# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Only Sincere Americans Accept The Root Purpose Of Free Speech

## Christopher A. Brown

*The purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.*

Do you accept that root definition as an American seeking to defend the constitution and restore constitutional government?

Yea, brainy question huh?  

Unity didn't say how many brains we need to occupy its omnipotent body that might be termed the tyranny of the masses by dictators being democratically. lawfully, peacefully, overthrown.  Unity just said we need to agree in the greatest numbers possible to "alter or abolish" abusive government.

Functional unity said the agreement needs to be upon prime constitutional intent if "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts."

If you are a sincere American you feel a need to see the congress and the courts respect every letter of the constitution, all the way to Article V, and, you are not afraid of using that right, BECAUSE you know you, all of you, WE, can agree; and become the rightful masters. 

And, those that cannot accept the absolute of the root definition of free speech are not sincere enough to defend the constitution.  They may catch on, then again, they may not be sincere.  This is the internet, making this the only way to know for sure.

I do not see any functional political movements that have inherent security for the constitution.  The psyops, cognitive infiltration has turned social activism into a sitcom, soap opera, game show, un-reality show.

This thread is the cure, if there is to be one without existing authority assuring information needed for survival is shared and understood.  Good luck depending on them for manifesting constitutional intent in defense of the constitution and restoratation of constitutional government.  They are interested in power, campaign contributions and big pay.

____________________
This is how it works:
I state;
*I Christopher A. Brown accept that the purpose of free speech is that information vital to survival be shared and understood.*

I start a list with my username:

*1.Christopher A. Brown*

User John Doe see's this thread,  agrees, wants other sincere Americans to know he is sincere, then copies and pastes the acceptance into a reply.

*I state, I John Doe accept that the purpose of free speech is that information vital to survival be shared and understood.*

John copies and pastes the last post of the augmented list, and adds his username.

*1.Christopher A. Brown
2.John Doe*

Is there any point is discussing constitutional defense and restoration of constitutional government with Americans that are not sincere?

This is about un conditional defense of the constitution.

___________________
Note: This is an experiment which has determined that social fear levels are too great for ANY users here to directly post accceptance of the root definition of free speech. [EDIT:Title change 3//14.  Original title too contentious.] Therefore in order to create a list of who can be trusted in discussion which is directed at restoration of constitutional government, in this derisive environment created by "cognitive infiltration, (see link)

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

I have been forced to "read between the lines" and determine the basic intent of posters here.  On page 7 of this thread I've posted my reasons for what some have termed an intent to divide users here.  That is not the case, but separating the sincere from the covert insincere is vital IF we are to unify for effective constitutional defense.

Since there was no over acceptance of the definition of purpose of free speech, but a great deal of derisive, rejection of the effort, one can only logically assume that those posters are not sincere, and since there are more of them than the sincere, a list of insincere Americans has been created.

These methods are not fool proof and errors can be made and have been made, but the list is amended to respect the true intents perceived.  Any who think they are on the wrong list can post to correct that with either direct acceptance of the purpose of free speech, or perhaps otherwise.

From my observations of those on the sincere list, I do not think I've made errors there.  See page 7 for justifications of this effort.
___________________
ON EDIT:-CURRENT LIST 8/07/15

_NOTE The strike through indicates that there has been some agreement, OR, that posting tendencies, subject matter, avoidance of criticism of the basic agreement etc. indicate confusion and uncertainty rather than covert manipulator status. 
_

Sincere Americans:

1. Christopher A. Brown
2. DamianTV  
3. ClydeCoulter
4. Danke
5. Spikender  
6. Mini-me

PROBATIONARY STATUS-Psychological issue?  confused, or personal agenda placed over unconditional support for Americans prime constitutional right to alter or abolish.
1. Wizard Watson

InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
1. CPUd
2. Occam's Banana
3. acptulsa
4. Cutlerzzz
5. phill4paul
6. Ronintruth
7. Gunnyfreedom
8.[uAnti Federalist[/u]
9. pcosmar
10.Ronin Truth

NOTE ON EDIT-List update 8/07/15
Reading between the lines to determine sincerity IS NOT efficient or necessarily fool proof.  Realize, only one poster has posted direct acceptance of the purpose of free speech.  Wizard Watson, which apparently was to gain alliance for a person agenda having religious connotations.  Whereupon when the religious position was not carried by myself, support turned into attack.  This created the need for the Probationary Status.  
Time should tell if Watson can see the need for American unity and that my inability to engage his religious position is not a rejection of those beliefs, or, if the agreement was a ploy to be used in efforts to marginalize the process of demonstrating the need for this kind of overt agreement to create secure, real unity in support of the 1787 constitution.
Anti fed and pcosmar showed their  clear teamwork abusing the reputation system of the forum with philpaul and Occam's Banana, they are back on the insincere list.  The level of manipulation I see here is astounding and fits perfectly within the jtrig GCHQ training info released by Snowden. I wonder when sincere users are going to begin to realize what they're subjected to.
Ronin truth belonged on the insincere list long ago, but it is my conclusion that ther are many factions infiltrating and many started with childhood programming.  I recall Ronin from the OCTOBER 2011 forum and the devout socialist position rejecting all rights under the constitution.  Despite the fact those are enjoyed, even in the serious decline of America.

So we only have perhaps 2 or 3 actual covert infiltrating groups that operate in some general unity.  But they are all aligned AGAINST the constitution in the BELIEF that it is somehow the same as thx US government.  All fail to observe the act of 1871 however.


At this point there are only three logical reasons for those on the sincere list to NOT have posted such acceptance.

A.  Fear-either social fear of breaking ranks from their social group.

B.  Fear of the infiltrated gov and that overt support for this, first step of the process here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668
Will mark them for gov persecution.

C.  Some or all are pretending to be supportive of the concept and hoping that the failure to accept this natural law definition will induce A or B in the lurking public.

D. Psychological preoccupation with alternative agenda personally used to justify inconsistent support for prime constitutional rights and a lawful, peaceful revolution.

The whole idea of this thread is to show how ambiguity does not work for constititional defense.  Realize that the infiltration of the government seeking to dispose of the constitution ONLY has to prevent citizens from using or engaging a method which will be effective at stopping them.  That is *exactly* what the insincere are doing, whether they know it or not.

----------


## DamianTV

Just adding to what you said...

I believe the intent of Free Speech is not to protect the "popular" thing to say, but the Rights of the people to speak something "unpopular".  Like Howard Stern.  I dont always agree with what he says, but I will defend his Right to say it.

----------


## pcosmar

> [B][I][SIZE=3]
> 
> This is about un conditional defense of the constitution.


Some things just cannot be discussed in public.

A sad and debilitating reality.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?


I keep thinking the same thing.  Another poster asked him, and he denied it, but...can there really be two people in this world with such a similar distinctive style?  It's like saying there are two Aratuses...or maybe the proper plural would be Aratusi?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I keep thinking the same thing.  Another poster asked him, and he denied it, but...can there really be two people in this world with such a similar distinctive style?  It's like saying there are two Aratuses...or maybe the proper plural would be Aratusi?


And where the hell is Aratus???

----------


## Occam's Banana

Alrighty, then.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

True, and the root definition of purpose includes it.  But are you going to be accountable to add your name to our list of sincere Americans?

Maybe sincere is not the most appealing label.  Something like "patriotic" or something else might suit some people better.  Any ideas on how to improve that or add to a list of equivilants?

----------


## Schifference

What about Schifference regarding his perspective on religion?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Looks like Mini-me and Antifed are teaming up on cognitive infiltration.  I've seen this character assassination technique before.




> Another poster asked him, and he denied it, but...can there really be two people in this world with such a similar distinctive style?


I had never heard of uncle, said so, no answer, I did a search which ended up at a thread here and I posted so.




> I took the hint, did a search, found a thread back here. 
> 
>  Yea, Uncles theory is what I'm doing.  I believe I've proven it as real and functional to a significant degree.  
> 
> Also, recall the "Return of the Sith" and the discussion between the empire and the Sith in the scene with a bunch of flames, about "absolutes", same thing.  
> 
> Absolutes disgust the empire.  They are what people unify around to resist them.


Mini-me, what I'm doing is not a "distinctive style".  It is the use of the concept uncle describes.  The concept of using absolutes to deteime intentions.

It is here on this page and it is not conceivable that Antifed did not know where.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

A cognitive infiltrator would not post the link just as Antifed did not.  The reason is that the infiltrator does not want sincere Americans seeing the test of sincerity and the process of using it.

Cognitive infiltrators MUST work to interfere with group thinking that can lead to unity which might successfiy oppose their masters.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Considering the timing here, we have these 2 using IRC chat to coordinate their teamwork.

*Anti Federalist said:
Today 06:58 PM

Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?

Mini-Me said:
Today 07:21 PM*

Unfortunately the most prudent thing to do for constitutional defense is make a list of insincere Americans as a warning to viewers relating to their activities to foul the understanding of sincere Americans

[b]InSiNcErE AmErIcAns[b/]
1.  Anti Federalist
2. Mini-Me

If the forum is an infiltrating forum, these two will complain and I'll be banned in a day or two.

If it is not, they may post that my IP and uncles are very different and that they understand what I'm doing.

I have to believe they are not an infiltrating forum, and I do.  Ron Paul and I have differences, and he probably knows who I am.  But I believe Ron Paul is a sincere American who had a somewhat conditional agenda relating to the constitution.  I believe we agree on far more than we disagree upon, and, he may appreciate this service.

 I've sent him certified mail regarding another, related aspect to what I'm doing here.  He will remember that from 2011 I think.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Looks like Mini-me and Antifed are teaming up on cognitive infiltration.  I've seen this character assassination technique before.





> [b]InSiNcErE AmErIcAns[b/]
> 1.  Anti Federalist
> 2. Mini-Me


Damn, AF! What the hell, Mini-Me?

You two oughtta be ashamed of yourselves!

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Some things just cannot be discussed in public.
> 
> A sad and debilitating reality.


Hmm, you appear sincere but are also in error twice.

This not only can, it must be discussed in public.  The infiltration of the federal government has worked to make it appear as a "A sad and debilitating reality".

Being in error twice in a manner that detracts from this purification process opens the door to the possibility that you to are a cognitive infiltrator.

If you are not a cognitive infiltrator you should be able to post acceptance for the root definition of the purpose of free speech.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Eye...eye...eye...eye...



I very, very seldom complain about *anybody*, MM and I are not in collusion together "against you", and I don't believe in bannings.

You have a convoluted and difficult to discern writing style similar to a long time poster on here named Uncle Emmanuel Watkins.

Now, what is it you are trying to get across?

That people need to be sincere when committing to defend the constitution?




> Considering the timing here, we have these 2 using IRC chat to coordinate their teamwork.
> 
> [B][i]Anti Federalist said:
> Today 06:58 PM
> 
> Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?
> 
> Mini-Me said:
> Today 07:21 PM[b/][i/]
> ...

----------


## Mini-Me

> Looks like Mini-me and Antifed are teaming up on cognitive infiltration.  I've seen this character assassination technique before.
> 
> 
> 
> I had never heard of uncle, said so, no answer, I did a search which ended up at a thread here and I posted so.
> 
> 
> 
> Mini-me, what I'm doing is not a "distinctive style".  It is the use of the concept uncle describes.  The concept of using absolutes to deteime intentions.
> ...


Christopher, since you've gone so far as to call Anti Federalist and myself "cognitive infiltrators," allow me to share my honest feelings with you:

I was willing to refrain from direct criticism before and keep my tone light, but this thread is so gallingly pretentious it brings a whole new meaning to the word.  Your egotistical insistence that others must undersign your particular statement of principles to call themselves sincere Americans who support the "root purpose" of the First Amendment is among the most delusional and self-absorbed attempts at grandstanding that I have ever seen outside of narcissistic politicians.  We united behind Ron Paul, and we will unite again around the efforts and initiatives that inspire us and light the fire in our hearts, not around some vain "test of sincerity" designed with the arrogant presumption that everyone else must prove their worth to Chrisopher A. Bowen or earn your approval.  Unless and until you convincingly reveal yourself to be Sophie Scholl, Patrick Henry, Ron Paul, Frederick Douglass, Lysander Spooner, Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Gandalf the White uncloaked, Keanu Reeves, or someone else who has earned a degree of trust and respect, no one else has any reason to consider you a moral authority on anything or feel pressure to follow your lead.  You have no moral standing to sit as judge or arbiter of anyone else's sincerity, and your list has earned no standing as anything remotely approaching a litmus test for sincerity.  On the contrary, the haughty self-importance of your thread and your cavalier accusations of bad faith both call your own sincerity into stark question.  Come back with a sense of humility if you want to be taken seriously.

There's some sincerity for you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Damn, AF! What the hell, Mini-Me?
> 
> You two oughtta be ashamed of yourselves!


I hang my head in forum shame.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Unless and until you convincingly reveal yourself to be Sophie Scholl, Patrick Henry, Ron Paul, Frederick Douglass, Lysander Spooner, Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Gandalf the White uncloaked, Keanu Reeves, or someone else who has earned a degree of trust and respect, no one else has any reason to consider you a moral authority on anything or feel pressure to follow your lead.


I lost it at "Keanu Reeves"...ROFL

----------


## Mini-Me

> I lost it at "Keanu Reeves"...ROFL


I had to put a joke in there for my own sanity.  The rest is totally serious (obviously).  I wasn't TOTALLY joking with the Keanu Reeves reference either: I genuinely admire him for his humility and generosity, and I would value and respect his opinions, at least on interpersonal if not political matters.  It was only a joke because of its apparent randomness...and Gandalf was a bit of a joke too, since he's fictional.  I guess hearing from him isn't too much less likely than hearing from the dead though.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Is there any point is discussing constitutional defense and restoration of constitutional government with Americans that are not sincere?
> 
> This is about un conditional defense of the constitution.


Depending on how you want to frame that discussion, would determine how likely you are to join the millions of other people in prison.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I took the hint, did a search, found a thread back here. 
> 
> * Yea, Uncles theory is what I'm doing.*  I believe I've proven it as real and functional to a significant degree.


So don't get all huffy and defensive when people are reminded of him when they read you.

----------


## Spikender

I don't believe in lists.

Regardless of that fact, I don't see how adding my name to some arbitrary list you cooked up means I'm any more sincere in my defense of people's natural rights than I am right now. Maybe it will make me feel better to see my username on some list of "sincere" defenders or "patriots", but that's all it would serve to do: to boost my ego.

----------


## Acala

Free speech HAS no purpose and needs no purpose.  It is simply what people do when not crushed under the boot of tyranny.  Freedom doesn't need to justify itself with a purpose.

----------


## Acala

> I hang my head in forum shame.


You are corrosive to democratic politics.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Danke

> Damn, AF! What the hell, Mini-Me?
> 
> You two oughtta be ashamed of yourselves!


I always had my suspicions.

----------


## acptulsa

Uncle Em's style?  Not even close.  Uncle Em was always more obtuse and never so obnoxious.




> Considering the timing here, we have these 2 using IRC chat to coordinate their teamwork.
> 
> [b]InSiNcErE AmErIcAns[b/]
> 1.  Anti Federalist
> 2. Mini-Me
> 
> If the forum is an infiltrating forum, these two will complain and I'll be banned in a day or two.
> 
> If it is not, they may post that my IP and uncles are very different and that they understand what I'm doing.
> ...


Pop up out of the blue, demand people publish personal information, attack the first two regular members who pop up even though neither attacked you, throw around buzzwords that mean nothing by way of casting aspersions at this forum, make no sense at all to anyone who is familiar with either the forum or the two members in question, and intimate that you're important enough, or think you're important enough, for Ron Paul's personal attention.

I think Big Pharma now makes medication for that condition.

And no.  The Bill of Rights guarantees free speech because an electorate full of citizenry can't properly operate a republic if they're ill-informed.  So, if they need information, the press needs free speech.  That simple.

I hope no one is silly enough to bite on this data miner's bait...

----------


## CPUd



----------


## Root

Wait, what about Root?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You are corrosive to democratic politics.


I should hope so

----------


## Acala

> I should hope so


I meant it as a compliment.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Free speech HAS no purpose and needs no purpose.


Wrong.  That is what the infiltrators of gov and the NWO want us to think.

And your fitting into to social club as you do marks you.  This is not a time to refer to an effort to create unity which to defend the constitution with, as you are, as this false group is and grows.

InSiNcErE AmErIcAns
1. Anti Federalist
2. Mini-me
3.Occam's Banana
4. Acala

Your group mandate is oppose anyone that brings information useful to defend the constitution.  Distraction is not very effective, but if enough pretend it is meaningful, the unaware can be deceived.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Notice how Antifed claims my writing is hard to understand but provides no specifics.

Agreement by the group is a form of ad hominium when specifics of the message are not addressed.  Notice acalas effort is nonsensical.   This demonstrates that fact.

Ask a 2nd amendments right activist if people who do not know the purpose of a gun should be using one.

----------


## Spikender

They shouldn't be using one.

But I'm not going to stop them. They'll learn the hard way what happens when you misuse any tool, same as a person attempting to use a belt sander to remove dirt from a shoe who's never used one in their life and doesn't really know what it's for.

Regardless, you're using this topic as bait to attack others for questioning your interpretation of what a true activist in support of Free Speech and apparently other rights is.

Sorry that your not getting a positive reception, but perhaps you could start by nixing your obsession with listing true patriots and insincere Americans and start trying to convince them of your position by other means.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Chris wrote:
"Ask a 2nd amendments right activist if people who do not know the purpose of a gun should be using one."

Spikender wrote:
"They shouldn't be using one.

But I'm not going to stop them. They'll learn the hard way what happens when you misuse any tool, "

Speech is different.  If it were guns, the insincere, for whatever reason, with their behaviors, are getting everyone's powder wet, causing aim so poor it looksike ricochet.  Firing into the air and into everyones baggage. With so much distraction from their noise, everyone turns the noise of the insincere into blanks, having no meaning. and everyone knows it so no stray round from the insincere have any effect on the armor of accountability we make for ourselves with sincerity.

You have no idea at how much experience I have at this.  None.  I've seen this same act at least 1/2 dozen times.

BTW, do you have any idea which forum this thread has been moved to?  My phone doesn't display enough for me to know.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Chris wrote:
> "Ask a 2nd amendments right activist if people who do not know the purpose of a gun should be using one."
> 
> Spikender wrote:
> "They shouldn't be using one.
> 
> But I'm not going to stop them. They'll learn the hard way what happens when you misuse any tool, "
> 
> Speech is different.  If it were guns, the insincere, for whatever reason, are getting everyone's powder wet, causing aim so poor it looksike ricochet, with so much distraction from their noise.  Everyone turns their noise into blanks, an everyone knows it so no stray round from the insincere have any effect on the armoir of accountability we make for ourselves with sincerity.
> ...


It's in Political Philosophy (organized under the Liberty Think Tank grouping), but you probably shouldn't take my word for it.  I am after all number 2 on your authoritative list of undesirables, so it stands to reason I would seek to mislead you at every turn.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> InSiNcErE AmErIcAns
> 1.  Anti Federalist
> 2. Mini-Me





> Damn, AF! What the hell, Mini-Me?
> 
> You two oughtta be ashamed of yourselves!





> InSiNcErE AmErIcAns
> 1. Anti Federalist
> 2. Mini-me
> 3. Occam's Banana
> 4. Acala


Well, $#@!.

Scootch over, guys. Looks like I've been assigned to the Group W bench, too ...

----------


## Mini-Me

> Well, $#@!.
> 
> Scootch over, guys. Looks like I've been assigned to the Group W bench, too ...


