Wednesday Weirdness --- Being There Makes A Difference - You See More Truth

Doesn't make any sense to me - especially when you refer to the 'left wing fanatics' all the time. Get it right - it is the right wing/gop/teabaggers who are the fanatics.

No. I agree. I've got to say I'm pretty impressed with the young adults I know and work with no matter what their politics, and it does give me hope.

Tessy... you might want to do some work on that labeling. OWS has laid out some very impressive processes that include keeping politics out of it.

Address the problems that you see.

talk about what is happening and how its affecting the way you live your life.. work, experience family.. etc.

stop raging at the labeled people who foster divisio and talk about what matters to you.

just a suggestion, that seems to be working for occupys everywhere:)

FYI, the OWS in their attempt to "keep politics out of it" is actually working on a National General Assembly (a/k/a Constitutional Convention) and is working on a platform even as we speak.

It appears that they have finally realized that the problems MUST be addressed in a political fashion (though they ARE attempting to do this is a completely non-partisan manner).

Perhaps they have come into their own.

ridiculous statement.

just ridiculous.

define 'they'.

pfsst.

A Constitutional Convention is a good thing to call for. If that fails, they need to think about approaching each state legislature to call for one. If they can get 3/4ths of the states to call for one, they will have one. Perhaps we can do a few things that will actually affect the Congress:

1) Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. The Income Tax is one of the reason there is so much corruption in Washington. The primary reason is that there is no Constitutional cap on how much can be taken from Individuals. Plus, it is the primary weapon used to split the country as it is always used by the left to say "He has more than you, but he is paying less, we should steal more from him! So, vote for me!" The 17th Amendment requires Senators to be elected by POPULAR vote. Before the 17th Amendment, each state determined their own way of electing or appointing a Senator. However, because of early partisanship some states failed to have Senators appointed so were not represented fully or, in the case of Rhode Island at one point, at all. What that meant is that the Senator, which was supposed to represent the State Government, not the people, began to represent the people not the States. This added to the corruption as Senators no longer felt any loyalty to their states, but only to their people that already had representation via the House Representatives.

2) Eliminate the Ethics Committees for both the House and Senate and replace it with a Citizen Ethics Committee that looks into all of the Federal Government. The members can only serve ONE term of ONE year, period. This way, we don't have to worry about the Foxes guarding the henhouse.

3) Reduce the power of the Federal Reserve System or eliminate it completely. It has been a major player in all of the business failures since its creation. In fact, it is usually the one pushing for the bailouts of poorly managed companies.

4) Add a Constitutional Amendment eliminating bailouts of poorly managed companies. Let Capitalism run its course; if a business is poorly managed it should fail and go into bankruptcy. Now, if there is a disaster like 9/11, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, etc.; then we can do bailouts.

Finally, 5) Pass a Constitutional Amendment that eliminates all subsidies for anyone who doesn't have their sole major source of income or wealth being the business that is receiving the subsidy. For instance, farmers whose sole source of income is the farm should be eligible for applicable subsidies; however, farmers like Scottie Pippen, Sam Donaldson, etc. or people that have a major source of income outside of agriculture should be completely ineligible for the subsidies. I mean if you are a doctor who happens to own a farm for tax write offs, you shouldn't be receiving a subsidy and getting paid for the farm. Granted, my family would benefit from this as their sole source of income is the dairy farm. I might end up benefitting from it, but I doubt it as a) I am currently not an owner of the farm, b) my major source of income currently is Social Security Disability and I am looking for a job, and c) I could become only a partial owner with a small stake in the farm in the near future; but it wouldn't be my main source of income due to me looking for a job and being disabled.

Now, what do you all think, good start?

Forgot a 6th item:

Pass a Constitutional Amendment that says: the maximum number of contiguous terms is 2, but a Congressman or Senator may serve an unlimited number of terms.

In other words, they can serve 2 back to back terms and have to take at least 1 term off after those 2 terms are over. I think this is a decent compromise for term limits, which would help reduce the incentive for people and businesses to bribe Congressmen and Senators to pass or deny certain legislation.

owlsview,

I was just giving ideas that I've had for a long time. But, as I don't have contact with anyone in OWS that might actually listen and have an honest debate, I felt these could be hashed out a bit here. I am not trying to steal anyone's thunder, just trying to get ideas on the table.

owlsview, #7.10;

A Constitutional Convention may not be a bad thing. It was being discussed last fall a good deal.

