was first proposed by Virginia, and finally recommended by Congress for the different states to appoint deputies to meet in convention, "for the purposes of revising and amending the present articles of confederation, so as to make them adequate to the exigencies of the union." This recommendation the legislatures of twelve states complied with so hastily as not to consult their constituents on the subject; and though the different legislatures had no authority from their constituents for the purpose they probably apprehended the necessity would justify the measure; and none of them extended their ideas at that time further than "revising and amending the present articles of confederation." Pennsylvania by the act appointing deputies expressly confined their powers to this object; and though it is probable that some of the members of the assembly of this state had at that time in contemplation to annihilate the present confederation, as well as the constitution of Pennsylvania, yet the plan was not sufficiently matured to communicate it to the public....

The Continental convention met in the city of Philadelphia at the time appointed. It was composed of some men of excellent characters; of others who were more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism; and of some who had been opponents to the independence of the United States. The delegates from Pennsylvania were, six of them, uniform and decided opponents to the constitution of this commonwealth. The convention sat upwards of four months. The doors were kept shut, and the members brought under the most solemn engagements of secrecy. Some of those who opposed their going so far beyond their powers, retired, hopeless, from the convention others had the firmness to refuse signing the plan altogether, and many who did sign it, did it not as a system they wholly approved, but as the best that could be then obtained, and notwithstanding the time spent on this subject, it is agreed on all hands to be a work of haste and accommodation.

Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce....
______________________________________________________________________

So...again, the first Con Con was a Con Job, well known, without a doubt, factually, a fraud perpetrated for specific interests at the expense of all.

A Con Con TAKE II, by whoever, for whatever, having a foundation build upon fraud, is a familiar tune. Deception works this way, where there is one lie there will be two more required to cover up the first, and then two more for each of those two new lies. The lies pile up, filling libraries, and before long the weight of the lies bears down on everyone in a significant way. An accurate account exists, and like the Nazi's who learned from the American criminals, such as Edward Bernays, to name only one, meticulous records are kept to ensure that the last bit of value that can be stolen, before jumping ship, is stolen. At least someone has an interest in keeping the record accurate.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

On the original framing convention perhaps your right on that, but I believe the ratifying conventions were specially elected delegates...perhaps even purposely excluding current legislators.

There would be no such ratification however, and the Constitution is silent as to how the delegates are selected, and how many delegates there will be. So that is left to the states. As I indicated, there is nothing in the Virginia Constitution which says how this will handled, though we are one state which has requested a convention. New Mexico apparently will use members of the existing state legislature. The decision as to the method of selecting delegates will be in the hands of the politicians. I strongly suspect those delegates will be those politicians.

My own take is people are making the mistake of thinking the problems in our society are the result of the system. That really isn't true. The problem is that the system is run by human beings who act like human beings. Change the system, you still have the same human beings. "Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss."

No, I disagree, some systems magnify problems of "human beings acting like human beings" ....as Our currently system does.

The politicians should take instruction from the way it was done in the past. The public will way in heavily no matter what methods are chosen..and in something so important I believe the politicians would be suicidal to ignore them.

The politicians do not live in the past and they will act in accordance with current conditions. The public may well weigh in, but to think they will weigh on one side more than another is simply not true. This country does not have a majority on any significant issue that would call for an amendment. So the politicians will do what they see as their own best interest, and that does not include limiting their own authority.

That there will be a convention is unlikely. If there is, it is even more unlikely they will actually pass an amendment. Far more likely they will just point fingers at each for failing to do anything. If they do pass an amendment, there is no chance at all it will have any significant impact on how we do business.

Youre kind of a Debbie-downer arent you...Sadly I think your largely right ......I think tho that the excitement will generate attention and the self-interested element will be lessened.

I have to accept that appraisal. Though I prefer "cynic", it just sounds more manly. There has been a call for a convention since the 70's. How's the excitement level so far?

 

[jwoodie]

"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.

It was neither a leading question nor a character assassination. I suppose I could have asked if and how it was related to my post. Also, my use of the term "diatribe" was somewhat imprecise in that it implies an angry response. Would "manifesto" have been a better description?

 

[Josf]

"Would "manifesto" have been a better description?"

Ignoring the fact that the subject of the debate is set aside in favor of targeting a forum member is a choice. The subject of the debate has to do with precisely what is offered by the one who offered the subject of the debate. The subject of diverting attention away from the subject of the debate and choosing to divert attention unto me personally, or the character of the information offered by me that is relevant to the subject matter of the debate, is another subject other than the subject matter of the debate.

A revolution has occurred before people from Europe fled Europe as people invested heavily into securing revolutionary ideas, such as Liberty, here in America. Rule of law (voluntary associations) replaced Divine Right of Kings, or any other false front used by criminals to hide crimes perpetrated by criminals upon victims.

That last sentence is one sentence offered as a follow up to the previous sentence, making two sentences, offered by a forum member, voluntarily, as a part of a debate having to do with the subject matter of the original question offered voluntarily by another forum member in a forum titled clean debate zone, where the rules are either abided by, or the rules are ignored by, people volunteering to write, and publish, here.

A revolution of mind includes the idea that it is wrong to change the subject, which is against the rules, from the subject, and change the subject to a personal, derogatory, description of an individual forum member. That is the root idea that has been, is, and will continue to be the revolutionary idea that drives people to act in defense of innocent victims instead of the old, tired, worn out, destructive, idea where people decide to attack other people for their own exclusive gain at the expense of their targeted victims.

"It was neither a leading question nor a character assassination."