I think I'm going to file for an appeal: Due to a clerical error in capitalization, I was never properly added to the watch list.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I think I'm going to file for an appeal: Due to a clerical error in capitalization, I was never properly added to the watch list.


Maybe a dead bug fell into the teletype ...

"Mistakes? We don't make mistakes!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSQ5EsbT4cE

----------


## Spikender

Your rebuttal was pretty poor, Christopher.

You make sense to me, but this is the wrong crowd to tell this to. We all know that poisoning the well occurs with anything, including information. Some people argue for free speech for silly reasons, true, but most people here recognize the reason these rights are important other than "We live in a free country".

I have no idea how much experience you have with anything, but it's apparent you're an experienced list-maker, so props for that. Now instead of making lists, why not try and convert them instead of hitting them with derogatory labeling? You got a little peeved that they called you Uncle, and you fought back by labeling them in a similar way.

But then, I repeat myself. You're just on here to instigate them instead of inform. Stop getting water all over my gun powder.

----------


## acptulsa

> You have no idea at how much experience I have at this.  None.  I've seen this same act at least 1/2 dozen times.


Whereas we've seen your act a thousand times.  Show up out of the blue, blather something semi-nonsensical, cast aspersions on anyone who asks you what the Sam Hill you're talking about, deflect questions abrasively, and all the while your compatriots (or your sock puppets) can run around the internet linking to you to prove to the world what a bunch of abrasive bastards _we_ are.

*_yawn_*

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> I am after all number 2 on your authoritative list of undesirables, so it stands to reason I would seek to mislead you at every turn.


If you cannot understand and accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood, you WILL seek to mislead everyone from political philosophy useful towards restoring constitutional government.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Whereas we've seen your act a thousand times.


I'm sure you cannot post one example and your cognitive distortions are noted.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Spike wrote:
"but most people here recognize the reason these rights are important"

List examples from the most important to the least.

----------


## Spikender

"List"

Why does your obsession with lists continue? It doesn't matter which rights anyone thinks are most important, the fact is that is a discussion we should not be having. It's simply we have the rights or we don't. Having arbitrary discussions about which natural rights are more important than others is pointless in my book.

To put it bluntly using two rights we have already mentioned: you would ask me which is more important, my right to free speech or my right to bear arms. I would reply: it's either all or nothing, $#@! importance.

----------


## Acala

> Well, $#@!.
> 
> Scootch over, guys. Looks like I've been assigned to the Group W bench, too ...


HAHA you're on the list!!  Oh wait . . .

----------


## Acala

> This is not a time to refer to an effort to create unity which to defend the constitution with, as you are, as this false group is and grows.


If English is your native tongue, you might want to have that head wound examined.  This sounds like Yoda ate a datura root.

----------


## Danke

> I think I'm going to file for an appeal: Due to a clerical error in capitalization, I was never properly added to the watch list.


Too late.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

I must apologize to Occam's Banana for listing improperly.  There are good reasons for the error.

First, I'm most often on a phone.  Meaning a signature looks like part of the post in the app I use.  So it appeared like spam. Also Occam's Banana's post, being not a clear acceptance, but somewhat obscure and NOT referring to the OP or free speech, looked as if it was part of the false social group gathering here littering the thread with evasion and distraction to try and defeat sincere, fundamental defense of the constitution.

On my laptop I see that Occam's Banana has an extensive signature and the post, obscure as it is does not back the group distraction or evasion that the insincere Americans conduct.

Herein is a VERY good reason to separate from the social structures that have become unconsciously embedded in American society and simply state things plainly.  Then work to fit in with the social banter if that is important.

_InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
1. Anti Federalist
2. Mini-me
3. Acala_


Sincere Americans:

*1.Christopher A. Brown
2.Occam's Banana*

Your group mandate is oppose anyone that brings information useful to defend the constitution.  Distraction is not very effective, but if enough pretend it is meaningful, the unaware can be deceived.

----------


## Acala

> I must apologize to Occam's Banana for listing improperly.  There are good reasons for the error.
> 
> First, I'm most often on a phone.  Meaning a signature looks like part of the post in the app I use.  So it appeared like spam. Also Occam's Banana's post, being not a clear acceptance, but somewhat obscure and NOT referring to the OP or free speech, looked as if it was part of the false social group gathering here littering the thread with evasion and distraction to try and defeat sincere, fundamental defense of the constitution.
> 
> On my laptop I see that Occam's Banana has an extensive signature and the post, obscure as it is does not back the group distraction or evasion that the insincere Americans conduct.
> 
> Herein is a VERY good reason to separate from the social structures that have become unconsciously embedded in American society and simply state things plainly.  Then work to fit in with the social banter if that is important.
> 
> _InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
> ...


What?  This is so unfair.  I think you are just making this up as you go along.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> "List"
> 
> Why does your obsession with lists continue?


If I shut of your air and water for a day does it matter?  Those things are on our list of needs as a species, whether you want to know it or not.  There is a list of species going extinct, many of the extinctions are from our behaviors.  We are on that list, if we do not pay attention to our list of needs.  Priority is sequential, live with it.

The list of social features that support our survival has preservation of the 1787 constitution on it, and free speech.

----------


## Danke

> What?  This is so unfair.  I think you are just making this up as you go along.


Af, makes sense as he is a sailor.

Acala, makes über sense being an attorney.

Mini-Me, wasn't sure at first, but I think his scripted cleverness reveals it.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm sure you cannot post one example and your cognitive distortions are noted.


I'm sure I can, but I'm not at all sure you're worth the trouble.  It didn't occur to me to keep a list.




> InSiNcErE AmErIcAnS:
> 
> Sincere Americans:
> 
> Your group mandate is oppose anyone that brings information useful to defend the constitution.  Distraction is not very effective, but if enough pretend it is meaningful, the unaware can be deceived.


Divide and conquer tactics, meanwhile, _are_ very effective--if you bother to put some research, thought and effort into them.  You have not.

We know each other far better than you know us, and you betray the fact that you are making snap judgements by swapping people from one list to another.  Your mercurial, arbitrary classifications are obviously too haphazard to mean a damned thing.  They're worth nothing except as screwball comedy.

I say again--free speech is in the Bill of Rights because the electorate of a Republic cannot properly discharge their duty without information.  I also reiterate what Spikender said, and support it--when it comes to our God-given rights, it is less important to rank them or argue about why they're important than to draw the line in the sand before all of them and defend them all.

Now.  Care to address these statements?  Or would that take too much time away, and distract too many people's attention, from your amateurish attempts to divide us against ourselves?

----------


## Acala

> I'm sure I can, but I'm not at all sure you're worth the trouble.  It didn't occur to me to keep a list.
> 
> 
> 
> Divide and conquer tactics, meanwhile, _are_ very effective--if you bother to put some research, thought and effort into them.  You have not.
> 
> We know each other far better than you know us, and you betray the fact that you are making snap judgements by swapping people from one list to another.  Your mercurial, arbitrary classifications are obviously too haphazard to mean a damned thing.  They're worth nothing except as screwball comedy.
> 
> I say again--free speech is in the Bill of Rights because the electorate of a Republic cannot properly discharge their duty without information.  I also reiterate what Spikender said, and support it--when it comes to our God-given rights, it is less important to rank them or argue about why they're important than to draw the line in the sand before all of them and defend them all.
> ...


Insincere.

----------


## CCTelander

> Insincere.



Actually, wouldn't that be "InSiNcErE"?

Just sayin' is all.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What?  This is so unfair.  I think you are just making this up as you go along.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Reprieved!

Curfew shall not ring tonight!




> I must apologize to Occam's Banana for listing improperly.  There are good reasons for the error.
> 
> First, I'm most often on a phone.  Meaning a signature looks like part of the post in the app I use.  So it appeared like spam. Also Occam's Banana's post, being not a clear acceptance, but somewhat obscure and NOT referring to the OP or free speech, looked as if it was part of the false social group gathering here littering the thread with evasion and distraction to try and defeat sincere, fundamental defense of the constitution.
> 
> On my laptop I see that Occam's Banana has an extensive signature and the post, obscure as it is does not back the group distraction or evasion that the insincere Americans conduct.
> 
> Herein is a VERY good reason to separate from the social structures that have become unconsciously embedded in American society and simply state things plainly.  Then work to fit in with the social banter if that is important.
> 
> _InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sincere Americans:
>  1.Christopher A. Brown
>  2.Occam's Banana
>  3.Danke


You're not on that list.

Insincere.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Note that I am still trying to be polite and discern what Mr. Brown is on about.

Chris, would you care to answer just what your purpose is?

Without lists and fuzzy speech, explain what you are trying to get across.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Note that I am still trying to be polite and discern what Mr. Brown is on about.

Chris, would you care to answer just what your purpose is?

Without lists and fuzzy speech, explain what you are trying to get across.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Wrong.  That is what the infiltrators of gov and the NWO want us to think.
> 
> And your fitting into to social club as you do marks you.  This is not a time to refer to an effort to create unity which to defend the constitution with, as you are, as this false group is and grows.
> 
> InSiNcErE AmErIcAns
> 1. Anti Federalist
> 2. Mini-me
> 3.Occam's Banana
> 4. Acala
> ...


This^^^




> Notice how Antifed claims my writing is hard to understand but provides no specifics.
> 
> Agreement by the group is a form of ad hominium when specifics of the message are not addressed.  Notice acalas effort is nonsensical.   This demonstrates that fact.
> 
> Ask a 2nd amendments right activist if people who do not know the purpose of a gun should be using one.

----------


## Danke

> You're not on that list.
> 
> Insincere.


Maybe not, but I'm not on the list you and Mini-Me are:

----------


## Mini-Me

> Priority is sequential, live with it.


I'm sure this talk of sequential priority has nothing to do with the speaker being first on the list of "Sincere Americans."   Christopher, now that Occam's Banana has found your blessing, do you plan to forbid us from being friends?




> Af, makes sense as he is a sailor.
> 
> Acala, makes über sense being an attorney.
> 
> Mini-Me, wasn't sure at first, but I think his scripted cleverness reveals it.


It's not that I'm reading a script, so much as I've been scripted in Python.  There is for this reason a case to be made that it's not my fault.

----------


## Danke

> It's not that I'm reading a script, so much as I've been scripted in Python.  There is for this reason a case to be made that it's not my fault.


Finding a scapegoat, first sign of an "InSiNcErE AmErIcAn"

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

If it is as common as you say, you can make short list at anytime.  But you are not accountable to a prime need of civil social and all stated is evasive or manipulative.

acptulsa wrote:
"I'm sure I can, but I'm not at all sure you're worth the trouble. It didn't occur to me to keep a list."

acptulsa wrote:
"I say again--free speech is in the Bill of Rights because the electorate of a Republic cannot properly discharge their duty without information."

Be careful you do not empower unity now, you are starting to agree.   What you write can be derived from the root purpose I state, IF the republic stands to violate the individuals right to life.

Your statement is more likely to allow fundamental division while the root purpose I've developed over years is quite universal in human community.


The topic of the thread is the acceptance or not of the root definition of purpose of free speech.  It is simple test of sincerity which also happens to be prime constitutional intent.

It tests at the least for a citizens conditionality towards the highest principles of the constitution conceived to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The fact is there was a lot of competition for inclusion of concept in the constitution which omits direct reference of the intended methods of connecting the independence (DOI) asserted then won.  Thusly life connected, twice removed from the first amendment blurred the dependence of of life upon free speech.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If it is as common as you say, you can make short list at anytime.  But you are not accountable to a prime need of civil social and all stated is evasive or manipulative.
> 
> acptulsa wrote:
> "I'm sure I can, but I'm not at all sure you're worth the trouble. It didn't occur to me to keep a list."
> 
> acptulsa wrote:
> "I say again--free speech is in the Bill of Rights because the electorate of a Republic cannot properly discharge their duty without information."
> 
> Be careful you do not empower unity now, you are starting to agree.   What you write can be derived from the root purpose I state, IF the republic stands to violate the individuals right to life.
> ...

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Hah, everyone forgets I'm posting from an iPhone 90% of the time.

Antifed knows the answers to the questions it's asking.  A bad boo boo for an infiltrator.  Prolly thinking I forgot or can't get the link on my phone.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

I think it is there on that page in that thread for sure.  I posted exactly what this legal process of becoming "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" is.

Antifed opposed it all there and here.  Definitely against Americans using natural law agreements.  Not sincere for sure.

Yes, this list is dynamic.  The thread is spammed by the insincere so finding individual statements is hard.  I'm not goin to rev the list now because I saw Danke faked a sincere list with its name.  At best, social spam, at worst spam hijacking by a more devious insincere.

All that is required to make the sincere list is to overtly state that the propose of free speech is accepted and show willingness to faithfully carry the list with the intent of having the group all having access to a current accurate list.

I suppose using the technology here. By putting the acceptance in ones signature, would be a continuous verification of sincerity.

The fact is there is no competent plan anywhere for uniting the masses as our constitution intends, OTHER than this one.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

That post is basically a rabbit hole of my activity and results using this method.  It is real and it works.  It can grow as fast as our passion for using our constitution to protect our God given rights exists, if it sincerely does.

This is what we learn as we unite.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Hah, everyone forgets I'm posting from an iPhone 90% of the time.
> 
> Antifed knows the answers to the questions it's asking.  A bad boo boo for an infiltrator.  Prolly thinking I forgot or can't get the link on my phone.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nvention/page2
> 
> I think it is there on that page in that thread for sure.  I posted exactly what this legal process of becoming "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".
> 
> Antifed opposed it all there and here.  Definitely against Americans using natural law agreements.  Not sincere for sure.
> ...


I'm trying, I really am, but I'm still...

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Mini-me wrote:
"Christopher, now that Occam's Banana has found your blessing, do you plan to forbid us from being friends?"

It's all based in the individuals willing to admit and accept a common fact in order to be a part of a very large group that; if formed on this basis; becomes "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts." And does so because it is accepting and agreeing upon something which is prime constitutional intent.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm trying, I really am, but I'm still...


Data miner tries to get people to violate their own anonymity.

Data miner discovers he underestimated said forum's average sense, intelligence, and love of privacy.

Data miner figures out he can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, and instead of bowing out silently (if not gracefully) tries to baffle them with bull$#@!.

Sound like a likely theory to you?





> Mini-me wrote:
> "Christopher, now that Occam's Banana has found your blessing, do you plan to forbid us from being friends?"
> 
> It's all based in the individuals willing to admit and accept a common fact in order to be a part of a very large group that; if formed on this basis; becomes "the rightf masters of the congress and the courts." And does so because it is accepting and agreeing upon something which is prime constitutional intent.


No it isn't.  It's all based on something far, far simpler than that.  We've all known AF for years.  We all like AF.  And we all know that everything you just said about AF is pure bull$#@!.

See how simple that is?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

You are the one talking about AstroTurf/cognitive infiltration BS.

acptulsa wrote;
"Data miner figures out he can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, and instead of bowing out silently (if not gracefully) tries to baffle them with bull$#@!"

Do you accept and agree that the root definition of the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?

Or is that bull$#@!?

----------


## CPUd

You are all a bunch of $#@!s for making fun of this guy.  He is the #1 Sincere American.

I know he has been doing this a long time.  I can tell from the writing.

And you obviously don't understand how hard Internet is on an iphone.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

No one is above the simple understanding, acceptance and agreement.  It is natural law.  

It is a principle of the republic.

The NWO loves it when the people can be made afraid of the agreement that puts the people in power over the infiltrations.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Wow, someone understands!  A sincere American.  And they may be on a computer.
Can I ask you to use your own judgement and update the lists:-)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Data miner tries to get people to violate their own anonymity.
> 
> Data miner discovers he underestimated said forum's average sense, intelligence, and love of privacy.
> 
> Data miner figures out he can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, and instead of bowing out silently (if not gracefully) tries to baffle them with bull$#@!.
> 
> Sound like a likely theory to you?


Very possible...of course I'm not putting my name to some random list, but, like a moth drawn to flame, I am drawn to theses "Fire11" type threads.

Compelled, for some odd reason.




> No it isn't.  It's all based on something far, far simpler than that.  We've all known AF for years.  We all like AF.  And we all know that everything you just said about AF is pure bull$#@!.
> 
> See how simple that is?


Why, thanks, in all SiNcErItY, the feeling is mutual.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Data miner tries to get people to violate their own anonymity.
> 
> Data miner discovers he underestimated said forum's average sense, intelligence, and love of privacy.
> 
> Data miner figures out he can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, and instead of bowing out silently (if not gracefully) tries to baffle them with bull$#@!.
> 
> Sound like a likely theory to you?


Very possible...of course I'm not putting my name to some random list, but, like a moth drawn to flame, I am drawn to theses "Fire11" type threads.

Compelled, for some odd reason.




> No it isn't.  It's all based on something far, far simpler than that.  We've all known AF for years.  We all like AF.  And we all know that everything you just said about AF is pure bull$#@!.
> 
> See how simple that is?


Why, thanks, in all SiNcErItY, the feeling is mutual.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Surely I belong on one of these lists!  I know Big Sister has me on hers.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> IIt's not that I'm reading a script, so much as I've been scripted in Python.  There is for this reason a case to be made that it's not my fault.


Hmmmm ... some kind of "madlib" scripting would certainly explain a lot about certain posts to this thread ...

----------


## Spikender

> If I shut of your air and water for a day does it matter?  Those things are on our list of needs as a species, whether you want to know it or not.  There is a list of species going extinct, many of the extinctions are from our behaviors.  We are on that list, if we do not pay attention to our list of needs.  Priority is sequential, live with it.
> 
> The list of social features that support our survival has preservation of the 1787 constitution on it, and free speech.


If you shut off my air and water for a day, I have people who can lend a helping hand, not to mention I have emergency supplies ready just in case.

That is besides the point, however: you are comparing rights to resources in this case, and those are two things that cannot be compared because they do not mesh well together. Rights are intangible things, resources are tangible items. To live as an organism we need air, water, and food, to live as a human we need rights. Two completely different things. You could have no rights and still live if your merciful master provided them for you. Rights cannot be provided, they just are; if a Government is allowing you to exercise your rights, then you're doing it wrong, because the Government has no say in who can do what in the first place when it comes to natural rights.

You are obsessed with lists and you continue to use this as some sort of moral pillar to stand on. I don't care what you have on your list, but if you are a supporter of the Constitutions as it was in 1787 and a supporter of free speech, you are fine in my book. 

However, the fact that come onto this forum looking to divide people who all agree with you on this topic is just silly, inane, and makes no sense. You yourself have provided no good answer for this behavior.

----------


## Acala

Is the purpose of free speech a subset of the civil purpose?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Spike wrote:
"If you shut off my air and water for a day, I have people who can lend a helping hand, not to mention.   .  ."

Gee you wasted a bunch of time tryimg to avoid stating it matters.  Why did you do that?

You have a right to life and the resource which supports it.

Spike wrote:
"That is besides the point, however: you are comparing rights to resources in this case, and those are two things that cannot be compared."

Some things are dependent on others.  not comparison, dependency.

 I just showed the dependency.  Not rocket science.  Why cant you do this?
Some things cannot be separated and manipulated in effort to evade.

Do you accept and agree that the root definition of the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?

Spike wrote:
"However, the fact that come onto this forum looking to divide people who all agree with you on this topic is just silly"

The people are well divided already.  For you to imply otherwise is effort to misinform.  Why did you do that?

We, IF sincere, are united in our awareness of needs and can share information vital to survival.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Free speech is a feature of civil
Society.  Civil society has a duty to assure free speech for continuity and civility.




> Is the purpose of free speech a subset of the civil purpose?