IMO, it would not be good. According to the Constitution any Constutional convention when convoked is open to any topic. It is not limited to just one item so might be opening a Pandoras' box for things you don't want changed. Like freedoms granted/guaranteed in it now. The Senate in the democratic majority can do things like the 18th Amendment to abolish alcohol, recinded in the 22nd, or rewrite the definition of sedition to abolish free speech in a cunningly written Act with a title that doesn't announce that intent. Hidden within all the legalese "that you have to read after it passes to know what it says"

Checked your posts from smartass, also. Good writing and fly papered the usual leftists parrots.

Anthony - good post. If I might chime in here briefly, though other issues may be brought up at a Constitituional Convention, there is nothing which says that must be debated at length. If someone brings up a seemingly irrelevant point, the other delegates can simply say "No, dismissed" and the idea is gone. On the other hand, we may find some brilliant mind coming up with a potentially stunning answer to a problem which others have overlooked.

I would welcome the opportunity. It would be the dream of a lifetime to be a delegate at a Constitutional Convention.

kjmgirl, #7.15;

we may find some brilliant mind coming up with a potentially stunning answer to a problem which others have overlooked.

In DC? In the White house or Congress?..... 8>} There might be a bright spot who comes with something we didn't know about also.

Any proposed Amendment would have to be "crafted" to be ratified by a 75% majority of States' Legislators. Not easy to do, thankfully. But the 18th Amendment passed and was enacted which took decades to overthrow with the 22nd Amendment. It didn't stop people from drinking, in fact it made it popular to stick it to the government and drink more. Increased the criminal element with huge profits as suppliers and smugglers, and supported a lot of police(not all) with extra unreported income that wanted a drink also.

I think the phrase is; "Too much of a good thing is bad for you." You can't fix something that doesn't want to be fixed. You can not legislate morality or prevent stupidity.

in DC? In the White house or Congress?

LOL NO! ROFLMAO

No, I was talking about delegates to the Constitutional convention. I was of the impression that these delegates would NOT BE FROM CONGRESS OR FROM THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT in any way, shape or form.

And your last sentence - AMEN, brother, AMEN

kjmgirl, #7.17;

An Amendment to the Constitution can only be written in the Senate, signed or veto by the president, then published and sent the States where it is ratified according to their State Constitution.

If my recollects is working, I believe Democrat Pres. Woodrow Wilson was in office at the time the 18th passed. Wilson, though a deep thinker, was a rabid Calvinist Presbyterian and felt GOD put him in the White House and used GOD's manifest destiny as a cudgel. He was very stubborn when his mind was set. Just as socialism was entrenching in the unions.

Nope, sorry Anthony but you're wrong. An amendment can be introduced by CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION called by 2/3 of the legislatures of the states then sent to all states to be approved by 3/4. It's not the way they have been passed up til now, but it IS a method spelled out in the Constitution.

Happy Thanksgiving

kjmgirl,

An amendment can be introduced by CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION called 2/3 of the legislatures of the states ...

IMO, are the Senators. They are the only branch of Congress that can authorize treaties, approve Ambassadors for assignment, appointments to the Supreme Court, declare war, etc. And call a Constitutional Covention to convene. The President can only request it.

The Constitutional Convention, after investigations of constitutionality, drafts the Amendment, that is sent to the floor for passage by 2/3rds vote of the Senate. Which is sent to the President. If he signs it, only then is it sent to the States. And, I believe there is a time limit for them to ratify or reject it.

I think the test of Constitutionality is, "If it's not forbidden, it's allowed" put in common American speak from the legalese.

This is the protocol as I understand it. It is the only way it can be done.

"No bout a doubt it."

All due respect, you are WRONG. This method is to assure that the STATES have the right to speak. My understanding is that this method will be instituted by Convention of the STATES and sent along from there to the STATES for approval. It was put in their to guarantee that the people would have an alternative method for controlling an out of control federal government.

This method is relatively USELESS since the passage of the 17th Amendment, which stripped States of their authority by instituting direct election of Senators.

kjmgirl, OK,

As I said, this is my understanding. I know that the only thing I do know for sure is, how much I don't know.

Everything I've learned of use has been since 10th grade, besides my A,B,Cs and 'rithmatic.

That's when I left school to work full time and escape home.

"When they stop making pencils with erasers, I'll be in deep do-do."

I have enjoyed our conversation though.

I do make corrections if I find my assumptions are inaccurate.

The 17th Amendment replaced indirect voter representation where the States legislators appointed Senators, and changed it to direct election by the people. At the time they where considered the current majority parties representatives and compared them to the English "House of Lords" as above the people.
Thereby, giving the people more power over the State. Not less States power in the Congress.