It was most certainly a diversion from the subject matter to something other than the subject matter, and if my accusation is true, as the inculpatory evidence proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least to me, then the above is another diversion, and the above is another attempt by a forum member to discredit another forum member whose only possible error would be to misidentify words that constitute a leading question and words that constitute character assassination, if English words mean anything.

If English words do not mean anything, then what I see as a leading question and what I see as character assassination can be anything one second and something else the next second, according to whoever feels the need to change the meanings of English words on their exclusive say so, to accomplish whatever goal they have in mind.

That is not news by the way:

Example 1:

Example 2:


"I suppose I could have asked if and how it was related to my post."

"It" is claimed to be a possible example of a political diatribe. "It" is plain English words in digital print.

" Also, my use of the term "diatribe" was somewhat imprecise in that it implies an angry response."

Choosing to attend to the subject matter is a choice you can make rather than making the choice to divert attention to me personally.

"Would "manifesto" have been a better description?"

The words offered by other forum members exist as they were offered, so your coloring those existing words with your negative, discrediting, descriptions constitute your choice to divert attention away from the actual messages offered by other forum members, and to turn attention to your negative, discrediting, descriptions.

The revolution of mind is alive and well, even if people prefer not to see it.

 

[Disir]

• A balanced budget amendment
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
• A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
• Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
• Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
• Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes
• The Strategy - Convention of States

Seriously? You won't see it.

 

[Josf]

"Seriously? You won't see it."

I do not know who is asked the above question; but I take this subject matter very seriously. Many competitive solutions to the one obvious problem work to solve the problem, let the best solution win, please. The idea of Federalism was based upon that competitive idea, where the highest quality, and lowest cost, solutions are offered and let the best solutions work as best as they can, in time, and in place. So this idea, if it is a good idea, will work, and if it is not a good idea, then it won't work.

How can the so called (counterfeit) Federal Government (system of fraud and extortion, and worse crimes) get any worse?

If nothing is done, if no solutions are offered by anyone, which means no competitive solutions, no better, no worse, solutions, none, if no solutions are offered, then America will go the same way as every other Empire in the history of mankind.

The least that can be accomplished with this type of idea is to spread the word that there is a problem, and to spread the word that it is a good idea to offer solutions, even if the solution may not stack up to the best solution.

To me the best solution is trial by jury. Any criminal, no matter what office is claimed by that criminal, can be found guilty through due process, and that is how that works when people use that form of government to reach the goal of effective defense of innocent victims from guilty criminals.

If people start looking at possible solutions, any solution, then people at least start to do the right thing instead of following the herd toward inevitable consequences down that path.

 

[dcraelin]

On the original framing convention perhaps your right on that, but I believe the ratifying conventions were specially elected delegates...perhaps even purposely excluding current legislators.

There would be no such ratification however, and the Constitution is silent as to how the delegates are selected, and how many delegates there will be. So that is left to the states. As I indicated, there is nothing in the Virginia Constitution which says how this will handled, though we are one state which has requested a convention. New Mexico apparently will use members of the existing state legislature. The decision as to the method of selecting delegates will be in the hands of the politicians. I strongly suspect those delegates will be those politicians.

My own take is people are making the mistake of thinking the problems in our society are the result of the system. That really isn't true. The problem is that the system is run by human beings who act like human beings. Change the system, you still have the same human beings. "Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss."

No, I disagree, some systems magnify problems of "human beings acting like human beings" ....as Our currently system does.

The politicians should take instruction from the way it was done in the past. The public will way in heavily no matter what methods are chosen..and in something so important I believe the politicians would be suicidal to ignore them.

The politicians do not live in the past and they will act in accordance with current conditions. The public may well weigh in, but to think they will weigh on one side more than another is simply not true. This country does not have a majority on any significant issue that would call for an amendment. So the politicians will do what they see as their own best interest, and that does not include limiting their own authority.

That there will be a convention is unlikely. If there is, it is even more unlikely they will actually pass an amendment. Far more likely they will just point fingers at each for failing to do anything. If they do pass an amendment, there is no chance at all it will have any significant impact on how we do business.

Youre kind of a Debbie-downer arent you...Sadly I think your largely right ......I think tho that the excitement will generate attention and the self-interested element will be lessened.

I have to accept that appraisal. Though I prefer "cynic", it just sounds more manly. There has been a call for a convention since the 70's. How's the excitement level so far?

lol, well things keep getting worse with our governance and I think people understand that. More people want one...once/ if we get one the excitement level will skyrocket.

 

[Disir]

"Seriously? You won't see it."

I do not know who is asked the above question; but I take this subject matter very seriously. Many competitive solutions to the one obvious problem work to solve the problem, let the best solution win, please. The idea of Federalism was based upon that competitive idea, where the highest quality, and lowest cost, solutions are offered and let the best solutions work as best as they can, in time, and in place. So this idea, if it is a good idea, will work, and if it is not a good idea, then it won't work.

How can the so called (counterfeit) Federal Government (system of fraud and extortion, and worse crimes) get any worse?

If nothing is done, if no solutions are offered by anyone, which means no competitive solutions, no better, no worse, solutions, none, if no solutions are offered, then America will go the same way as every other Empire in the history of mankind.

The least that can be accomplished with this type of idea is to spread the word that there is a problem, and to spread the word that it is a good idea to offer solutions, even if the solution may not stack up to the best solution.

To me the best solution is trial by jury. Any criminal, no matter what office is claimed by that criminal, can be found guilty through due process, and that is how that works when people use that form of government to reach the goal of effective defense of innocent victims from guilty criminals.

If people start looking at possible solutions, any solution, then people at least start to do the right thing instead of following the herd toward inevitable consequences down that path.

Well, you pontificate and I'm not sure how serious you are about it.