----------


## acptulsa

> Do you accept and agree that the root definition of the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?


What is this obsession?

I accept that the phrase 'the root definition of the purpose' is so stilted and convoluted as to be legalistic and nearly meaningless.  I accept that it is wise to distrust any language which is both legalistic and vague.  I don't know if you're trying to discuss why free speech made it into the Bill of Rights, or why God invented it, or just what the hell you mean by 'purpose'.  I find the phrase 'information vital to survival' even more vague.  And I don't understand how any sane person could be so adamant about having strangers agree with something like this.

Which leaves me wondering what kind of trap this is.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

acptulsa, as a confuser, you fail.

As I've stated.  An infiltrator can not give up, no matter how stupid they look trying to twist and deceive.
They also cannot ever agree.  You are consistent wth that.

----------


## Acala

> acptulsa, as a confuser, you fail.
> 
> As I've stated.  An infiltrator can not give up, no matter how stupid they look trying to twist and deceive.
> They also cannot ever agree.  You are consistent wth that.


Put him on the list!!!

----------


## Danke

> Put him on the list!!!


"Let any one of you who is without *Sin*cerity be the first to throw a stone at him."

----------


## acptulsa

> acptulsa, as a confuser, you fail.


I bow to the master.




> As I've stated.  An infiltrator can not give up, no matter how stupid they look trying to twist and deceive.
> They also cannot ever agree.  You are consistent wth that.


WHO is consistent with that?  The person who is asking questions and not getting them answered, who is being forthright as hell about his concerns and not getting them addressed, and who has far, far too many posts on this forum to be considered an 'infiltrator'?

You think (or at least pretend) you're talking about me, but you're _looking_ in a mirror.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

When conducting this kind of test of sincerity, it is not possible to know the level of admission of acceptance which might
be found.  Never the less, if discussion productive towards restoration of constitutional government is going to happen, a test needs to be done so participants have seen fundamental intents from individuals of the group based on response to common factor of prime constitutional intent.

Often social fears control and no matter how much inherent natural law agreement inherently exists, in a case as far out of the box as this effort, the effort itself might be too stigmatized because it is out of the box, even BEFORE the coginfils spam the thread with distraction and efforts to misinterpret the threads purpose, premise and information.

Despite being out of the box, it is an absolutely valid legal approach and it is also valid in the sociological sense, however, seems strange so participation in the beginning can easily be sparse.

Therefor a best guess is the only way to start to create a title and context presenting the notion of a test and list of results.  IF the socials fears are so great that no one posts overt acceptance, THEN an evaluatation of what is written between the lines is all that can be used to know how the concept is working.  A basic sentiment towards the agreement, or about it, is detectable given an amount of discourse.  This is the revised list based on that.

DamianTV posted indirectly support for the basic topic of free speech right away, he had posted elsewhere indicating that there was sincerity barring anything but sincerity.  Then Occam's Banana took a position of acceptance with "alrighty then".  The iphone app I use made his signature appear as part of the post and spamish.  That with obscure acceptance caused an error and had him on the wrong list.  CPud is very supportive but not necessarily ready for full overt participation with the constitutional intent as it can be used to build agreement upon the principals of the republic

Sincere Americans:

1. Christopher A. Brown
2. DamianTV  
3. Occam's Banana
4. CPUd 

The usual "tight" social feeling is carried as SOP by the infiltrations I've seen over the last 9 years of testing these covert groups to examine enough of their product to understand the basic strategy they expect to work.  Interesting to not is that the infiltrations with their tight social group, emotional reasoning etc. can fairly well convert a sincere American given some time.  There are admissions that indicate this has a lot of control here.

Antifed and Acala teamed on the "I don't understand" tactic right away, which wasn't applied in the past until all else failed.  

InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
1. Anti Federalist
2. Mini-me
3. Acala
4. acptulsa 
5. Danke 

Antifed pretended to not know what the thread is about, which is a very coginfil strategy, seen over and over for years.  This thread details the over all plan which is quite complete with valid legal process at all levels.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> The person who is asking questions and not getting them answered


I asked first, and the answer is really easy.  Your questions are completely suspect until the OP topic question is addressed.  None matter except "what is this about".  The thread I just posted has a link that has been posted before which details the entire proposal of legal process which the agreement sought here fully empowers.

----------


## Danke

> When conducting this kind of test of sincerity, it is not possible to know the level of admission of acceptance which might
> be found.  Never the less, if discussion productive towards restoration of constitutional government is going to happen, a test needs to be done so participants have seen fundamental intents from individuals of the group based on response to common factor of prime constitutional intent.
> 
> Often social fears control and no matter how much inherent natural law agreement inherently exists, in a case as far out of the box as this effort, the effort itself might be too stigmatized because it is out of the box, even BEFORE the coginfils spam the thread with distraction and efforts to misinterpret the threads purpose, premise and information.
> 
> Despite being out of the box, it is an absolutely valid legal approach and it is also valid in the sociological sense, however, seems strange so participation in the beginning can easily be sparse.
> 
> Therefor a best guess is the only way to start to create a title and context presenting the notion of a test and list of results.  IF the socials fears are so great that no one posts overt acceptance, THEN an evaluatation of what is written between the lines is all that can be used to know how the concept is working.  A basic sentiment towards the agreement, or about it, is detectable given an amount of discourse.  This is the revised list based on that.
> 
> ...


Is there an appeal process? I really shouldn't be on your list, I am the epitome of a Sincere American. Ask anyone, ask Eduardo.

----------


## acptulsa

Well.  I finally got put on A List.

Da Judge hath arrived.  Thank God.  How did we understand each other all these years without him?





> I asked first, and the answer is really easy.  Your questions are completely suspect until the OP topic question is addressed.  None matter except "what is this about".  The thread I just posted has a link that has been posted before which details the entire proposal of legal process which the agreement sought here fully empowers.


The post you linked to is a large set of private messages about orrupt bureaucrats and gnarly cats and other errata in the middle of some poor, unsuspecting OP's otherwise cogent and coherent thread.  It is nothing but confusing infiltration.

But hey--thanks for playing.  And don't forget to take your Prolixin.

----------


## Danke

> blank



Can someone PM me what acptulsa said, as he is now on my ignore list being that he is an Insincere American?

----------


## acptulsa

> Can someone PM me what acptulsa said, as he is now on my ignore list being that he is an Insincere American?


Oh thank god this bastard finally put me on ignore!  Now I can say anything I want about him!

_This_ is the true civil (and uncivil) purpose of free speech!

----------


## Mini-Me

> [...]
> 
> Often social fears control and no matter how much inherent natural law agreement inherently exists, in a case as far out of the box as this effort, the effort itself might be too stigmatized because it is out of the box, even BEFORE the *coginfils* spam the thread with distraction and efforts to misinterpret the threads purpose, premise and information.
> 
> [...]
> 
> InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
> 1. Anti Federalist
> 2. Mini-me
> ...


One year from now:
times 7.3.15 reporting sincerefirst oldlist coginfils doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise mistake iphone upsub antefiling.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> One year from now:
> times 7.3.15 reporting sincerefirst oldlist coginfils doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise mistake iphone upsub antefiling.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mini-Me again.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> One year from now:
> times 7.3.15 reporting sincerefirst oldlist coginfils doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise mistake iphone upsub antefiling.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mini-Me again.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Don't post to crazy....don't post to crazy...don't post to crazy...DO NOT post to crazy.

OK...sheesh.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Is there an appeal process? I really shouldn't be on your list, I am the epitome of a Sincere American. Ask anyone, ask Eduardo.


He really is.

Very Sincere.

So sincere he got a visit from the Great Pumpkin last year.

----------


## Spikender

> Spike wrote:
> "If you shut off my air and water for a day, I have people who can lend a helping hand, not to mention.   .  ."
> 
> Gee you wasted a bunch of time tryimg to avoid stating it matters.  Why did you do that?
> 
> You have a right to life and the resource which supports it.
> 
> Spike wrote:
> "That is besides the point, however: you are comparing rights to resources in this case, and those are two things that cannot be compared."
> ...


And you have once again avoided answering the majority of my questions or addressing that point that these rights you speak of aren't just simple bullet points on a list that can be rearranged. By assigning them importance, you create mental building blocks in your mind with each right as a block and each right with an assigned importance. This is unhealthy behavior. By doing this, you are leading your brain into a trap where you honestly believe more rights are important than others, and you will let certain injustices slide because they are not against your precious, most favored rights.

The one thing you have said thus far that I agree with is that this forum has divisions. Yes it does. But you have come on here to try and divide further with arbitrary lists, which you still have not given up nor explained why you are so obsessed with lists. You wish to list good Americans, bad Americans, Rights, I can only imagine what else you list as well. Do you list the amount of folks that gave you dirty looks when you walk down the sidewalk with a firearm strapped to your thigh?

You are pushing a definition and utility of free speech that you claim to be the root of it. If all that is needed to be on your petty list is to agree to this definition you assigned to it, then count me out. It seems like a good definition. I of course agree that free speech is important to share information that can be used to survive. But why is that so important to you? You simply could've come onto this website and crafted a topic with a peaceful discussion about the true root purpose of free speech, but instead you come on here and start making lists of "insincere Americans" and a list of Americans you agree with you.

That I cannot support, and I never will. Please take some time and reconsider what you're doing in this case and think about how it affects those around you. Just look at poor AF, he doesn't even know if he can willingly post in this topic any longer due to your vicious attacks.

Think of the Federalists!

----------


## acptulsa

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mini-Me again.


I'd love to cover for you, but I cannot give reputation to the same post twice I cannot give reputation to the same post twice.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

The thread is so spammed, it looks like JREF bots have found a new place to poop.

With an iPhone, quoting anything more than 3 lines is actually a bitch to edit down.

WTF should I answer any Q's of yours if you prove by not answering one that defines your capacity to use your first constitutional right?  Which you probably do not know.

Seriously, the infiltration of gov began after the civil war, it continued into schools after 1912.  By 1970 it was doing LSD with the grateful dead at Harbin hot springs, and now its posting on the Ron Paul forum as your social group, and you don't even know that either.

There is a full plan here which is the people's ONLY plan for political control in existence that engages the existing authority.

http://patriotaction.net/forum/topic...age=3#comments

If you knew your first right, and what it meant, and you were sincere, your posts would be much shorter and easier to answer by someone on an iPhone trying to defend the constitution unconditionally.

----------


## boneyard bill

> I had to put a joke in there for my own sanity.  The rest is totally serious (obviously).  I wasn't TOTALLY joking with the Keanu Reeves reference either: I genuinely admire him for his humility and generosity, and I would value and respect his opinions, at least on interpersonal if not political matters.  It was only a joke because of its apparent randomness...and Gandalf was a bit of a joke too, since he's fictional.  I guess hearing from him isn't too much less likely than hearing from the dead though.


Actually, Keanu Reeves did play the part of the Buddha.

----------


## boneyard bill

> *The purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.*
> 
> Do you accept that root definition as an American seeking to defend the constitution and restore constitutional government?
> 
> Yea, brainy question huh?  
> 
> Unity didn't say how many brains we need to occupy its omnipotent body that might be termed the tyranny of the masses by dictators being democratically. lawfully, peacefully, overthrown.  Unity just said we need to agree in the greatest numbers possible to "alter or abolish" abusive government.
> 
> Functional unity said the agreement needs to be upon prime constitutional if "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts."
> ...


The first question that comes to my mind is that "vital" may be too restrictive a  word. Might not "beneficial" be more appropriate?

The second question I would raise is that if that is the purpose of free speech might we then be justified to restrict speech that does not serve that purpose? Is it not possible that some speech could be destructive? Were McCarthyites right to want to restrict the speech of Communists on the grounds that Communist speech was aimed at destroying our way of life, including our right to free speech, and therefore, being destructive could appropriately be banned? I think these are exactly the kinds of arguments they used.

But how much of our speech actually involves sharing information that is vital to our survival? I would suggest that only the tiniest fraction of such speech serves that purpose. I there ANYTHING AT ALL on television that actually promotes such a goal?

With respect to the constitution, what did the term "freedom of speech" actually mean when the constitution was written? How could John Adams, who was part of the process of ratifying the Bill of Rights propose the Alien and Sedition Acts after having been part of that process? Surely he knew what the first amendment said. The problem is that what "freedom of speech" meant at that time was "no prior restraint." It didn't necessarily mean that you couldn't punish someone after they spoke. Thus Adams could argue that his acts were completely constitutional.

While I generally agree with the statement proposed here, I think it is in need of qualifiers. We certainly do restrict "destructive" speech with laws like libel and slander. You cannot reveal national security secrets without penalty as that is also deemed destructive speech. In fact, all of our freedoms have qualifiers. Ultimately, our primary freedom is "due process of law." When we are accused of having gone over the line in the exercise of our freedoms, we have a right to defend ourselves before disinterested parties. The Founders were not against government. They were against arbitrary government. They certainly believed that it was legitimate to restrict speech that didn't serve the common interest, but they also understood the difficulty of placing interested parties in charge of making that distinction.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

boneyard bill wrote:
"The first question that comes to my mind is that "vital" may be too restrictive a word. Might not "beneficial" be more appropriate?"

 If vital, meaning life itself were not observed, then the incompetents can interfere with life saving operations legally.

boneyard bill wrote:
"The second question I would raise is that if that is the purpose of free speech might we then be justified to restrict speech that does not serve that purpose?"

It already is, but only because the constitution is not enforced relating to the publics lack of control of itself, by default creating what is being called "life threatening conditions".  The public without the purpose of freedom of speech being observed, is very easy to mislead over the period of time that has passed with mass media added the the dumbing down. 

Then consider an emergency with paramedics working for example.  The nearby cop will move all speech to at least 40 feet away.  When lives are at stake any useless speech must move.

But perhaps you refer to a situation like I've created here which relates to a long term life threatening situation which only exists because of a lack of unity.

We have instincts but the framers of the constitution did not talk about them directly.  They used natural law in  common terms very much like your book beginning in the limited government thread.

This thread is an effort to use natural law.  I cannot be sure that the sincere lurker knows the type or degree of emergency we are in.  The ease of appealing to their instincts of course depends on the information they have.
Despite deficiency in that area, the simple purpose of free speech is obviously something fully acceptable and already an unconscious part of our daily operating parameters.

All I'm doing is working to make its obvious, constitutional intended purpose a part of unity to use in assuring all amendments have constitutional intent.

There are people working to amend the constitutional and they are not accountable to us as far as I can see.  This is not to say they are all working to rewrite the constitution.  Many are state legislators that should be accountable to the states citizens.  This topic  works to begin to make "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" no matter what state they are in.

Currently there are 27 states working for an Article V convention.  I need one ONLY done properly.

This thread is made necessary by covert groups pretending to have an intent to preserve the constitution.  They are against unifying concepts or their use for constitutional defense and are paid for by large groups of corporations.  Some of which might be part of those addressed with thjis petition.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/298/6...tional-intent/

to divert usage of speech from that protecting human Life on a larger scale to increase short term profits for special Interests.

----------


## boneyard bill

> boneyard bill wrote:
> The first question that comes to my mind is that "vital" may be too restrictive a word. Might not "beneficial" be more appropriate?
> 
>  If vital, meaning life itself were not observed, then the incompetents can interfere with life saving operations legally.
> 
> boneyard bill wrote:
> "The second question I would raise is that if that is the purpose of free speech might we then be justified to restrict speech that does not serve that purpose?"
> 
> It already is, but only because the constitution is not enforced relating to the publics lack of control of itself, by default creating what is being called "life threatening conditions".  The public without the purpose of freedom of speech being observed, is very easy to mislead over the period of time that has passed with mass media added the the dumbing down. 
> ...


But I have already pointed out that the meaning of free speech in the constitution, given the legal meanings of that day, may not have anything like the libertarian meaning applied today. So relying on the constitution, insofar as one would apply the "original intent" doctrine at least, may not be a very good safeguard.

With respect to arguing it from a natural law point of view, I agree that what you are attempting here fits into that category, but I am suggesting that such an approach is filled with potential loopholes which would allow people to justify infringements of free speech. This is natural. There must necessarily be qualifications to almost any sentence we could contrive that fills less than a page. But I would also be concerned about the principle that you have proposed could easily be abused to justify suppression a bit too much. It comes down to who should judge the case. I think that issue has to be dealt with at the same time as the issue of free speech is being considered.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> But I have already pointed out that the meaning of free speech in the constitution, given the legal meanings of that day, may not have anything like the libertarian meaning applied today. So relying on the constitution, insofar as one would apply the "original intent" doctrine at least, may not be a very good safeguard.
> 
> With respect to arguing it from a natural law point of view, I agree that what you are attempting here fits into that category, but I am suggesting that such an approach is filled with potential loopholes which would allow people to justify infringements of free speech. This is natural. There must necessarily be qualifications to almost any sentence we could contrive that fills less than a page. But I would also be concerned about the principle that you have proposed could easily be abused to justify suppression a bit too much. It comes down to who should judge the case. I think that issue has to be dealt with at the same time as the issue of free speech is being considered.



Posting on an iphone limits the amount of quoting that can comfortably be done.  I saw this below, from your post, but could not get into trying to reply in depth, because this is a very pertinent question.  The answer/solution applies to your latter post quoted above.




> With respect to the constitution, what did the term "freedom of speech" actually mean when the constitution was written? How could John Adams, who was part of the process of ratifying the Bill of Rights propose the Alien and Sedition Acts after having been part of that process?


Firstly the true environment of the framers creation of the constitution is not well understood, because some important factors are missing.

The relationship with the Iroquis Confederacy Six Nations is rarely understood, and less often shared than the colonist framers.  The site I've been using has changed so I've found the story somewhere else.  Chief Canasatego of the Iroquis was key to bring Adams, Franklin and Jefferson together.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...owtopic=210687

That meeting is a part of history barely shared at all, but it was critical.  The reason for this is racism, or religion, plain and simple.  There are still those of power that refuse to carry the truth in media, or even allow it for very long, meaning that story is one of the few, but there were many others that existed before such information was heavily targeted in the framers personal writings.  Mention of very deep philosophical concepts that created the unity with the framers upon the prime principals are very hard to find.

Here is the only mostly complete of the 13 arrows concept being brought to Franklin in 1744,
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6.../EoL/chp6.html

I happen to have gotten one vital item of the Native philosophy directly from an Indian from Michigan, Gregory Baker.  He was speaking from his oral history, which he admitted was not his usual level of spirituality, but said he fully accepted and understood its functionality.  It was termed "The greater meaning of free speech".

It is a sociological philosophical doctrine that is quite deep with some of humanities most profound instincts that empower survival and adaptation through enabling cooperations across natural differences by bringing common human purposes forth.  

From freedom of speech an understanding can be created.  From the understanding can come; *forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.*

As you can see only the last 30% made it into the Declaration of Independence.  That is how intense the competition was from Empire influence amongst the groups and states.

We can see that in 1776 the right to alter or abolish was with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  By the time the constitution was being written, "alter or abolish" was converted to Article V, giving power over the constitution to ratification of 3/4 of the states to escape the power of a corrupted congress or court.  We can see that by 1792, the Bill of Rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness had been separated from free speech.  Fracturing the sequence of meaning of principle that was naturally carried.

The idea is that all speech is allowed, *but not all speech is equal.*  The principals of the greater meaning are publicly supported to emphasize the cooperation between people as the foundation of strength and security.  This is the original structure.  When societies are deprived of that, then harsh conditions develop and speech is limited to prevent distraction from lifesaving activities.