In your opinion, Who convenes the Constitutional Convention? The States? I will learn the error of my ways if I could find where to find this.

Article 5 of the Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The States themselves (2/3 of the legislatures, or 35 states)can demand a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of proposing amendments and those amendments can be voted directly by the states without ANY intervention of the Senate or House of Representatives. It must then be accepted by 3/4 of the states, or 37)

On my opinion of the 17th Amendment - the Senators were supposed to be senior statesmen put into office by and for the direct voice of the STATES. The House represents the people, the Senate represents the interests of the States directly. When the 17th Amendment was passed, it encouraged Senators to vote for what was "popular" with the constituents so they would be re-elected, instead of what was best for their state and perhaps not so popular with the voters. IMO, it RUINED the purpose of the Senate.

It has been a pleasure talking with you, as well.

kjmgirl,

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, ...

The operative words, "shall propose" means "must request" not form an Amendment.

As the vast difference between Shall and May in legalese. Shall is mandatory, May is allowed.

on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,

Here the operative word is "Application" which means "ask" not mandate, demand, or form, and convene a convention.

The Congress, ... shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

Either of the two previous criteria is a trigger for Congress to "call" for, request not convene. "for proposing," a draft for presentation to the floor for debate and vote.

When the Original Constitutional Convention was debating the original Constitution there was great fear of the federal government taking the rights of the States unto itself. Why so much debate and care was given in the Constitution to protect States Rights.

Each State was allowed two representatives in the Senate, The House was to be allocated by population. This kept smaller States with less population from being overruled by the bigger more populaced ones. Not for States to have more power than the people. That is the purpose of the Senate.

Even calls to elect George Washington King were proposed. Aren't we glad today that didn't pass.

I am not sure what you are trying to convey to me, Anthony. What I DO know if that if 2/3 of the States called for a Constitutional Convention, there is NO WAY it would be denied.

And if you are insinuating that Congress would have some input into that Constitutional Convention, I respectfully disagree. My reading of this suggests that the states may act independently of Congress

...which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof

To me, that means once 3/4 of the states ratify, it is LAW without any action on the part of Congress.

kjmgirl, #7.25

"It seems ........ we have a failure to communicate" excerpt from Cool Hand Luke.

Semantics can be tricky and much debated. Yet it is extremely important to know, when reading law What words, phrases, and context mean. These are not "over a cup of coffee" words. These are the words that are analyzed in the Supreme Court in debate for the constitutionalality of each law chosen to be heard.

A reason so many lawyers are elected legislators. If you've ever watched Senate hearings of oppointed Justices how they are "grilled" on their interpretations of laws.

I am not sure what you are trying to convey to me, Anthony. What I DO know if that if 2/3 of the States called for a Constitutional Convention, there is NO WAY it would be denied.

It does become LAW once it's RATIFIED by the States. no disagreement.

Our take/understanding of the semantics on how it is sent to the States for ratification, is.

I can call on the President to repair what was done to Medicare, but that does not mean he will or in the way i want it. The President can call on the Congress to enact his jobs bill, that doesn't mean they will or the way He wants it.

The 50 States together can CALL on the Congress to enact an Amendment to the Constitution but they can not demand it or dictate how they wanted it. it would be imperative on Congress to address their call as it would be a miracle for the 50 States to agree on anything.

NO law of the Federal level can become Law without Congress. No one can force a law, mandate a law, or write a law or amendment without Congress wanting to and calling for it to be put in committee to be drafted. And when Congress calls for an item to be tabled it means put aside, out of hand, no longer active until called up.

That is not the way it is stated in your interpretation.

Anthony - I completely disagree. I believe that my interpretation is exactly correct - a way for an Amendment to become part of the Constitution WITHOUT Congress.

Are you a lawyer? (by the way, contrary to popular opinion, NON-lawyers can and do read/interpret the Constitution). You realize, of course, that even SCOTUS justices are NOT required to be lawyers, right?

We should not under any circumstances get onto the subject of lawyers - that raises my blood pressure, throws me into a wild rage and generally causes a disturbance in the "force".

Even though the Article V convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on several occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention.^[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Ergo, It is established that I am correct. (don't mean to sound snarky here)

kjmgirl,

OK. Can we then agree that we disagree and leave the semantics to the Supreme Court?

There has never been a Supreme Court Justice who was not qualified. Had served as a lawyer, appointed/elected a judge, elected to the Court of appeals, or a State Supreme Court. Before consideration for appointment to the Supreme Court in at least 100 yrs. or more.

Of course we can disagree! If people didn't have differences of opinion there would be no need for the SCOTUS.

There has never been a Supreme Court Justice who was not qualified

IMO, the sheep's skin does NOT mean "qualified"

kjmgirl, #7.29;

IMO, the sheep's skin does NOT mean "qualified"

That we completely agree on!

Thanks

Been to an OWS general Assembly?

What we figured out was that the older generations weren't listening, they were using our basic ideas to pass ridiculous laws and had no real interest in changing things.

True Owl. We were pretty damned ineffective in my opinion.

Is this what you want them to figure out on their own. Do you want them to sell out, become a bunch of materialistic yuppies and keep on making the system worse?

Those kids out there protesting are way more 'materialistic' than me. I have seen a photo of the crowd and their iphones and Gucci bags, LL Bean sleeping bags and designer backpacks. I don't have any of that. What the hell are they protesting exactly? Mom and dad didn't buy you enough? It makes me laugh at the fakeness of it all. It's so obvious they were qued up by the Obama people to join the "class warfare".

The whole thing is ridiculous. They are sold out yuppies! You know what's wrong with them? Their parents are us. Many of their parents stay drunk and stoned and haven't taught them about the value of anything. They shoved them in front of the TV and stuffed their little hands full of video games and anything they could buy them but didn't teach them anything of morals and values because they didn't live it for the children to learn.

I have three kids. I knew they'd learn by my example, by how I live and not by anything else. I watched my generations children and I worried for them. I was a serious "hippie" or rather a serious "flower child". I believed in love and spirituality and doing the right thing and putting people above material things. And guess what I did? When I became a mother, I was the first one up every morning and cooked their breakfast, made sure their clothes were clean, dropped them off at school, picked them up, went with them to every ball game, was there for every teachers meeting, didn't miss a chance to read to them, play with them, love and teach them. Day in and day out of every day of their childhoods....and I went to work every day.

Here's the point of all that, because I cared about their minds.....all three of them are responsible, educated, tax paying, happy young adults. They are funny and happy, they are kind to others and help where they can. They go to work everyday and pay their bills. Because that is what they witnessed growing up. They have waited tables, flipped burgers and they've even ridden on a bicycle if that's what it took to get there. They aren't mad at the world. They aren't mad at banks, and businesses and they aren't looking for any excuses to complain. They are busy creating what they can for themselves and keeping good attitudes come rain or shine. They make do with what they have and they save for what they want.

As far as making the system better, yes, we need to do that. Both political parties have scammed us all for decades and generations. Alot of good has happened in this country, but alot of bad has too. Yes the tax code is effed up, and yes we need to fix it. At least we're so focused on that right now that it might actually finally happen.

I care about those kids out there. There are jobs for them Owl, there are jobs for everyone but thanks to the screwed up economy at the direction of Obama and all politicians for that matter, it's going to be tough on everyone for a while. It's not the fault of business, it's the fault of politics.

It's hard for me to feel sorry for protestors with iphones and gucci bags...really, I'm just not buying the angst. I've listened to interviews with those kids, they don't know what they want. The protest organizers forgot to give them a sound bite to explain what they want to do to make things better.

iphones and gucci bags?

you haven't been to one have you, ... you didn't read the entire artivcle did you.

you wish to discredit them all, lump em... one group, and materialistic to boot.

*shakes head*

u wish to discredit them all, lump em... one group,

Never a good idea, and I would direct your attention to 98% of the NV headlines against the Tea Party over the past 4 years.

See, how this silliness works?

iphones and gucci bags?

Yes, you doubt it?

you haven't been to one have you,

No, have you? In the modern world you can know about alot of things by educating yourself with information. You don't have to be there to see, hear and learn.

... you didn't read the entire artivcle did you.

Yes. Did you?

you wish to discredit them all, lump em... one group

They are called OWS. That is a group.

and materialistic to boot.

I'm all for people buying whatever they need and can afford. What about you?

*shakes head*

me too

ba-bing, well said, Elaine...You know, I have been pretty harsh in my criticism of OWL. I think their protests are important but they are protesting the wrong people, IMO. They should be camped out in DC where the real money changers hang out.

I don't agree with many of their tactics, I don't agree with going to people's house who have been successful and demonizing them - what would they prefer: that they say "screw it" and take their taxes and businesses elsewhere?

Many of these kids opinions are the result of years of marxist teaching from cradle to college...and it is misguided...

Good question.

We share ideas on what needs to be changed and how to accomplish these changes.