To see a draft revision of the First Amendment that would correct the deficiencies adequately, see this thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...95#post5446595

----------


## Henry Rogue

I haven't laughed this much since the "The chair is against the wall. John has a long mustache. " thread.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> I haven't laughed this much since the "The chair is against the wall. John has a long mustache. " thread.


I found it.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...F-is-this-post

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Spikender wrote:
" Some people argue for free speech for silly reasons, true, but most people here recognize the reason these rights are important other than "We live in a free country"."

The point is demonstrating unconditional support for prime constitutional intent in order to create unity effective for constitutional defense.

You use the word "important".  This is not just about an important right, this is about usefulness.  If any of the people here that know its importance went out and tried to effectively use it for constitutional defense, they would find it useless, and they know it.

The NWO laughs at us for trying to use free speech on all the ways we have been taught.  Here it is different when they try, they appear sick.

This important right is used much differently here than it has ever been used anywhere before.   If we lower ourselves to simply accepting its root purpose in order to help others do the same, we create unity based in prime constitutional intent.

With Article V, this can be used to invoke the highest authority in the land.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

If you can publicly and unconditionally support the root definition, you are by definition sincere because you have lowered yourself to a level of commonality for the public good as derived from unity around that common respect for a prime constitutional right.  But  it needs to be overt to truly earn the status in this anonymous realm of the internet.  I've been reading between the lines to honor the intent of posters arriving with "contributions" or questions that reveal their acceptance so the subtle differences will be examined.

Americans need to use critical thinking.

The insincere infiltrator cannot make that agreement because very soon it will be obvious as they have to act to violate it to continue with the tasks of infiltrating social activist groups fouling their cognition of political strategy absolutely useful to overthrowing the infiltration of the federal government.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you can publicly and unconditionally support the root definition, you are by definition sincere because you have lowered yourself to a level of commonality for the public good as derived from unity around that common respect for a prime constitutional right.  But  it needs to be overt to truly earn the status in this anonymous realm of the internet.  I've been reading between the lines to honor the intent of posters arriving with "contributions" or questions that reveal their acceptance so the subtle differences will be examined.
> 
> Americans need to use critical thinking.
> 
> The insincere infiltrator cannot make that agreement because very soon it will be obvious as they have to act to violate it to continue with the tasks of infiltrating social activist groups fouling their cognition of political strategy absolutely useful to overthrowing the infiltration of the federal government.


No sir.

The Anti Federalists used pseudonyms, and they could not be *more* sincere.

----------


## acptulsa

> Americans need to use critical thinking.
> 
> The insincere infiltrator cannot make that agreement because very soon it will be obvious as they have to act to violate it to continue with the tasks of infiltrating social activist groups fouling their cognition of political strategy absolutely useful to overthrowing the infiltration of the federal government.


So, what you're saying is that your narrow definition of the 'root purpose' of free speech is a magical incantation.  And what it does is ensure that trolls are exposed when they join activists who are preventing the trolls from thinking of ways to foil those same activists.

Results of a double-blind study or it doesn't work.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

"So, what you're saying is that your narrow definition of the 'root purpose' of free speech"

You misrepresent.  It is the broadest possible definition, which is why it works.  Don't think so, come up with your own, broader definintion.

----------


## acptulsa

> "So, what you're saying is that your narrow definition of the 'root purpose' of free speech"
> 
> You misrepresent.  It is the broadest possible definition, which is why it works.  Don't think so, come up with your own, broader definintion.


I don't think free speech has a root purpose.  I think it doesn't need one to be a damned good thing.  I think it can do that quite naturally just by being what it is.

I said why I think the founding fathers felt it was vitally important much, much earlier in this thread.  You ignored me and blathered on.

I didn't misrepresent anything.  If that wasn't what you meant to say, then it's your own critical thinking skills that need work, not mine, because whatever that convoluted string of polysyllablic blather was meant to convey to the wider English speaking population, it says exactly what I claimed it says.

And I'll tell you something else if you want to know.  Your definition of the 'purpose of free speech' is not only not the 'broadest possible', but I will never lower myself to your 'level of commonality' because I consider your definition so limiting as to be treasonous to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.  If 'information vital to survival' is all the free speech you're prepared to defend, or allow, then you have no use for free speech criticizing Obamacare until it's proven that Obamacare is killing people, you have no tolerance for speech promoting Rand Paul until it's proven that Rand Paul's competition are killing people, and you sure won't defend our right to oppose red light cameras because no matter how thoroughly it may serve the cause of justice, that bit of free speech surely won't save a life.

So, go to hell.  Or if that's not convoluted enough for you to understand, try this:  Proceed on a direct trajectory for Hades, and do not fail to overcome the obstruction of the River Styx along your traverse by any possible methodology.

Now tell me _that's_ not sincere enough to suit you.  I dare you.

Oh, and as for your lame attempt to mine us for personal data:  Yes, there _is_ a sucker born every minute.  But they rarely wind up here.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Okay, so you cannot come up with a broader definition which means you WERE misrepresenting what I wrote.

"I said why I think the founding fathers felt it was vitally important much, much earlier in this thread. You ignored me and blathered on."

If I post in the OP why it is vitally important and you either don't get it or refuse to get it, is there a reason I shouldn't simply consider your statement empty of meaning?

BTW, you still haven't stated you accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Do you understand or care that with  each post you make failing to do this you are further exposing your insincerity and agenda?

----------


## acptulsa

> Okay, so you cannot come up with a broader definition which means you WERE misrepresenting what I wrote.


Nonsense.  It means that I consider free speech to be free speech, and figure it's good whether you have a use for it or not.  Which has exactly nothing to do with what you wrote.




> "I said why I think the founding fathers felt it was vitally important much, much earlier in this thread. You ignored me and blathered on."
> 
> If I post in the OP why it is vitally important and you either don't get it or refuse to get it, is there a reason I shouldn't simply consider your statement empty of meaning?


I see no evidence that you have pulled your head far enough out of your ass to find my statement and decide if it means anything on its own merits.  You see, whether my statement has any meaning is not dependent upon whether or not I swallow your line, hook and sinker.

And despite your effort to define my mindset, there are other possibilities besides I don't get it and I refuse to get it.  For example, I could understand exactly what you're saying and find myself not believing that free speech is meaningless when it applies to justice, or the survival of people other than us, or fiscal sanity upon which lives may not depend, or freedom and liberty which make survival worth the effort.  And I could reasonably believe that a person can believe heart and soul in freedom of speech without revealing their identity on an internet forum on demand, too.  I can believe that.  And I do.

Especially when the person demanding that has come up with an incredibly narrow definition of 'the purpose of free speech' and considers it impossibly broad.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

No, your shtick will not fly here.

I've told you what is happening is use of the defined purpose to create UNITY for constitutional defense which is WAY more important than any use an individual might employ.

The infiltrated gov and NWO are very against that unity and you will have nothing to do with it either.

You sir, are a manipulating, insincere individual and perhaps not an American at all.

----------


## acptulsa

> No, your shtick will not fly here.
> 
> I've told you what is happening is UNITY for constitutional defense which is WAY more important than any use an individual might employ.
> 
> You sir, are a manipulating, insincere individual and perhaps not an American at all.


LOL

Logic flies a lot farther on this site than propaganda does.  Unity in defense of the Constitution does not depend in any way in everyone who is united in that defense all having the exact same reasons for wanting it preserved.  And you cast a lot of stones at people for being manipulative for someone who began this silliness by making lists of iNsInCeRe posters.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Your selectivity in misrepresentation exposes you.

acptulsa wrote:
"Unity in defense of the Constitution does not depend in any way in everyone who is united in that defense all having the exact same reasons for wanting it preserved."

Are you trying to say sincere Americans are going to give up on information vital to survival and instead use something else?

I mean are you suggesting there is something more common than the survival instinct I should rely on to inspire agreement comprising unity?

If you are, maybe you are up to making a complete list.  Don't leave anything out, okay?

----------


## acptulsa

> If you are, maybe you are up to making a complete list.


No.  I'm content to let individuals be individuals, and have no desire to psychoanalyze the world.

Why?  Do you actually think anyone would read through the whole damned thing if I _did_ go to the trouble?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Your selectivity in misrepresentation exposes you.
> 
> acptulsa wrote:
> "Unity in defense of the Constitution does not depend in any way in everyone who is united in that defense all having the exact same reasons for wanting it preserved."
> 
> Are you trying to say sincere Americans are going to give up on information vital to survival and instead use something else?
> 
> I mean are you suggesting there is something more common than the survival instinct I should rely on to inspire agreement comprising unity?
> 
> If you are, maybe you are up to making a complete list.  Don't leave anything out, okay?


Sincere post:
There are only two uses for a "list" that would benefit us:
We could see and know our strength, "Slave Uprising" style.We could recognize names from our local communities to aid organization.
Both uses would require a large, comprehensive list across a state or nation.  The latter use would require a list of real names coupled with locations.  Trying to compile a list here on an Internet forum is pointless with regard to use 1, and if real names were used on such a small list, it would only serve to add our names to a government watch list (if they aren't already there) and make us easier for hateful political opponents to harass/intimidate/defame/etc. us in real life (like some malevolent coward tried to frame the Oathkeepers for child porn).

Therefore, if we really want a list that's actually useful in any sense of the word, we'd be better off obtaining and publicizing a copy of existing federal watch lists in the first place.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Sincere post:
> There are only two uses for a "list" that would benefit us:
> We could see and know our strength, "Slave Uprising" style.We could recognize names from our local communities to aid organization.


Actually I've thought a lot about this and list development, keeping and alteration should be on a per-forum basis in the beginning.

The sincere Americans of a forum are going to be in a much better position for all purposes of list keeping in the beginning.  AND, it is their discussion in the beginning that is important.  Their skills at spotting; distraction, useless information.  Maligning good info is a prime purpose of cognitive infiltration.

Infiltrators have sat for years taking potshots at sincere Americans just to have an opportunity to shoot down someone with real info that is useful to creating change.  I've run across them from time to time. 

Americans need to develop cognitive skills in written discussion that are based in logic.  So local forum users can build agreement based in constitutional intent that will later be consolidated.  That is what is important to America.  The list is simply a way for us to know who cannot possibly contribute to constitutional defense.




> Both uses would require a large, comprehensive list across a state or nation.
> 
> Therefore, if we really want a list that's actually useful in any sense of the word, we'd be better off obtaining and publicizing a copy of existing federal watch lists in the first place.


No, sincere Americans can handle this based in their agreement and observing posting behaviors consistent with the intent of the agreement.

I'm revising the list, and you've posted a couple of things with an intent that an infiltrator would not likely say.  So you are on the sincere list for now.  It bothers me that the plan here,

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

Is not discussed by you, because it is true legal, out of the box process that can do exactly what is indicated if we complete it.

If you cannot bring yourself to accept overtly that free speech has the purpose of assuring that information vital to survival is shared and understood, can you comment cogently on that process?

My take on your posting behaviors is that you've been hanging out with the insincere because they have an edgy group and welcome those that will accept and use the attitudes they inculcate.

We are far more social than we've been taught, and, that is unconscious for us. 

Here is something everyone should heed, and it is supported by medical research.

When speaking and listening, the left brain and cognitive processes are always used to some degree.

When writing or reading, it might be done with no left brain, cognitive involvement at all.

Search Colin Wilson, our two brains, parapsychology for the medical research.  Curiously the doctors conducting the medical research he compiles do not make the inference, neither does he.  But I do, and I've run it by a number of psyche professionals and they agree.

We are mostly unconscious creatures, 86%.  Social, even web social is more important to us than we realize.

Sincere Americans:

1. Christopher A. Brown
2. DamianTV 
3. Occam's Banana
4. CPUd 
5. Mini-Me


InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
1. Anti Federalist
2. Acala
3. acptulsa
4. Danke

----------


## Origanalist

I always knew Danke was a insincere american.

----------


## Henry Rogue

I must have missed something. How did Mini-Me atone for his sins?

----------


## acptulsa

> The list is simply a way for us to know who cannot possibly contribute to constitutional defense.


So say you.  But I have made a small contribution here and there, which plays hell with your theory...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...40#post2011040

What have _you_ actually done for free speech lately?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I always knew Danke was a insincere american.





> My take on your posting behaviors is that you've been hanging out with the insincere because they have an edgy group and welcome those that will accept and use the attitudes they inculcate.


And a bad influence to boot.

----------


## Danke

> I always knew Danke was a insincere american.


It is an obvious misprint.

----------


## Origanalist

> And a bad influence to boot.


Indeed, one of the worst.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> I always knew Danke was a insincere american.


It is fairly easy to see the social pressures these false groups apply.  Think about it.  Being a cognitive infiltrator is a thankless job, money, but it's not something you can take pride in outside of the inner circles.  

Therefore it is about social fun, group attacks of ridicule are the prime strategy.  The sincere are fairly timid in this way.  They may have great courage in real life where they get to make face to face evaluations, but this faceless place where all of a sudden one is suddenly maligned by a pack of Internet hyenas is more than most will deal with IF the hyenas pull out the stops.  Therefor they hold back where that is happening, IE, this thread.  IE, me having to read between the lines to make a list of sincere Americans.

I inspire that because my strategies are valid legal process.  Notice no one has posted that they are not.  The insincere DO NOT want to draw attention under any circumstance to vslid legal process that might challemge the core of the gov infoltration.  Doing that will give an opportunity to the lurker, who might very well know constitutional law very well, to see how criticism holds up.

----------


## Origanalist

> It is fairly easy to see the social pressures these false groups apply.  Think about it.  Being a cognitive infiltrator is a thankless job, money, but it's not something you can take pride in outside of the inner circles.  
> 
> Therefore it is about social fun, group attacks of ridicule are the prime strategy.  The sincere are fairly timid in this way.  They may have great courage in real life where they get to make face to face evaluations, but this faceless place where all of a sudden one is suddenly maligned by a pack of Internet hyenas is more than most will deal with IF the hyenas pull out the stops.  Therefor they hold back where that is happening, IE, this thread.  IE, me having to read between the lines to make a list of sincere Americans.
> 
> I inspire that because my strategies are valid legal process.  Notice no one has posted that they are not.  The insincere DO NOT want to draw attention under any circumstance to vslid legal process that might challemge the core of the gov infoltration.  Doing that will give an opportunity to the lurker, who might very well know constitutional law very well, to see how criticism holds up.


I think Danke is the alpha hyena.

----------


## acptulsa

> Being a cognitive infiltrator is a thankless job...


You would know.

I ask you again.  Other than making silly assed lists, _what concrete thing have you done in defense of free speech?_

Put up or shut up, Mr Sincerety.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I inspire that because my strategies are valid legal process.  Notice no one has posted that they are not.  The insincere DO NOT want to draw attention under any circumstance to vslid legal process that might challemge the core of the gov infoltration.  Doing that will give an opportunity to the lurker, who might very well know constitutional law very well, to see how criticism holds up.


"Do you find my methods...unsound, Captain Willard?"

"I do not see...any method...at all, sir."

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> I must have missed something. How did Mini-Me atone for his sins?


No sin, no atonement.  Do you notice your cavalier attitude about this business?  Attitude is unconscious.  Social is unconscious in the reaction.

I saw a few things posted by Mini-Me that an infiltrator probably would not state.  This thread is not about alienating Americans, it is about bringing them closer to the fundaments of constitutional intent.

The empire the framers escaped from has spent at least 200 years trying to obliterate constitutional intent from the minds of its colony.

At the dailypaul where I started this I'm November, 4 posters immediately accepted the root definition.  Unfortunately it was an infiltrating forum, so I was banned.

Social fear levels are higher here.

----------


## acptulsa

> "Do you find my methods...unsound, Captain Willard?"
> 
> "I do not see...any method...at all, sir."






But Lord isn't it entertaining to see how completely convinced he is that he's onto something here--even as it gets disproven before his very eyes...

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Free Speech, RIP: A Relic of the American Past*

By John W. Whitehead 
March 03, 2014

https://www.rutherford.org/publicati..._american_past

“The First Amendment was intended to secure something more than an exercise in futility.”—Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting in Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984)

Living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign. That’s what the First Amendment is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, as I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American  Police State, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials. In fact, if the court rulings handed down in the last week of February 2014 are anything to go by, the First Amendment has, for all intents and purposes, become an exercise in futility.

On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling, held that anti-nuclear activist John Denis Apel could be prosecuted for staging a protest on a public road at an Air Force base, free speech claims notwithstanding, because the public road is technically government property.

Insisting that it’s not safe to display an American flag in an American public school, on February 27, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school officials were justified when they ordered three students at a California public high school to cover up their patriotic apparel emblazoned with American flags or be sent home on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo, allegedly out of a concern that it might offend Hispanic students.

On February 28, a federal court dismissed Marine veteran Brandon Raub’s case. Despite the fact that Raub was interrogated by Secret Service agents, handcuffed, arrested, subjected to a kangaroo court, and locked up in a mental facility for posting song lyrics and statements on Facebook critical of the government—a clear violation of his free speech rights—the court ruled that Raub’s concerns about the government were far-fetched and merited such treatment.

There you have it: three rulings in three days, from three different levels of the American judicial system, and all of them aimed at suppressing free speech. Yet what most people fail to understand is that these cases are not merely about the citizenry’s right to freely express themselves. Rather, these cases speak to the citizenry’s right to express their concerns about their government to their government, in a time, place and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.

The First Amendment gives every American the right to “petition his government for a redress of grievances.” This amounts to so much more than filing a lawsuit against the government. It works hand in hand with free speech to ensure, as Adam Newton and Ronald K.L. Collins report for the Five Freedoms Project, “that our leaders hear, even if they don’t listen to, the electorate. Though public officials may be indifferent, contrary, or silent participants in democratic discourse, at least the First Amendment commands their audience.”

The challenge we face today, however, is that government officials have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents, making it increasingly difficult for average Americans to make themselves seen or heard by those who most need to hear what “we the people” have to say. Indeed, while lobbyists mill in and out of the White House and the homes and offices of Congressmen, the American people are kept at a distance through free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, and security barriers. And those who dare to breach the gap—even through silent forms of protest—are arrested for making their voices heard.

This right to speak freely, assemble, protest and petition one’s government officials for a redress of grievances is front and center right now, with the U.S. Supreme Court set to decide five free speech cases this term, the first of which, U.S. v. Apel, was just handed down. The case was based upon claims brought by John Denis Apel, an anti-war activist who holds monthly protests at Vandenburg Air Force Base near Lompoc, California. While the Court did not uphold his conviction for trespassing on military property, they doubled down on the notion that the public is subject to the whims of military commanders in matters relating to use military property, even when it intersects with public property. The Court refused to rule on Apel’s First Amendment claims.

The Supreme Court is also set to decide McCullen v. Coakley, which will determine whether or not a Massachusetts law which restricts protests on public sidewalks near the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics in the state is constitutional. The facts of the case indicate that the law does not abide by a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, and places an undue burden on protestors. However, it’s unclear which way the Court will rule, especially with their refusal to clarify matters in Apel.

Free speech can certainly not be considered “free” when expressive activities across the nation are being increasingly limited, restricted to so-called free speech zones, or altogether blocked, including in front of the Supreme Court’s own plaza. If citizens cannot stand out in the open on a public road and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window—pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.

The case of Harold Hodge is a particularly telling illustration of the way in which the political elite in America have sheltered themselves from all correspondence and criticism.