Noble indeed...BUT, what ideas? Outside of a very vague and complicated Constitutional Congress, I am not hearing anything but more 'hope and change'....again.

As far as specific things to be changed and methodology, that is a discussion which can be joined on hundreds of existing articles

This is something we, who are 'respectfully critical', are looking for. Where are specifics and methodology? I respec your point with this article, and within it you are asking, suggesting, demanding change, so to suggest that we find those answers on other threads, is confusing to me. Why not provide answers or at lease dialog on specifics here?

Thank you

We aren't getting into specifics here because I don't want to get into specifics here. It

OK...No offense. I simply was under the impression that you had intentions of 'fixing' something that you painlessly wrote about as being broken. Usually, specifics accomplish that, but if you are comfortable in 'general feelings, drum beating, non conclusive , non-constructive victem-hood, finger pointing then, enjoy". You chose the right path on this one sir. With all due respect.

We all have 'Hope and Change", but given the history of the last 'dreamer', we should learn that we eventually need to wake up, and fix that which we bitch about...or at least offer a solution. That was my only hope from you.

Thank you

I will not pester you further sir.

It is quite easy to sit behind a keyboard and shoot questions, relevant as they might be, and then wait for an answer... especially when links have been provided to you where those answers can be found.

The best place to get specifics is to wonder on out to ANY of the occupys now sprouting up all over this country, but.. if your more comfortable sitting back and relying on your relevance, by all means do that...

and then when you vote... rely some more on that choice you make without so much as lifting a finger to counter the corruption you participate in.

mountain - My questions were never intended to be adversarial, rather, they were sincere and heart felt queries about...'what solutions are available'. Sorry, but I did not find answers in the links you refereed to. Hey, I am an old fart myself..I was tear gassed more than once in the 60's. The movement back then, did in fact have solutions. They were defined and offered...something that I am having trouble locating in this case. I only pray that no harm comes to those involved.

Thank you

There is already harm, nativecon.

you simply can't see it.. the news doesn't play it... if they did it would be glaringly apparent who is bringing it.

as for the 60's... sorry we have two different impressions of how that all came out in the end.

and it wasn't really about how we changed as a nation, but how we changed as individuals.

and those individuals are now the ones sitting in the CEO chair, and I think you know it.

the solutions are being talked about.. together, in GA's all across this country...

if you thought they would arrive before an 'election' then you need to rethink how and why past solutions arrived at in the 'treaditional' manner, have not solved a thing.

the news doesn't play it... if they did it would be glaringly apparent who is bringing it.

I would normally agree, only...it is painfully obvious that the MSM is overwhelmingly left leaning, so this does not make sense. Could it be, that on this one....even NBC can find enough cogent news to report. Trust me, this national media wants nothing but good for this administration. If the could find a shred of useful footage for Mr. Obama, they would certainly use it. They have progressive values in their 'happy column', but somehow...cant locate anything worth reporting on. And you gotta know, they are trying. This must be very embarrassing for NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN....etc, etc.

and those individuals are now the ones sitting in the CEO chair,

Not entirely true....the 60's movement, are largely...if not entirely owners of the progressive thought of today. Those CEO's, Jeff Emmilt....and hundreds of others, are donors, contributors, manipulators, and players in the democrat / Wall Street game. You must see this.

This is nothing new, short of the 'corporate' and political financial influence being filtered into it.....unlike the 60's, when there virtually was none.

need to get out more...

you are living in a world you built, not the one goin on outside your neighborhood.

there are far to many reliable sources out there with nothing to gain by presenting the reality of who holds the chips in this game.

i suggest for one square minute you take a look... or buy bigger locks cause no one will be expempted from what comes of this one party game, not eve you.

there are far to many reliable sources out there with nothing to gain by presenting the reality of who holds the chips in this game.

I am all ears. Honest. Please, present them.

you are living in a world you built, not the one goin on outside your neighborhood.

Actually, I live in the country.....work in a city, but sleep in the Rocky Mountains. However, I do have Direct TV.

I post a great many articles about the human condition.. learn to read between the lines, and i post my own as well.

Peace to you owlsview, and Thank you.

True by necessity all be told. If cognitive studies are to be believed.

Why are you digging for insult that is not there? If I wanted to call you defective I would've just came out and said it. All I said, in so many words, is that we are all limited. Not defective.

If you're interested in the studies I was referencing I can dig those up. But I am altogether uninterested in talking about limitations we all share with someone who wants to take it personally.

My opinion? I'm one of them. What do you think?