On a snowy morning in January 2011, Harold Hodge quietly and peacefully stood in the plaza area near the steps leading to the United States Supreme Court Building, wearing a 3’ X 2’ sign around his neck that proclaimed: “The U.S. Gov. Allows Police To Illegally Murder And Brutalize African Americans And Hispanic People.” There weren’t many passersby, and he wasn’t blocking anyone’s way. However, after a few minutes, a police officer informed Hodge that he was violating a federal law that makes it unlawful to display any flag, banner or device designed to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement while on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court and issued him three warnings to leave the plaza. Hodge refused, was handcuffed, placed under arrest, moved to a holding cell, and then was transported to U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters where he was booked and given a citation.

According to the federal law Hodge is accused of violating, “It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.” The penalty for violating this law is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 60 days in jail.

With the help of The Rutherford Institute, in January 2012, Hodge challenged the constitutionality of the statute barring silent expressive activity in front of the Supreme Court. A year later, in a strongly worded opinion, District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell struck down the federal law, declaring that the “the absolute prohibition on expressive activity [on the Supreme Court plaza] in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment.”

Incredibly, one day later, the marshal for the Supreme Court—with the approval of Chief Justice John Roberts—issued even more strident regulations outlawing expressive activity on the grounds of the high court, including the plaza. Hodge’s case, along with a companion case challenging the new regulations on behalf of a broad coalition of protesters, is now making its way through the appeals process. Ironically, it will be the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who will eventually be asked to decide the constitutionality of their own statute, yet they have already made their views on the subject quite clear.

This desire to insulate government officials from those exercising their First Amendment rights stems from an elitist mindset which views “we the people” as different, set apart somehow, from the citizens they have been appointed to serve and represent. It is nothing new. In fact, the law under which Harold Hodge was prosecuted was enacted by Congress in 1949. In the decades since, interactions with politicians have become increasingly manufactured and distant. Press conferences, ticketed luncheons, televised speeches and one-sided town hall meetings held over the phone now largely take the place of face-to-face interaction with constituents.

Additionally, there has been an increased use of so-called “free speech zones,” designated areas for expressive activity used to corral and block protestors at political events from interacting with public officials. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have used these “free speech zones,” some located within chain-link cages, at various conventions to mute any and all criticism of their policies.

Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say. Yet if Americans are not able to peacefully assemble for expressive activity outside of the halls of government or on public roads on which government officials must pass, the First Amendment has lost all meaning. If we cannot stand silently outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties that we cherish as Americans. And if we cannot proclaim our feelings about the government, no matter how controversial, on our clothing, or to passersby, or to the users of the world wide web, then the First Amendment really has become an exercise in futility.

George Orwell, always relevant to our present age, warned against this intolerance for free speech in 1945. As he noted:


The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them... The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecuted.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Damn dupe posts...must be my insincerity.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> So say you.  But I have made a small contribution here and there, which plays hell with your theory...
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...40#post2011040
> 
> What have _you_ actually done for free speech lately?


Just lost 20 minutes of work trying to answer.  Take this 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668. 

And my new post in the first amendment revised draft thread.

One bar on an iPhone ain't cutting it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> At the dailypaul where I started this I'm November, 4 posters immediately accepted the root definition.  Unfortunately it was an infiltrating forum, so I was banned.
> 
> Social fear levels are higher here.


OIC, so they ran you off of the DP and now you come here, posting gibberish and making smart ass remarks about us.

----------


## Origanalist

> OIC, so they ran you off of the DP and now you come here, posting gibberish and making smart ass remarks about us.


I guess he had to settle for us.......

----------


## Danke

> It is fairly easy to see the social pressures these false groups apply.  Think about it.  Being a cognitive infiltrator is a thankless job, money, but it's not something you can take pride in outside of the inner circles.  
> 
> Therefore it is about social fun, group attacks of ridicule are the prime strategy.  The sincere are fairly timid in this way.  They may have great courage in real life where they get to make face to face evaluations, but this faceless place where all of a sudden one is suddenly maligned by a pack of Internet hyenas is more than most will deal with IF the hyenas pull out the stops.  Therefor they hold back where that is happening, IE, this thread.  IE, me having to read between the lines to make a list of sincere Americans.
> 
> I inspire that because my strategies are valid legal process.  Notice no one has posted that they are not.  The insincere DO NOT want to draw attention under any circumstance to vslid legal process that might challemge the core of the gov infoltration.  Doing that will give an opportunity to the lurker, who might very well know constitutional law very well, to see how criticism holds up.


Lying is not very sincere:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5445303

----------


## phill4paul

How have I missed this thread? This should be front page!

----------


## Acala

Anti-Fed is more sincere than me.  I should be first on the list judging by lack of sincerity.  Also, alphabetically.  A good list should have some organizing principle.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> No sin, no atonement.  Do you notice your cavalier attitude about this business?  Attitude is unconscious.  Social is unconscious in the reaction.
> 
> I saw a few things posted by Mini-Me that an infiltrator probably would not state.  This thread is not about alienating Americans, it is about bringing them closer to the fundaments of constitutional intent.
> 
> The empire the framers escaped from has spent at least 200 years trying to obliterate constitutional intent from the minds of its colony.
> 
> At the dailypaul where I started this I'm November, 4 posters immediately accepted the root definition.  Unfortunately it was an infiltrating forum, so I was banned.
> 
> Social *fear* levels are higher here.


Fear is the eighth deadly sin.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Antifed, The fact we are in agreement about violations of the right to free speech inherently states we are in agreement upon its purpose.

The problem is that our socialization and education left out the purpose AND the fact of agreement upon it IS basically in control of the law of the land. 

HOW this is true, HOW it works is what I am demonstrating and beginning here with this exercise of our understanding of what constitutional intent is.

Article V states all amendments must have constitutional intent.  I propose preparation for Article V by correcting or augmenting the constitution assuring Americans can participate in Article V, assuring that intent by ending the abridging of free speech.

All the events in Whiteheads article occur BECAUSE free speech is abridged.  If it was not, those people doing those things would not have to do them.  

They could organize and educate a small group of citizens to file a petition with their state legislator and if the issue addressed was not already before America in its mass media in some meaningful way, that group would be empowered to take it to the entire nation during prime time television under the federal constitution.

Corporate broadcasting interest takes a back seat.

See the link I posted for acptulsa, the post in the Georgia thread, for HOW state legislations are controlled by their state citizens using the purpose of free speech.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> OIC, so they ran you off of the DP and now you come here, posting gibberish and making smart ass remarks about us.


The NWO and infiltrators of the gov love that you feel that way and share it as you do.  You are on the proper list.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> How have I missed this thread? This should be front page!


I assume this means that you understand and accept the root definition of the purpose of free speech as assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood.

When I get a computer online I'll revise the list.

BTW, it is prudent, in light of the deep social issues; literally generations of conditioning AWAY from a social capacity to unify in support of our second most prime right, free speech; that I make a new thread with a similar title where each person who needs (yes it is a need for patriots) to be on the list, formally posts their acceptance of the purpose of free speech.

Simply by posting:
I "username" accept the purpose of free speech to be assurance that information vital to survival is shared and understood.

We are setting an example here for fellow Americans on HOW this is done, HOW we use constitutional intent to become "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

We do this by subjugating ourselves to the concept of this right and its vital purpose for our lives and futures.

By doing this we totally disempower the current political nonsense and begin effective defense and enforcement of our constitution with our UNITY.

----------


## acptulsa

> The problem is that our socialization and education left out the purpose AND the fact of agreement upon it IS basically in control of the law of the land.


The fact of agreement upon [the purpose of free speech] is basically in control of the law of the land?

I was sorrowfully under the impression, after seeing Obamacare get passed over the objections of the majority of the populace, that the insurance lobby and Big Pharma had a bit of weight to throw around as well.

I stand corrected?  That would be good news.  It _would_ be good news, if only there was a shred of evidence to support it.

If you were half as sincere as you say you are, you wouldn't use your twenty dollar vocabulary to disguise the fact that your two cents' worth is overpriced.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Since you do not comment on the link which has valid legal process which can make "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts", it is safely assumed you love the NWO as much as they love you.  They appreciate your protection from the people, the tyranny of the masses.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Is there an appeal process? I really shouldn't be on your list, I am the epitome of a Sincere American. Ask anyone, ask Eduardo.


No.  All that need be done is post the acceptance as the example in the response to Phil's posts shows and the list will be revised.

This agreement will be expanding and the natural law sentiments which compel sincere Americans to accept the purpose of free speech must continue into the other issues which preparatory amendment is comprised of.

Those definitions of purpose are yet to be determined.

----------


## acptulsa

> How have I missed this thread? This should be front page!


His sarcasm detector is broken.  And I'm reasonably sure that's because he ran over it with a truck.




> Since you do not comment on the link which has valid legal process which can make "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts", it is safely assumed you love the NWO as much as they love you.  They appreciate your protection from the people, the tyranny of the masses.


That's one theory.  Here's another:  I don't jump through your hoops because you've yet to construct one interesting enough to be worth the effort.

----------


## pcosmar

> Sincere Americans:
> 
> InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:


What about Angry Americans?

never mind,, I am on enough lists already.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They could organize and educate a small group of citizens to file a petition with their state legislator and if the issue addressed was not already before America in its mass media in some meaningful way, that group would be empowered to take it to the entire nation during prime time television under the federal constitution.


You're assuming, incorrectly, that the American populace would do anything more than change the channel at best, (at worst, want to stick a hot poker up your ass for making them miss _American Idol_ or the ball game) when you did this.

----------


## acptulsa

> You're assuming, incorrectly, that the American populace would do anything more than change the channel at best, (at worst, want stick a hot poker up your ass for making them miss American Idol or the ball game) when you did this


And the mistake of assuming that the MSM wouldn't point their cameras at Lindsay Lohan instead.

After all, those of us who have actually read the Constitution know for a fact that it not only doesn't guarantee citizens airtime on prime time television, it never mentions television at all.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And the mistake of assuming that the MSM wouldn't point their cameras at Lindsay Lohan instead.
> 
> After all, those of us who have actually read the Constitution know for a fact that it not only doesn't guarantee citizens airtime on prime time television, it never mentions television at all.


I know I probably shouldn't bother, but this thread is really tweaking my OCD...I get frustrated when I can't comprehend something, and that is what is happening here, frustration.

The OP will post something that seems to get very close to making some sense to me, then go off on some weird tangent that makes no sense to me.

Am I over thinking this, are we being trolled, what is the point??!!!

Besides being Sincere Americans...ugh...makes my head hurt.

----------


## acptulsa

> Maligning good info is a prime purpose of cognitive infiltration.


Do we not usually get the honey before we get the poison?

----------


## phill4paul

> I assume this means that you understand and accept the root definition of the purpose of free speech as assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood.


 There's something to be said for assumptions.




> His sarcasm detector is broken.  And I'm reasonably sure that's because he ran over it with a truck.


 However, in all _sincerity_, this is one of the funniest threads I've come across in a while and perhaps the front page needs some levity.

----------


## acptulsa

> There's something to be said for assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
>  However, in all _sincerity_, this is one of the funniest threads I've come across in a while and perhaps the front page needs some levity.


Yeah, but no one can top the whole notion of popping up, demanding information out of people out of the blue, then labeling four people with, between them, some 111,000 posts 'infiltrators'.

That's comedy genius right there.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> You're assuming, incorrectly, that the American populace would do anything more than change the channel


As I said, the NWO love the insincere, and of course they lack respect for Americans as you do.  So you are consistent.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> However, in all _sincerity_, this is one of the funniest threads I've come across in a while and perhaps the front page needs some levity.


The insincere will be laughing hard when the depopulation agenda gets moving.

What are you laughing at?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Your definition of the 'purpose of free speech' is not only not the 'broadest possible', but I will never lower myself to your 'level of commonality'



Equals a fail on your part. 
 I HAVE defined the root purpose for human community.  Any 8 year old could have done it.  Too bad insincere adults are having too much fun on the NWO payroll to even try.  They do continue to expose the cognitive infiltration quite well however.

Contempt for constitutional principles is oozing from the insincere.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> "I do not see...any method...at all, sir."


Under the infiltrators mandate, you cannot acknowledge the peaceful, lawful process and method here which CAN restore constitutional government.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> like a moth drawn to flame, I am drawn to theses "Fire11" type threads.
> 
> Compelled, for some odd reason.


You are a cognitive infiltrator.  Your job is to try and stop information useful for constitutional defense.  Duh!  You can't stop.  It is your mandate.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> and Gandalf was a bit of a joke too, since he's fictional.


I've seen Tolkiens trilogy used before for mixing fantasy with reality in cognitive infiltration to try and get the viewer to buy into the degradation of useful information for defending the constitution.  There is an exploitation of Gen X that is continuing through media.

Unfortunately the eternal values that embody survival and adaptation are hard to find in media.  They are there, but often mixed with those that embody extinction, so the audience gets to choose based on the acceptance of their social experience.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You are a cognitive infiltrator.  Your job is to try and stop information useful for constitutional defense.  Duh!  You can't stop.  It is your mandate.


No, I'm not, I'm just working class boat trash, as a number of people here who know me personally can attest to. (Although I'm sure you can find a couple of folks that would agree with you...KingNothing, klamath and constituent come to mind)

Working class boat trash, with too much desk time on my hands, I'll admit that.

I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the time for talking is over, the system will not listen any longer, not to me, not to you, not to any mumbo jumbo about "civil purpose", sincerity or otherwise nonsensical ramblings.

So, while I'm sure you think that by throwing up clouds of rhetoric and smokescreens of garble, you have somehow found a way in which you might two step past the system, rest assured, you are wrong.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Under the infiltrators mandate, you cannot acknowledge the peaceful, lawful process and method here which CAN restore constitutional government.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668


That, literally, made my head hurt.

I could discern no logical thought process or series of congent points at all.

I gather though that you seem to think that changing the constitution will restore a free republic.

What makes you think that?

The current one has failed, because it is the same as the one you propose, which is to say, nothing but words on paper.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Oh, and if you think I'm *ever* going to be in favor of letting this current mob of copsucking, soldier sniffing, neo-fascists that are my fellow AmeriKans anywhere *near* a ConCon, you are *truly* out of your rabid ass mind.

----------


## acptulsa

> Too bad insincere adults are having too much fun on the NWO payroll to even try.  They do continue to expose the cognitive infiltration quite well however.


Thank you.  We try.

Of course, when y'all substitute libel and name-calling for substantive discourse, it's pretty much a dead giveaway.  Such an msnbc thing to do.




> Contempt for constitutional principles is oozing from the insincere.


It certainly is.  Implying that natural rights like free speech need a purpose to exist, and saying that you have to give up your privacy to defend a Constitution designed to defend your privacy, are certainly contemptuous enough to mark anyone as an anti-Constitutionalist tyrant.

Just as Jesus reminded the Pharisees that the Sabbath was created for man's benefit, not vice versa, I say to you that the Constitution was created for man's benefit, and not vice versa.  And I say it in all sincerety.  To say everyone has to give up the benefits they derive from it to save it is pure insanity.  Especially when you have not proven, and cannot prove, that us listing our names in this thread on this website will do one damned thing to protect the First Amendment.

But hey.  Throw all the stones you want.  We're running bets on how widely you miss the mark next.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

There are more than one kind of coginfil.  If that made your head hurt, you are the walking dead kind.  You do not know what you are doing.

Antifed wrote:
"I gather though that you seem to think that changing the constitution will restore a free republic."

You won't grasp this, but when the people subjugate themselves to purpose that protects all of their lives, they change.  Then changing the contract through the states, restores the 1787 republic.  You prefer nothingness, or doing nothing, which is like death.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Hah, your brain works no better than the others on the insincere list.  A form of sociopathy special made by the NWO is what I see.

Acptulsa wrote:
"It certainly is. Implying that natural rights like free speech need a purpose to exist, "

You are disabled from understanding that the common acceptance of the purpose is unity. Which is why the constant misrepresentation exists.  Such as this.  These are your words not mine.

Acptulsa wrote:
" To say everyone has to give up the benefits they derive from it to save it is pure insanity. "

No one can find where I've written that because I've not.

Rights can be preserved with unity upon their purposes.  Haven't you ever seen someone pick up a tool they did not know the purpose of, then throw it away?

----------


## acptulsa

> You are disabled from understanding that the common acceptance of the purpose is unity.


No, the problem is that _you_ are disabled from understanding that I don't have to agree with you on every little thing in lockstep to be united with you in defense of the Constitution.  Or, for that matter, to be more effective than you in defense of it.




> No can find where I've written that because I've not.
> 
> Rights can be preserved with unity upon their purposes.


You said we cannot defend free speech without ceding our right to privacy to you--a statement you've yet to support.

Rights can be preserved with unity in their defense, but as I've said before (and you have not refuted), we don't all have to agree upon their purpose--or even that they need to have a purpose.

Look, dude.  You're repeating yourself.  A lot.  Repetition is not only no proof, it ceases to be entertaining after a while.  I know you have some hilarious fresh material, because I've seen it on your website.

http://docdirt.net/musicdisclaimer.usctit18.html




> To owners of copywritten music found on these videos. This is not an ordinary taking of your creative product and I intend to eventually economically compensate, fairly, the artists represented in the sound track of the video or see they are paid by official action recognizing the truth of treason disclose If courts had provided justice in 1998 your excellent music would not be needed now to help sell a product which is practically the only way the citizen conducting disclosure can provide for himself and continue in defense of the constitution.


This is comedy gold, dude.  If you have all this goofiness at your disposal, why are you risking losing your audience by repeating the same four jokes over and over and over?

But wait.  What's this?  You've edited your post!




> Hah, your brain works no better than the others on the insincere list.  A form of sociopathy special made by the NWO is what I see.


Megalomania as comedy!  Brilliant!  Good stuff.  Keep it coming!

----------


## Spikender

I'm honestly not surprised that Christopher is still keeping this up.

Just like I'm not surprised he couldn't answer my post on page three. You call thineself a defender of the Constitution and free speech?

Boy, well you keep fighting with other defenders of the Constitution and you ignore others, so I'm not sure if I agree with that self-assigned label.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm honestly not surprised that Christopher is still keeping this up.
> 
> Just like I'm not surprised he couldn't answer my post on page three. You call thineself a defender of the Constitution and free speech?
> 
> Boy, well you keep fighting with other defenders of the Constitution and you ignore others, so I'm not sure if I agree with that self-assigned label.


He's making a list and checking it twice, and letting us know who's naughty and nice.  But I can't tell that he's even digging up some lumps of coal, much less busy recruiting elves to make toys.  I don't know what he's good for.

----------


## Spikender

> He's making a list and checking it twice, and letting us know who's naughty and nice.  But I can't tell that he's even digging up some lumps of coal, much less busy recruiting elves to make toys.  I don't know what he's good for.


That could honestly explain his obsession with lists that I noted way back when on page one.

This is what Santa Claus does on his time off when he's bored: troll RPF.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Constant misrepresentation marks the insincere.

acptulsa wrote:
"You said we cannot defend free speech without ceding our right to privacy to you--a statement you've yet to support."

A statement I've yet to make and never will.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Maybe you've never filed a civil lawsuit against a goverentmental entity to find collusion to enable evasion of law by government then uses of courts to impoverish a citizen so their efforts at constitutional defense are impaired.

Recall, I'm on a phone 90% of the time.  I'm in a remote area with one bar of signal.  Note the long signatures.  Imagine what this does to a persons efforts to respond.

Spike wrote:
"Just like I'm not surprised he couldn't answer my post on page three. You call thineself a defender of the Constitution and free speech?"

If it was important you would repeat it.  My questions are important, I repeat them.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Went looking for your important question you could not repeat.  Did not find it.  I did find this.

Spike wrote:
 Rights are intangible things, resources are tangible items.

Did the NWO pay you xtra to write that?  With that written, how do you consider yourself a defender of the constitution when rights are intangible to you?

Spike wrote:
"Boy, well you keep fighting with other defenders of the Constitution and you ignore others"

Who do I ignore?  And please explain how you defend the intangible list of rights the constitution consists of, according to your perceptions.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Maybe you've never filed a civil lawsuit against a goverentmental entity to find collusion to enable evasion of law by government then uses of courts to impoverish a citizen so their efforts at constitutional defense are impaired.


Soooo...the courts are in collusion with government to repress citizen's rights?

Not exactly "stop the presses" news...

----------


## phill4paul

> The insincere will be laughing hard when the depopulation agenda gets moving.
> 
> What are you laughing at?


  This thread. It's a hoot.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> This thread. It's a hoot.


Are you laughing at a citizens efforts to create unity upon the purpose of free speech so the unified might inspire defense of the constitution?

Generalizations are cognitive distortions and do not enable understanding.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Are you laughing at a citizens efforts to create unity upon the purpose of free speech so the unified might inspire defense of the constitution?
> 
> Generalizations are cognitive distortions and do not enable understanding.




Garble is a mystery: Is he a foreigner with only tenuous grasp of English? Is he on drugs? Does he suffer a serious mental debility? Is he typing wearing boxing gloves? Garble's rampant typos, malapropisms and execrable grammar can't be blamed solely on poor typing skills. Garble is all the more puzzling because if one manages to hack his way through the tangled muddle of his messages a discernable idea will often emerge. For example, in a forum discussion about a painting he might say, "Sorry the picchr the har is wrog. The culir. I liike the lips bot teh Paintng is sucs". When someone refers to his random capitalization Garble might say something like, "oPS i HITTED THE CAPDLOCK". Garble drives Grammarian and Nitpick absolutely nuts, but he disdains all efforts at correction, and if complaints persist he will indignantly sign exit saying, "yuor forum si stupef. bYE!"

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/wa...htm/garble.htm

----------


## Ronin Truth

You are all invited to sit down at the founder's table.  We will be serving catfish and peanut butter, European style.

----------


## phill4paul

> Garble is a mystery: Is he a foreigner with only tenuous grasp of English? Is he on drugs? Does he suffer a serious mental debility? Is he typing wearing boxing gloves? Garble's rampant typos, malapropisms and execrable grammar can't be blamed solely on poor typing skills. Garble is all the more puzzling because if one manages to hack his way through the tangled muddle of his messages a discernable idea will often emerge. For example, in a forum discussion about a painting he might say, "Sorry the picchr the har is wrog. The culir. I liike the lips bot teh Paintng is sucs". When someone refers to his random capitalization Garble might say something like, "oPS i HITTED THE CAPDLOCK". Garble drives Grammarian and Nitpick absolutely nuts, but he disdains all efforts at correction, and if complaints persist he will indignantly sign exit saying, "yuor forum si stupef. bYE!"
> 
> http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/wa...htm/garble.htm



  You win the internetz today.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Whew...I can't believe I read the whole thing.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I actually start getting the feeling that Chris is trying to really say something, I even start to think it could be something important...but then I am all like, what the hell is he saying?

Instead of attacking people and calling them insincere, why not listen to what they are saying, and that started out being, "what are you saying?".  Then, it became, "Why are you attacking us".  Now it's, "Really?".

Chris, you need to listen sometimes.  If you did listen, you might start to understand that no one is able to make out what your point is.  How does what you are saying play out in the real world?  How about starting from "We are here", "We want to go there", then, "Here's the path from here to there in a...a..." Hey, make a list of the things that get us from here to there.  You know, like a *list* of roads and towns that you go through to get from one place to another.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

One more thing, Chris, are you trying to say that "Freedom of Speech" means no lying?  Only the truth?  And all of the truth?

edit: And that we have the right to speak on TV or other media the same as speaking in any other public forum?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Chris, you need to listen sometimes. If you did listen,
> 
> Instead of attacking people and calling them insincere,
> 
> One more thing, Chris, are you trying to say that "Freedom of Speech" means no lying?  Only the truth?  And all of the truth?


Firstly Clyde, we are writing and reading.  If you had read the thread, yea I know it is filled with insincere crap, except (mostly) for my posts where I answer peoples questions, you would know what I'm asking here.  You would also know from reading that when speaking and listening, the left brain, cognition is always involved to some degree.  With reading and writing it MAY not be involved.

Sincere people don't lie.  Not a part of the topic. 

The topic/thread asks if Americans can understand and accept that freedom of speech has the root definition of purpose of being to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.  My experience shows that only sincere Americans accept this.  I need Americans to know who is sincere and who is not about constitutional defense.  I'm sure that full use of freedom of speech is required.  I'm certain that there is an immense amount of distraction and misleading as to what is functional political discourse for constitutional defense by posters that are not sincere.

Americans have been made afraid to identify with concepts that are not familiar in social settings.  Despite the fact that acceptance is a no brainer, for a sincere American, not one sincere American has simply accepted this.  I have had to read between the lines to compile the meager list I have.

If you had read the thread you would know that it is comprised mostly of insincere Americans, those not interested in defending the constitution, attacking me with ad hominium as a group while being, for the most part, unaccountable to anything I ask.

Do you understand and accept that the definition of the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood?

----------


## Spikender

> Spike wrote:
> "Just like I'm not surprised he couldn't answer my post on page three. You call thineself a defender of the Constitution and free speech?"
> 
> If it was important you would repeat it.  My questions are important, I repeat them.


There's no point in repeating them on an Internet forum where everything is transcribed, unless I'm trying to hammer home a point and want to put pressure on someone.

Sure, if we were talking in a conversation, I would repeat myself. But it's right there for you to read. I'm not going to waste my time retyping something unless I feel it is important enough to retype.

Either way, this was a pointless response on your part, but I thought I would respond in kind.




> Went looking for your important question you could not repeat.  Did not find it.  I did find this.
> 
> Spike wrote:
>  Rights are intangible things, resources are tangible items.
> 
> Did the NWO pay you xtra to write that?  With that written, how do you consider yourself a defender of the constitution when rights are intangible to you?
> 
> Spike wrote:
> "Boy, well you keep fighting with other defenders of the Constitution and you ignore others"
> ...


Rights are intangible, Christopher. Do you know what intangible means? I didn't know that you could touch the words that someone speaks with your hands, or touch your second amendment right to bear arms. Yes, you can touch the tools that come with these natural, inalienable rights, such as the microphone, the firearm, the pen, the sword, what have you, but they are intangible, and that actually helps in their defense. They literally cannot be taken away because your enemies in the State cannot touch them. How can they rip your free speech out of you? Sure, they could rip your arms off so you could not right, they could cut out your tongue so you cannot speak, and they could bound and gag you and tie you to a chair. But you still have it. You can still communicate. Your friend could walk in and with a single sad smile, you could use your free speech to communicate a world of thoughts to them in that one moment.

That is how they are intangible. And of course, you are of the sort that asks what has someone done to defend these rights. I have done what I can. I have talked about the Constitution with others, I have shown people why these rights are important, and I have tried to get groups together locally.

I don't like to assume, but I'm sure in your book that is just not enough. But we shall see.

I'm not going to go through this topic and look for everyone you didn't respond to, but perhaps that was a little harsh. There are lot of "insincere Americans" in this topic to contend with, so I can excuse it if you happen to accidentally skip over a few here and there.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Rights are intangible, Christopher. Do you know what intangible means?


Rights are tools for protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  In the case of the constitution they are protected from diminishment, infringement and abridgment by government.

Tools have specific purposes Spike.  The infiltration of government does not want people to know this. or how to use their rights.

Why are you here?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Firstly Clyde, we are writing and reading.  *If you had read the thread*, yea I know it is filled with insincere crap, except (mostly) for my posts where I answer peoples questions, you would know what I'm asking here.  You would also know from reading that when speaking and listening, the left brain, cognition is always involved to some degree.  With reading and writing it MAY not be involved.
> 
> Sincere people don't lie.  Not a part of the topic. 
> 
> The topic/thread asks if Americans can understand and accept that freedom of speech has the root definition of purpose of being to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.  My experience shows that only sincere Americans accept this.  I need Americans to know who is sincere and who is not about constitutional defense.  I'm sure that full use of freedom of speech is required.  I'm certain that there is an immense amount of distraction and misleading as to what is functional political discourse for constitutional defense by posters that are not sincere.
> 
> Americans have been made afraid to identify with concepts that are not familiar in social settings.  Despite the fact that acceptance is a no brainer, for a sincere American, not one sincere American has simply accepted this.  I have had to read between the lines to compile the meager list I have.
> 
> *If you had read the thread* you would know that it is comprised mostly of insincere Americans, those not interested in defending the constitution, attacking me with ad hominium as a group while being, for the most part, unaccountable to anything I ask.
> ...


Why do you keep saying that (bolded).  My first post (2 posts up from the one that you partially quoted) said, "Whew...I can't believe I read the whole thing."  I was being sincere (and truthful) when I said that. It makes me wonder if you read what I wrote or whether you believe what I wrote.

You say, "My experience shows that only sincere Americans accept this", but then you say, "... not one sincere American has simply accepted this.  I have had to read between the lines to compile the meager list I have".  That means that you have set yourself up a judge of who is sincere in getting to the truth that is vital to survival.

So, let's assume for a moment that I am sincere, how would my sincerity  or truthfulness be helpful if I don't know any truth about what is going on in secret?  And if it is of no secret then what do I know that another does not except what I may have read or heard, which must be judged for truthfulness by digesting it with any other knowledge that may be pertinent to the subject?

Most of the people that are on these forums know that the PTB lie.  That's no secret.  Fraud and corruption are rampant.  That's no secret.

You seem to indicate that if there were enough people (0.1%, 2%, 10%, 51%?) that acknowledged your definition of free speech that all of the sudden congress and the courts would be bound to not sick their hounds on us if we stood before them and told them to get out or abide completely by the constitution.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

I explained Clyde, that when reading and writing, the left brain or cognitive process may not be used.  That may be the case here.

I never mention courts, except in the Lincoln quote.  So you are mixing references without saying so.  Then leave out Article V.

I explain that learned social fears prevent sincere Americans from identifying with a concept which appears new, but in fact is very old and invokes positive primal instinct.

It is about human unity around the simple concept which empowers cooperation and organization needed for survival.  

We need not worry about the lying PTB, only about forging our own unity upon our God given tool of recognizing that we can, or must share information vital to survival, and understand it, to survive.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> *The purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.*
> 
> Do you accept that root definition as an American seeking to defend the constitution and restore constitutional government?
> 
> Yea, brainy question huh?  
> 
> Unity didn't say how many brains we need to occupy its omnipotent body that might be termed the tyranny of the masses by dictators being democratically. lawfully, peacefully, overthrown.  Unity just said we need to agree in the greatest numbers possible to "alter or abolish" abusive government.
> 
> Functional unity said the agreement needs to be upon prime constitutional intent if "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts."
> ...





> I explained Clyde, that when reading and writing, the left brain or cognitive process may not be used.  That may be the case here.
> 
> *I never mention courts*, except in the Lincoln quote.  So you are mixing references without saying so.  Then leave out Article V.
> 
> I explain that learned social fears prevent sincere Americans from identifying with a concept which appears new, but in fact is very old and invokes positive primal instinct.
> 
> It is about human unity around the simple concept which empowers cooperation and organization needed for survival.  
> 
> We need not worry about the lying PTB, only about forging our own unity upon our God given tool of recognizing that we can, or must share information vital to survival, and understand it, to survive.


Wut?  How can I take you seriously?

----------


## phill4paul

> Wut?  How can I take you seriously?


  Let me try to explain it a little more clearly...

  Why are you? Or any? Shall we be the dragon that's bile spew burns the world or the pupea that grows ethereal wings and fans the the heart with butterfly kisses? Do the eggshells on which we walk on not make a sound? Yes, yes they do. And should these eggshells not be used as fertilizer for fertile soil on which to grow berrybushes? Berry bushes that nourish but may also punish those which are not respectful? Squirrel. And what of those that are not hallowed. On all hallows eve are they not to be entertained? To take place in the great hunt? Yes. Yes, they are. For all take place in the great hunt. Even those that do not believe. Squirrel. My dog is brown. White and brown. What color is yours? What breed? Mine has blue eyes. He is looking at me sincerely right now. Do you have sincere eyes? I do.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Christopher, you preach that you want unify and inform, but you did the opposite in that topic in my opinion.
> 
> Either way, please don't spread that topic into this one, it's just not necessary. Though I see you posted in that topic again, I'll have to check later when I feel like responding again.


So as not to mix topics, but they are related as being part of the Bill of RIghts, I bring your comment from the gun thread here.

As I explain to Clyde, with this written medium, the left brain with its cognitive processes might not be involved.  Assumptions can be made, even induced.  With cognitive infiltration so prominent, it was and is necessary to distinguish sincere from insincere.  In order to unify effectively in constitutional defense it is vital to end any credibility the insincere might hope to have in discussion intended to have that effect.  That is unity for constitutional defense.

People that are conditioned in an environment controlled by false groups having an agenda of; distraction, confusion, deception and misleading, develop unconscious social fears.  In this environment of written words, they mostly cannot distinguish the primary intent of the target of the cognitive infiltrations, myself and the information I bring.  Which of course the infiltrators constantly misrepresent that.  What you see as an action of causing disunity, is really a needed step of information on my part which the sincere I have selected are part of by my observation of their posting behaviors.

Those sincere posters are now, hopefully, aware, that their failure to simply state their acceptance caused the entire debacle that this thread is.  If they continue to respond to those unconscious fears they learned, the unreasonable fear they responded to, WILL turn into a real fear, a real threat to their lives.  The infiltrated government has a depopulation agenda and it is advancing.

If they had simply stated their acceptance, the infiltrators WOULD have been afraid to post and a serious regrouping would have started in their ranks.  We would have been on our way to discussion of how to use our agreement, our unity upon the purpose of this tool for social, civil survival.

----------


## acptulsa

> Let me try to explain it a little more clearly...


Very SiNcErE.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Wut?  How can I take you seriously?


If you cannot understand, you certainly cannot do that.  There certainly was no need to quote everything.  Ask one, specific question at a time.  Pick the one you think is most important.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If you cannot understand, you certainly cannot do that.  There certainly was no need to quote everything.  Ask one, specific question at a time.  Pick the one you think is most important.



I quoted you entirely so as not to take the bolded and enlarged text part out of context.  Do you not see what I did there?  Do you not see that you said, "the congress and the courts" not only in a quote but also again outside of a quote (in the OP) and then told me you said nothing of the courts other than a Lincoln quote?

edit: Are you a bot?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

"the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts", is the Lincoln quote.
I wrote no more about congress and courts in this thread.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts", is the Lincoln quote.
> I wrote no more about congress and courts in this thread.


Come on Chris, I quoted you and ENLARGED the text where you said, "If you are a sincere American you feel a need to see* the congress and the courts* respect every letter of the constitution, all the way to Article V, and, you are not afraid of using that right, BECAUSE you know you, all of you, WE, can agree; and become the rightful masters. "

_edit: And Chris, I agree with that statement that you made there.   At least up to the Article V._

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

When I wrote that it was in the context of the Lincoln quote which is through our use of Article V.

----------


## Spikender

> Rights are tools for protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  In the case of the constitution they are protected from diminishment, infringement and abridgment by government.
> 
> Tools have specific purposes Spike.  The infiltration of government does not want people to know this. or how to use their rights.
> 
> Why are you here?


That was a total non-answer, but then again, that's mostly what you've given me so I'll accept that.

I'm here because I wanted to debate your position that you are trying to bring unity, when really you are not. But hold on, I'll just quote this post by you and I'll get on that topic...




> So as not to mix topics, but they are related as being part of the Bill of RIghts, I bring your comment from the gun thread here.
> 
> As I explain to Clyde, with this written medium, the left brain with its cognitive processes might not be involved.  Assumptions can be made, even induced.  With cognitive infiltration so prominent, it was and is necessary to distinguish sincere from insincere.  In order to unify effectively in constitutional defense it is vital to end any credibility the insincere might hope to have in discussion intended to have that effect.  That is unity for constitutional defense.
> 
> People that are conditioned in an environment controlled by false groups having an agenda of; distraction, confusion, deception and misleading, develop unconscious social fears.  In this environment of written words, they mostly cannot distinguish the primary intent of the target of the cognitive infiltrations, myself and the information I bring.  Which of course the infiltrators constantly misrepresent that.  What you see as an action of causing disunity, is really a needed step of information on my part which the sincere I have selected are part of by my observation of their posting behaviors.
> 
> Those sincere posters are now, hopefully, aware, that their failure to simply state their acceptance caused the entire debacle that this thread is.  If they continue to respond to those unconscious fears they learned, the unreasonable fear they responded to, WILL turn into a real fear, a real threat to their lives.  The infiltrated government has a depopulation agenda and it is advancing.
> 
> If they had simply stated their acceptance, the infiltrators WOULD have been afraid to post and a serious regrouping would have started in their ranks.  We would have been on our way to discussion of how to use our agreement, our unity upon the purpose of this tool for social, civil survival.


You claim that the posters in this topic cannot separate your information from your name. This may or may not be true, but looking back at the very first page of this topic, you started attacking AF and Mini-Me over them thinking you were Watkins, labeling them "insincere Americans". You wanted to cause disunity as soon as you stepped foot in the door with this topic.

Granted, perhaps they should have addressed your points instead of posting those things, but they were not attacking you in the least, simply sharing information that they believed you were a poster we have seen on her before. Thus, that is why the topic was derailed in the first place from your initial post to reactions about "insincere Americans". You sowed the disunity in this topic that you're criticizing now.

I never said I didn't agree with your initial post. It was an interesting thought and way to present things. But for you to say that we have to agree perfectly with what you believe the first amendment represents in order to defend it is ludicrous.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Nothing is perfect really, but acceptance of what can be traced to an instinctual fact is sincerity.

Spike wrote:
". You wanted to cause disunity as soon as you stepped foot in the door with this topic."

No, I needed to unify sincere Americans.  They need to know who is not sincere, and so do I, IF restoration of constitutional government is a goal.

I saw the uncle comparison in the Georgia thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

I had no idea who uncle was and had to search to find out.  When it led back to this forum and a thread posted by uncle, I assumed that uncles concept was placed there to use to confuse or marginalize what I'm doing with constitutional intent.

Uncle does not state plainly enough what the concept is to make it useful.  For that reason if the infiltrators did place the uncle thread here, it could not be used against their agenda.

Any adhesion to social constructs of language which are not clear are an offense to the purpose of free speech.  The more of an emergency a group of people find themselves in, those who understand it and are willing to take action to save lives, will tolerate less and less spoken nonsense of any kind.  It endangers them and the group to allow it.

I'm on an iPhone most of the time.

Nonsense signatures, posts, videos images etc.,  make finding anything very difficult.  Even when I have opportunity to use a computer, those things make it much harder.

How many threads have you started that were over run by cognitive infiltrators?  How many times have you made a point really well and thrashed one or two only to have five others post 30 BS posts just to push it off the last page where it might be easily seen?

At this point cognitive infiltrators make up over 50% of active users on any forum dealing with important political issues that also has significant traffic.  What has happened of 6 years of this (minimum) is that sincere users assume the example set by the infiltrators is functional, normal behavior.

The infiltrators have created social camouflage by exploiting people's instinctual desire for acceptance and thus use of mimickry to try and gain it.  If such acceptance is granted .  .  .  .  . The infiltrators have literally created a "sincere infiltrator", someone who knows nothing about what they are doing except what the cognitive infiltration has taught them.  They believe in what they are doing.

Such is the ultimate success on a individual victory level for the infiltration.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Let me try to explain it a little more clearly...
> 
>   Why are you? Or any? Shall we be the dragon that's bile spew burns the world or the pupea that grows ethereal wings and fans the the heart with butterfly kisses? Do the eggshells on which we walk on not make a sound? Yes, yes they do. And should these eggshells not be used as fertilizer for fertile soil on which to grow berrybushes? Berry bushes that nourish but may also punish those which are not respectful? Squirrel. And what of those that are not hallowed. On all hallows eve are they not to be entertained? To take place in the great hunt? Yes. Yes, they are. For all take place in the great hunt. Even those that do not believe. Squirrel. My dog is brown. White and brown. What color is yours? What breed? Mine has blue eyes. He is looking at me sincerely right now. Do you have sincere eyes? I do.


Now that...that was epic.

You win today's internets.

----------


## Spikender

So essentially, Christopher, you came onto this forum assuming that over fifty percent of those you were dealing with are infiltrators, which I honestly find both disingenuous and preposterous.

You labeled people insincere based off the first post they made to you in this topic, and I find it hard to believe you can call someone insincere simply because they compared you to another poster that you've admitted to sharing similar beliefs with. I don't see how that makes someone insincere when you yourself have confirmed that you and Uncle may sound the same due to you both believing similar things.

----------


## acptulsa

> So essentially, Christopher, you came onto this forum assuming that over fifty percent of those you were dealing with are infiltrators, which I honestly find both disingenuous and preposterous.
> 
> You labeled people insincere based off the first post they made to you in this topic, and I find it hard to believe you can call someone insincere simply because they compared you to another poster that you've admitted to sharing similar beliefs with.


But he's posting from an iPhone.

----------


## Spikender

> But he's posting from an iPhone.


Good point, I never thought about that.

Obviously he is an Apple Employee who is expressing his disgust that most of us are posting from Windows-based systems.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Good point, I never thought about that.
> 
> Obviously he is an Apple Employee who is expressing his disgust that most of us are posting from Windows-based systems.



I think the point about the iPhone was that infiltrators make it more difficult for people with iPhones to read and respond to posts because of the difficulty of scrolling past all of the junk that gets posted, like unrelated pictures and videos, and nonsensical signatures.

Now, I've not ever used a smart to phone to browse the forum, so I have no clue as to how usability is affected.

_edit: Now, I'm wondering about it though.  Anyone that uses a smartphone here that can fill me in on whether my 4 line sig hinders readability, even in the least?_

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Anything not critical to the communication hinders.  Your sig takes almost an entire screen.  Scrolling past one of those can cause missing the entire post following.

Spike doesn't know the whole story about apple v microsoft.  Few do today.

Basically the US district court determined the future of intellectual technology for humanity.  It had a serious effect on free speech because of the susceptibility of PC's to viruses.

I've been an apple user since 1987, and can verify they are far superior in every way.  It is only because of that court decision that PC's are more popular.

----------


## Danke

> Anything not critical to the communication hinders.  Your sig takes almost an entire screen.  Scrolling past one of those can cause missing the entire post following.
> 
> Spike doesn't know the whole story about apple v microsoft.  Few do today.
> 
> Basically the US district court determined the future of intellectual technology for humanity.  It had a serious effect on free speech because of the susceptibility of PC's to viruses.
> 
> I've been an apple user since 1987, and can verify they are far superior in every way.  It is only because of that court decision that PC's are more popular.


Only if this doesn't lead you to post more:

settings, my account, general settings "Thread Display Options" turn off sigs, avatar, images, etc.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Only if this doesn't lead you to post more:
> 
> settings, my account, general settings "Thread Display Options" turn off sigs, avatar, images, etc.


Does this mean you actually accept the root definition of the purpose of free speech as assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood? 

 I haven't progressed past the usenet, of course because I'm stuck on the root purpose and can't see these bells and whistles as beneficial.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Let me try to explain it a little more clearly...
> 
>   Why are you? Or any? Shall we be the dragon that's bile spew burns the world or the pupea that grows ethereal wings and fans the the heart with butterfly kisses? Do the eggshells on which we walk on not make a sound? Yes, yes they do. And should these eggshells not be used as fertilizer for fertile soil on which to grow berrybushes? Berry bushes that nourish but may also punish those which are not respectful? Squirrel. And what of those that are not hallowed. On all hallows eve are they not to be entertained? To take place in the great hunt? Yes. Yes, they are. For all take place in the great hunt. Even those that do not believe. Squirrel. My dog is brown. White and brown. What color is yours? What breed? Mine has blue eyes. He is looking at me sincerely right now. Do you have sincere eyes? I do.


"Squirrel"

roflmao.

----------


## mosquitobite

Seriously.  Every time I read it (again) I bust out laughing.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Does this mean you actually accept the root definition of the purpose of free speech as assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood? 
> 
>  I haven't progressed past the usenet, of course because I'm stuck on the root purpose and can't see these bells and whistles as beneficial.


@Chris, yes, the first Amendment was designed to give us the best chance at the truth.  But it failed.  There is no free press.  Associations are used to target.  Religion is used to target innocents.  There is no redress of grievances.  Truth is the enemy in the empire of lies.

_But, I will not give up, yet.  I'm still alive and free to talk and move about._

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> @Chris, yes, the first Amendment was designed to give us the best chance at the truth.  But it failed.  There is no free press.  Associations are used to target.  Religion is used to target innocents.  There is no redress of grievances.  Truth is the enemy in the empire of lies.


Clyde, do you understand you are describing the problem while I describe solution?  Actually the very first step.

I refer to the root definition of the purpose of an ideal.

You do not sound like you are giving up on that, only sounding unable to involve yourself with action fundamentally designed to defend the ideal.

Our society of activism, if it could be called that, has been conditioned to only be able to socially accept definition of problems, not solution.

The key to that is unity.  This thread is about that based on acceptance of a prime constitutional intent.  That information vital to survival be shared and understood.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Only if this doesn't lead you to post more:


It helps to read more, not post more.

Spike wrote that he had asked a question I had not answered.  I looked for it where he stated it was, but did not find it.
I explained that when I ask an important question and get no answer, I repeat the question.

Such as I have in my last reply to you.

Yes is only three letters.  I just wrote 21 trying to get three letters from you, or two, if "no", you do not accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

I did it on an iPhone.

Your sig in your list of sincere Americans states I was caught lying.  Where, when?

Your sig also has you as a sincere American, while the only sincere thing you've posted was some assistance in shutting of signatures.

Posters that are accountable to their survival instinct by answering "yes" to the question of this thread have the natural law right to keep track of who is sincere.

Do you have the sincerity to admit I've not been caught lying?  Or the accountability to link to the post where you alleged I lied?

----------


## Anti Federalist

BuMp

----------


## CCTelander

> BuMp



Hey man. That BuMp is looking damned InSiNcErE to me!

----------


## Mini-Me

> Nonsense signatures, posts, videos images etc.,  make finding anything very difficult.  Even when I have opportunity to use a computer, those things make it much harder.
> 
> How many threads have you started that were over run by cognitive infiltrators?  How many times have you made a point really well and thrashed one or two only to have five others post 30 BS posts just to push it off the last page where it might be easily seen?
> 
> At this point cognitive infiltrators make up over 50% of active users on any forum dealing with important political issues that also has significant traffic.  What has happened of 6 years of this (minimum) is that sincere users assume the example set by the infiltrators is functional, normal behavior.
> 
> The infiltrators have created social camouflage by exploiting people's instinctual desire for acceptance and thus use of mimickry to try and gain it.  If such acceptance is granted .  .  .  .  . The infiltrators have literally created a "sincere infiltrator", someone who knows nothing about what they are doing except what the cognitive infiltration has taught them.  They believe in what they are doing.
> 
> Such is the ultimate success on a individual victory level for the infiltration.


This is one of those long essay posts that's too long for anyone to reasonably read or discuss, but I wrote it anyway, so here goes:

Chris actually does make a coherent point here: The signal to noise ratio in any forum can be low, and this one is no different.  A lot of the times we're bored, frustrated, and wanting to commiserate with like-minded people, so the forum becomes kind of a "hangout area" to learn about current events and vent about them.  This can still be useful in the sense of sharpening our wits and learning about (and collecting) incidents of tyranny with which we might hope to convince others to start paying attention...but it's not necessarily real activism, either.  In and of itself, it doesn't have a direct impact on people outside our circles.

A lot of us have developed a certain rapport and comfort posting casually on the boards, but all of the witty (inane?) comments and memes can drown out serious discussions and derail threads just as readily as flame wars and divide and conquer attacks.  In fact, it could at times even be indistinguishable from deliberate disruption techniques practiced by COINTEL, to the point where Chris seems convinced that's actually what's going on (and to some degree - who knows what degree - he could even be right).  Specifically, our posting styles can sometimes be indistinguishable from the disruptive and corrupting techniques used by the Special Activities Division (SAD) of the CIA's NCS (National Clandestine Service) and Britain's GCHQ:
http://www.insanemedia.net/forum-shi...r-n-7015a/2924
http://turnerradionetwork.com/news/310-mjt
Note the importance of the ATS/GLP admins' coverup and bannings!  That particular detail demonstrates they're actually complicit in something nasty, unless of course the sites exposing them are themselves heavily manipulated and fabricated to create that narrative (and for that matter, BOTH could be true).  The biggest remaining question is, were they ham-handed through incompetence, or were they so blatant about it because they *wanted* to give themselves away to make the most suspicious subset of posters overreact and jump to entirely different partially right, partially wrong conclusions (so the rabbit-hole just gets deeper and deeper and more confusing)?
Edward Snowden further confirmed this manipulation (which we already assumed probably went on, even before we had ostensible proof):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ernet-shilling
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...oy-Reputations

Basically, the way we converse on the forum just isn't really all that productive most of the time, and sometimes it can be arguably counterproductive, even to the point where our activity can't be reasonably distinguished from COINTEL activity.  Chris seems to be quick to assume the worst of people's intentions when he meets resistance, but I can sympathize to some degree, because the references he makes do indicate he knows what we're up against.  For instance, read the thread in the third link all the way through and tell me there isn't something fishy going on with a particular poster (who may be one of many sock puppets for someone).

*Done reading that thread?  No?  Do it.  Read it right now.  Done?  Back?  Good.*  Now check out some posts in the recent Rand bash thread: He can't be serious, right?  I mean, that can't be right, can it?  Wait...as the thread continues, it turns out he is.  None of the other posts afterwards are as extreme as the first one, but they support the same argument, so now reread the first comment and let the full implications of what he's saying sink in.  Creepy, right?  Now go back to the controversy surrounding him in the thread about shills...and this.  Harmless proxy?  Or not-so-harmless proxy, or even GCHQ?

I made fun of Chris for the Orwellian Newspeak way he said "coginfils," but "cognitive infiltration" actually does seem to be a term used by the intelligence/counterintelligence community to describe the shilling, disruption, divide and conquer, etc. tactics they use, and we would be foolish to think that with a budget of billions upon billions of dollars of taxpayer money (and more from the drug trade) that the CIA and pals haven't invested any effort into this board and trying to neutralize our effectiveness (or even coopt it).  This is one of only a small handful of boards related to Ron and Rand Paul specifically, and let's face it: They have to be the two biggest thorns in the establishment's side for generations.  As a result, this forum, however small these days, has not gone unnoticed.  There are bound to be paid parties here whose goal is to disrupt, or to insidiously push an agenda, or to shill and coopt, or to divide and conquer, or even to work as an agent provocateur.  For better or worse, the diversity of perspectives and *flawed* posters on this forum make it difficult to confidently determine each poster's true motives based on essentially ambiguous styles.  For instance:
Am I here to waste people's time on geeky libertarian debates, derail threads with inane banter, and provide backup for other do-nothings?  Or am I a sincere poster with flaws including a penchant for laziness?Is Anti Federalist here to enrage people at the police as a preliminary step toward inciting violence as an agent provocateur?  Is he here to exacerbate the antagonism between cops and mundanes for anyone (of either stripe) reading, to further increase the chances of violent conflicts?  Or is he a sincere poster who wants to raise awareness about capricious police brutality and psychopathy, document it all, and help us convince other people in our lives that it's a serious endemic problem in the system, and he just happens to be jaded from seeing so much evil?  What about pcosmar, tod evans, phill4paul, Philhelm, fisharmor, etc.?  What about cheerleaders like me, Spikender, kcchiefs, etc.?Is ZippyJuan here to push a consistently statist angle and distort the truth with selectively chosen facts and figures, or is he a sincere, patient, detail-oriented, mildly liberty-sympathetic utilitarian with an xSTx Myers-Briggs personality type and all the associated blind spots (mainly missing the forest for the trees)?Is Danke here to get people in trouble with the IRS and otherwise derail threads with inane banter, or is he actually totally correct about his tax arguments and otherwise lazy like me?Is klamath here to divide and conquer, press people's buttons, derail threads with insults, and derail subforums with argument-baiting topics?  Or is he a sincere but jaded poster losing hope from the hypocrisy he sees, along with the tendency he sees for people to give up hope on peaceful solutions?Is angelatc here to divide and conquer and press people's buttons, or is she a sincere but severe poster who's tired of the bickering and wants to get $#@! done for once?Is cajuncocoa here to divide and conquer and fuel Rand bash $#@!storms, or is she a sincere poster who fears the slippery slope of politics and compromise, as well as the implications of a forum that's increasingly friendly to "Tea-o-cons" (whether or not any individual posters are actually sliding backwards from libertarianism or not)?Is CCTelander here to divide and conquer and belittle political activism because it *could* work, or is he a sincere poster who's rightfully jaded about the apparent futility, wastefulness, and potential counterproductivity of gradual change, especially through the system?Is Bryan a Mossad agent hell-bent on channeling our efforts into useless political activism at the expense of more fruitful endeavors, or is he a sincere administrator who believes that political efforts are necessary for both education and the practical restoration of individual liberty?  Does he allow trolls (or even traitors) and shills to run amok on purpose, or does he do it because trying to identify and ban them is an oftentimes futile endeavor that causes more problems (like divisive drama) than it solves?Is Christopher A. Bowen here to divide and conquer (sincere vs. insincere), distract, and narcissistically focus people around gaining his favor like a cult leader?  Or is he a sincere poster who's so frustrated with all of this unproductivity and uncertainty over everyone's motives that he's developed tunnel vision about sincerity lists being the solution, along with a peculiar insistence that sincerity requires adopting his pet description of the root purpose of free speech?*
I could keep going, but hopefully I've made the point that motives can be easy to doubt but hard to reliably interpret.  Once you develop the understanding that real COINTEL agents can be very sophisticated and deeply rooted in a community, it's easy for paranoia to take hold, and you start to see shills and trolls and traitors and cognitive infiltrators and agent provocateurs and dividers and disruptors everywhere...and then if you start going around accusing people, you yourself will become an unwitting agent of discord.  From my understanding, that's the mindset behind the policy that "There are no trolls here:" For the most part, trying to identify the spooks and malevolent posters on the board just helps do their job for them, by causing severely disruptive mistrust, drama, and feuds.  Meanwhile, if a real spook is banned, they'll just switch back to one of their other "predev personas" (since they have multiple sock puppets) and create a new account with a new proxy IP in another country to compensate for the loss of the single account that was outed and banned...business as usual.

In other words, Chris: There are multiple interpretations of most posters' motives here, including your own.  For the most part, it's important that we give people the benefit of the doubt: By creating lists and expending so much effort on "dividing the wheat from the chaff," you are actually inadvertantly engaging in a "divide and conquer" attack yourself, which is one of the most destructive things COINTEL can do to a forum.  Thankfully, you haven't caused any real division, and I don't think that was your intent (at worst, it seems an "evil Chris" would probably have the same intent as an "evil Mini-Me," which is to waste people's time with distractions): Actual spooks generally know how to push our buttons a lot better, if that's what they're seeking to do.  For instance, the most effective way to divide this forum so far seems to be to create a Rand-bashing thread and do everything in your power (through multiple sock puppets) to polarize people into puritans and sycophants.  Just look how long and angry those threads get, and how much they strain the relationships between - loosely speaking - the pragmatists and the idealists.  Plus, there's plausible deniability for whoever starts it, for the same reason people get so polarized in the first place...so nobody ever really knows whether it's intentional or not.  In contrast, the whole "I'm going to create a list, so you'd better get on my good side" thing would only work if the poster doing it was deeply entrenched and extremely charismatic, like a cult leader.

Overall, I think I do understand much of what you're saying: We don't actually DO enough to defend liberty, at least on the forum.  I just don't think building sincerity lists is that step in the right direction we really need, either.  Personally, I think the most effective activism is going to take place off the forum, and we need to focus on winning people over in real life as a rule and civil disobedience with wry humor in more pressing situations.  That said, I personally believe the forum itself is most useful for:
National-level political activism, like building a consensus on who to support and fund, arranging funding efforts like moneybombs, brainstorming new gimmicks, etc.Sharpening our knowledge, wit, debating skills, and logical arguments for genuine educational purposesCreating memes for wider distribution for the normal people who respond better to social cues and propaganda instead of logical arguments about utilitarian consequences and deontological ethicsMaintaining our emotional health by actually talking with like-minded people from time to timeCompiling and learning about current events for better understanding and further distribution, particularly...:Building a comprehensive case (for further distribution) that certain societal problems are endemic to the system and require radical changes to fix
That's just my opinion though, and on a similar subject, I'll move on to the asterisk I left above:

*For the record Chris, you asked me some number of posts ago what I thought about your definition of the root purpose of free speech.  In general, I agree with acptulsa's criticisms that your definition is too narrow to the exclusion of other purposes of free speech: To me, free speech is a natural extension of self-ownership.  Its *most serious use* may be freely communicating information necessary to survival and liberty, but on a more fundamental level it is integral to human dignity and liberty itself.  It's like breathing to me, and in that sense I agree with Acala that it doesn't even *need* a utilitarian purpose to be worth defending.  *Free speech is indeed worth defending for the reason you give of course, so you're not "wrong," but you're missing the most important part:* Free speech is primarily worth defending as a deontological right and an absolute ideal itself, for its own sake, and that is the part most sacred to me.  Free speech is the unimpeded expression of the human soul, and it's something no one has a right to take away from you, because they have no legitimate claim over your body and soul, period.  Rights do not derive primarily from utilitarian necessity but from self-ownership!  Utilitarian necessity is complementary and supplementary but fails to reach the true heart of the matter.

That is why I cannot accept your definition as paramount: It only encompasses a utilitarian subset of the reasons free speech is so essential, and calling your definition the "root purpose" runs the danger of denying the deeper fundamental importance of free speech in and of itself.  Accepting your "root purpose" comes at the risk of marginalizing, forgetting, or denying self-ownership and deontological morality rooted in Natural Law and the libertarian non-aggression principle.  It runs the risk of permanently subordinating principle to pragmatism.  That is why people here are so resistant toward your wording of the "root purpose:" It's generally not because of insincerity or because we're too dumbed down and distracted to comprehend the importance of politically vital information (information vital to survival and liberty).  It's simply because we cherish and defend our own understandings, which generally *contain* yours as a secondary facet.  Most of us have already developed a far more comprehensive and deontologically principled libertarian understanding of free speech, based on a libertarian and classical liberal tradition extending back from Rothbard to Spooner to Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to other Enlightenment thinkers who have considered the matter at greater breadth and depth than you.  By the time the understanding of individual rights (including free speech) passed through Rothbard, their fundamental moral basis had become highly refined, and the utilitarian implications and applications (such as information necessary to survival and liberty) had already been explored at length for hundreds of years.  They're not lost on us.

After climbing so far to stand on the shoulders of so many philosophical giants, we're not half-about to deny who we are and the fundamental moral basis of what we believe in, and unconditionally accepting your "root purpose" as a "root purpose" would do exactly that.  By demanding that people recognize your particular reasoning as supreme (the "root purpose") and undersign it, you're essentially demanding that people accept that your reasoning is more fundamental than not only our own but also that of all of the greatest libertarian and classical liberal thinkers whose understanding we have absorbed.  Can you now see why some of us might consider that demand a tad unreasonable and arrogant?  The purpose you give is obviously of vital practical importance, and pointing it out can be useful, but to me it is still secondary to my fundamental moral reasoning.  Can you now see why I balked at your insistence that sincerity requires demoting my own reasoning and deferring to yours?  You're free to view the purpose of free speech however you like, and that's okay: I don't demand you share all of my reasons (such as a pure libertarian concept of self-ownership), but I will not constrain my own to the box you're defining (which is the point Acala and acptulsa for instance were trying to get across to you as well).  Besides, as far as unity goes, what matters is not WHY we're willing to fight for free speech, only that we do.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@Mini-Me,
I agree with nearly every arranged word that you posted just above (and I thank you for taking the time to think it through and post it).  But there is something to be said for @Chris' definition.  

You stated at the end of your post "_What matters is not WHY we're willing to fight for free speech, only that we do_.", and that could be considered true in the support of the freedom of speech, in that if it were that everyone defended it no matter the reason then it would be defended, as in the point of view that "I disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it".

I think that @Chris' point is that unless everyone can agree on the most basic need and right of the freedom of speech, they won't defend it in it's entirety, but instead would defend their version of the need for it and even perhaps fall victim to, at least, tacitly supporting limitations that do not apparently infringe on their definition.  We can see that happening in the Political Correctness and Hate Speech activism.

I do agree that the most basic survival needs require knowing the truth of any situation that might threaten that survival in it's most rightfully fruitful experience.  That leads to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is not at the expense of others.

----------


## Mini-Me

> @Mini-Me,
> I agree with nearly every arranged word that you posted just above (and I thank you for taking the time to think it through and post it).  But there is something to be said for @Chris' definition.  
> 
> You stated at the end of your post "_What matters is not WHY we're willing to fight for free speech, only that we do_.", and that could be considered true in the support of the freedom of speech, in that if it were that everyone defended it no matter the reason then it would be defended, as in the point of view that "I disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it".
> 
> I think that @Chris' point is that unless everyone can agree on the most basic need and right of the freedom of speech, they won't defend it in it's entirety, but instead would defend their version of the need for it and even perhaps fall victim to, at least, tacitly supporting limitations that do not apparently infringe on their definition.  We can see that happening in the Political Correctness and Hate Speech activism.
> 
> I do agree that the most basic survival needs require knowing the truth of any situation that might threaten that survival in it's most rightfully fruitful experience.  That leads to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is not at the expense of others.


You make a good point that the reasoning behind defending free speech DOES matter in the context that weak reasoning can lead to eroding support (I mean, check out: this).  I should probably clarify that "[what matters is] only that we do [fight for free speech]" was meant to refer to unconditional support for free speech in its entirety.  I've edited the bottom of my above post to elaborate more on my understanding of free speech (since Chris probably hasn't read it yet), and I've added a qualification to the "what matters..." language in the last line to somewhat restrain the context, but I kept the offending/overreaching language intact so your criticism still stands.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Just lost 20 minutes work trying to reply on the phone.

I think it's time I show you why I'm on a phone.  The county I live in has intentionally deprived me of justice and rights for 17 years now in order to impair my ability to disclose treason and efforts to conceal that treason by impoverishing me.  They did that because there are real reasons.

http://algoxy.com/law

Later, after travel, I can get online with a computer.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> This is one of those long essay posts that's too long for anyone to reasonably read or discuss, but I wrote it anyway, so here goes:
> 
> Chris actually does make a coherent point here: The signal to noise ratio in any forum can be low, and this one is no different.
> 
> 
>  In and of itself, it doesn't have a direct impact on people outside our circles.
> 
> A lot of us have developed a certain rapport and comfort posting casually on the boards, but all of the witty (inane?) comments and memes can drown out serious discussions and derail threads just as readily as flame wars and divide and conquer attacks.
> 
> In fact, it could at times even be indistinguishable from deliberate disruption techniques practiced by COINTEL,


Yes, and it works as good as cognitive infiltration.




> [*]Is Christopher A. Bowen here to divide and conquer (sincere vs. insincere), distract, and narcissistically focus people around gaining his favor like a cult leader?  Or is he a sincere poster who's so frustrated with all of this unproductivity and uncertainty over everyone's motives that he's developed tunnel vision about sincerity lists being the solution, along with a peculiar insistence that sincerity requires adopting his pet description of the root purpose of free speech?*


It's about unity for constitutional defense, not me.




> I could keep going, but hopefully I've made the point that motives can be easy to doubt but hard to reliably interpret.


Cognitive infiltrators CANNOT do anything which enables or empower or contributes to the unity of Americans, therefore they cannot accept the purpose of free speech because it creates unity AND is constitutional intent.




> In other words, Chris: There are multiple interpretations of most posters' motives here, including your own.
> you are actually inadvertantly engaging in a "divide and conquer" attack yourself,


Not after I posted a link to this post.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668




> [*]Sharpening our knowledge, wit, debating skills, and logical arguments for genuine educational purposes


NOT ONE poster has debated that legally valid process.




> In contrast, the whole "I'm going to create a list, so you'd better get on my good side" thing


The good side of the constitution, and your post did not contain the word "constitution" once.




> 


Personally, I think the most effective activism is going to take place off the forum,

Have you ever gotten a ticket for excessive noise that was really issued to stop specific unpopular speech intended to defend the constitution.  I have, and the courts ripped me off for the bail after it was dismissed because the embarrassed cop could not substantiate the citation.




> *For the record Chris, you asked me some number of posts ago what I thought about your definition of the root purpose of free speech.  In general, I agree with acptulsa's criticisms that your definition is too narrow to the exclusion of other purposes of free speech:


t is prime constitutional intent.  All activities require a person to be alive.  It is the most comprehensive definition possible AND is prime constitutional intent.




> That is why I cannot accept your definition as paramount: It only encompasses a utilitarian subset


What about "life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?  Again, if you are not alive, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness don't matter much.




> what matters is not WHY we're willing to fight for free speech, only that we do.


No, what matters is that a majority need to defend the right and the constitution that carries it.  Unity is required.  It is prime.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> You stated at the end of your post "_What matters is not WHY we're willing to fight for free speech, only that we do_.", and that could be considered true in the support of the freedom of speech, in that if it were that everyone defended it no matter the reason then it would be defended, as in the point of view that "I disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it".


 



> I think that @Chris' point is that unless everyone can agree on the most basic need and right of the freedom of speech, they won't defend it in it's entirety, but instead would defend their version of the need for it and even perhaps fall victim to, at least, tacitly supporting limitations that do not apparently infringe on their definition.  We can see that happening in the Political Correctness and Hate Speech activism.
> 
> I do agree that the most basic survival needs require knowing the truth of any situation that might threaten that survival in it's most rightfully fruitful experience.  That leads to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is not at the expense of others.


All good, correct, you've got that part down.  But the most important thing is left out.  The definition of purpose of free speech is also prime constitutional intent which makes it a legal requisite for Article V.  Again, the process here, is enabled by the agreement upon the definition of purpose of free speech.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

So it is REALLY WEIRD that not one person has overtly posted acceptance of that definition of purpose.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Is Anti Federalist here to enrage people at the police as a preliminary step toward inciting violence as an agent provocateur?  Is he here to exacerbate the antagonism between cops and mundanes for anyone (of either stripe) reading, to further increase the chances of violent conflicts?  Or is he a sincere poster who wants to raise awareness about capricious police brutality and psychopathy, document it all, and help us convince other people in our lives that it's a serious endemic problem in the system, and he just happens to be jaded from seeing so much evil?


I'm glad that you brought that up, in order to clear the air once and for all:

There are a few people here that know me personally and know what I do for living, rest assured, I am not a government mole.

Yes, I am anti-cop, I make no bones about that, I view the million man cop army as the standing army of oppression that the founders warned us about, enforcing the laws and edicts of a corrupt system in increasingly harsh ways.

I have also made it clear that I think, ultimately, there will need to be more forceful measures taken to restore a semblance of a free republic, or at least the credible threat of such action needs to be on the table, than simply SWLODs.

I am not in any way advocating or wishing that anybody take such action now, or alone, as that is foolhardy suicide at this point.

I am as sincere as I can be in my reasons for devoting time to documenting these stories of abuse: *to help people and their pets stay alive and out of prison.*

Is there an "echo chamber" effect?

Perhaps, but then again, as I write this, the board shows: There are currently 497 users online. 64 members and *433 guests*

So, of almost 500 people, over 80% are lurking guests.

I am hoping that *they* are getting the message.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Is Bryan a Mossad agent hell-bent on channeling our efforts into useless political activism at the expense of more fruitful endeavors, or is he a sincere administrator who believes that political efforts are necessary for both education and the practical restoration of individual liberty?  Does he allow trolls (or even traitors) and shills to run amok on purpose, or does he do it because trying to identify and ban them is an oftentimes futile endeavor that causes more problems (like divisive drama) than it solves?


None of the above. It has already been clearly established that Bryan is, in fact, a reptilian ...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...uns-this-forum

----------


## Anti Federalist

/////

----------


## Anti Federalist

///

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> None of the above. It has already been clearly established that Bryan is, in fact, a reptilian ...
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...uns-this-forum


You really should know that the insectoid phylogenetic genes that control memory and sex have been working on giving the reptilian instincts a bad name.  They may even control a persons selection of the type of computer they use, because more insects is always better for the bugs.  I remind you, reptiles eat lots of bugs, so there is plenty of motive to smear the reptilian.  Remembering this when it matters, will also be difficult if the only thing that really excites a person is money and power.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You really should know that the insectoid phylogenetic genes that control memory and sex have been working on giving the reptilian instincts a bad name.  They may even control your selection of the type of computer you use, because more insects is always better for the bugs.  I remind you, reptiles eat lots of bugs, so there is plenty of motive to smear the reptilian.  Remembering this when it matters, will also be difficult if the only thing that really excites a person is money and power.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

That's the kind of post an American makes who refuses to accept a natural law and is held accountable for their rejection of the majority need.

ON EDIT:  BTW, I like your post where you point out that there were 433 lurking guests, even tho it is off topic.  What it shows is that Americans are interested in the obscure.

Why that is good is because the obvious and easy to see has been corrupted for quite a while.  People have been misled by it and are now out looking for what is real.

It also shows that they are afraid of engaging and opposing the false social groups or cognitive infiltration.  They are alone, so such is understandable.  This thread is about creating a group that is secure with the basis of their unity and that it DOES and can work to defend the constitution by using their agreement properly.

This post shows the specific process Americans need to commit to in order to secure their futures.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

If we all just start doing this, which first simply shares that process until a wave of agreement forms, all opposition will begin to fade rapidly.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> That's the kind of post an American makes who refuses to accept a natural law and is held accountable for their rejection of the majority need.


No, that's a post made by someone who is messin with you.

----------


## acptulsa

> No, that's a post made by someone who is messin with you.


Yeah.  That's what he said.  How could you not see that?

Everyone who messes with him refuses to accept the law that he needs his majority ass kissed and he's naturally holding you accountable.

It's all clear as crystal, man.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

In that case be the first one to post simple acceptance of the fact that free speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood.  Then mess with me all you want.

----------


## acptulsa

> In that case be the first one to post simple acceptance of the fact that free speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood.  Then mess with me all you want.


Free speech is.

Free speech is a right.

Free speech is a right worth fighting for.

Proper maintenance of a republic is not possible without free speech.  Therefore, it is right for a republic to never restrict free speech, and the citizens of that republic to fight for it.

Free speech is the root purpose of the internet.  And the internet is good because of that.

And I'm not just messing with you.  I am totally sincere.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Proper maintenance of a republic is not possible without free speech.


Our republic has a priority, life is at the top of the list.  Therefore free speech in this republic serves life first.




> Free speech is the root purpose of the internet.


The Internet began as the usenet.  Servers for it were located on university property.  Freedom of speech was observed by law.  It was a global village.  In 1995 the infiltration of government gave the global village to commerce.

Since then, the Internet serves the infiltration, misleading and corruption of the American people.

This thread is a necessary counter to that.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> And I'm not just messing with you.  I am totally sincere.


Are you certain you are not confusing passion about the constitution for sincerity relating to definition of its purposes?  Accountability is an inherent part of sincerity.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

I am an insincere American.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

The NWO loves you for posting that where everyone can see it.  Consistency is important with cognitive infiltration in quelling lawful peaceful revolution.

However human life will suffer because the natural law instincts which need to share and understand information vital to survival will be denied to increasing levels because of it.

Your example helps to pave the way for humanities loss of resistance to NWO depopulation.  I'm sure you are quite proud of your work.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

What is the OP talking about?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What is the OP talking about?


LOL.

Well, for eight pages now, we've been trying to pin him down on that, and it's proven as difficult as nailing Jell-O to the wall.

I gather that he thinks:

a - the highest purpose of free speech is speech vital to survival.

b - that if you don't publicly state this, and add your name to a list, you are insincere and "coginfil".

c - that there is such a thing as "lawful and peaceful" revolution. Seems a contradiction in terms to me, the very concept of "lawful" overthrow of our current overlords is...well...not permitted.

d - that these objectives could attained through "unifying free speech".

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> What is the OP talking about?


That speech vital to survival be shared and understood.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> LOL.
> Well, for eight pages now, we've been trying to pin him down on that, and it's proven as difficult as nailing Jell-O to the wall.
> 
> I gather that he thinks:
> 
> a - the highest purpose of free speech is speech vital to survival.
> 
> b - that if you don't publicly state this, and add your name to a list, you are insincere and "coginfil".
> 
> ...


A sock puppet helps for pretending you do not understand. 

 All sincere Americans can agree that our natural law constitutional right to alter or abolish abusive government is enabled by our unity upon acceptance of the purpose of free speech as being to assure info vital to survival is shared and understood.

The NWO does not want us to use our constitution to conduct lawful peaceful revolution so has created covert groups to infiltrate social activism and attempt to foul there cognition of HOW that revolution might be done.

Your activity fits that behavior perfectly.  This thread is designed to detect, expose and counter that by filtering out the infiltrators.  

I have to say it is working very well.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> A sock puppet helps for pretending you do not understand.


 A Teenager For Ron Paul is not a sock puppet account of mine.

I have *no* sock puppet accounts, and never have, as a matter of fact.  




> All sincere Americans can agree that our natural law constitutional right to alter or abolish abusive government is enabled by our unity upon acceptance of the purpose of free speech as being to assure info vital to survival is shared and understood.


I do agree.

However I see no need to put myself on your list, or anybody's list for that matter, in order to do so.

That is counter productive, as totalitarian government grows more powerful every day, the information required, to do what you say here, if publicly posted, will get you arrested.




> The NWO does not want us to use our constitution to conduct lawful peaceful revolution so has created covert groups to infiltrate social activism and attempt to foul there cognition of HOW that revolution might be done.


Again, a contradiction in terms.




> Your activity fits that behavior perfectly.  This thread is designed to detect, expose and counter that by filtering out the infiltrators.  
> 
> I have to say it is working very well.


Maybe it is *you* who is the infiltrator and data miner, wanting people to expose themselves and get put on "lists"

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> All sincere Americans can agree that our natural law constitutional right to alter or abolish abusive government is enabled by our unity upon acceptance of the purpose of free speech as being to assure info vital to survival is shared and understood.





> I do agree.
> 
> However I see no need to put myself on your list, or anybody's list for that matter, in order to do so.


Okay then.  Show us how you can initiate Article V. 

 And how convenient that you pretend to agree then refuse accountability for being a part of a group that is needed to do what needs to be done but you cannot do alone.

If Teenager is not a sock puppet then teenie is an accomplice because no self respecting teenager in this environment would fail to read and understand the simple concepts of the thread.




> I Maybe it is *you* who is the infiltrator and data miner, wanting people to expose themselves and get put on "lists"


Using unreasonable fears is the tactic of a coginfil.  How and why in the F is agreeing that free speech has the purpose of assuring info vital to survival is shared and understood going to get one on a list other than the one I'm trying to assemble?  Then what are those making the list going to do with it?

The list I'm making is a list of normal, thinking human beings ready to work together to use the law of the land.

----------


## acptulsa

> The NWO loves you for posting that where everyone can see it.





> And how convenient that you pretend to agree then refuse accountability...


Contradiction much?

The NWO would love you more for manipulating us into putting all our information out there, in one place, for their convenience.  Unfortunately for them, we will not be manipulated by your liberalesque 'do what I say or you're a bad person' arrogance.

Amazing how long it's taking for you to figure that out.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If Teenager is not a sock puppet then teenie is an accomplice because no self respecting teenager in this environment would fail to read and understand the simple concepts of the thread.


You have had multiple people come into this thread and others, wondering, politely or not, just what in the hell you were talking about.

Did it ever once occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with you and not shadowy hoardes of internet coginfils, NWO shills and sock puppets?




> Then what are those making the list going to do with it?


Ummm, raid your home at oh dark thiry with a squad of amped up SWAT goons, keen to blow somebody away.




> And how convenient that you pretend to agree then refuse accountability for being a part of a group that is needed to do what needs to be done but you cannot do alone.


Get *what* done?

Elect better politicians?

Have a "peaceful" revolution?

Restore liberty?

Guess what?

Outside of a few rabble rousers, *people want this*.

They are quite happy with the tyranny.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Contradiction much?


You of course will not explain yourself because you are not accountable, but you are wrong.




> The NWO would love you more for manipulating us into putting all our information out there, in one place, for their convenience.


I had no idea you were so afraid of your masters.  If you have no fear, accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.  Oh, you can't do that because that would help the people to unify.  Gee, you are between a rock and a hard spot.




> Contradiction much?


You of course will not explain yourself because you are not accountable.  I've not contradicted myself.




> The NWO would love you more for manipulating us into putting all our information out there, in one place, for their convenience.


I had no idea you were so afraid of your masters.  Alternatively, if you have no fear, accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.  Oh, you can't do that because that would help the people to unify.  Gee, you are between a rock and a hard spot.




> Unfortunately for them, we will not be manipulated by your liberalesque 'do what I say or you're a bad person' arrogance.


Again.  I'm fighting for the old republic and its principles.  Probably the most realistically conservative position that can be created.  Of course the constitution and the old republic under it support a semi anarchistic structure of rights and freedoms.  Aside from that, perhaps you are the liberal here fighting for the liberty of the NWO over all life.




> Amazing how long it's taking for you to figure that out.


Only things which are reasonable can be figured out, and what you and your team are doing is not reasonable.  The only reasonable conclusion is that your directive will not allow you to stop attacking the purpose of our second constitutional right and my effort to show how Americans can use it as a rally point for unity which is also prime constitutional intent.

----------


## RJB

The title "*Only Sincere Americans Accept The Root Purpose Of Free Speech*," cracks me up.  Not just the attempt to manipulate using the word "sincere," but it reminds me of a friend I used to work with who would tell kids, "*Only cool kids go home and cut their own hair,*" just to see if they would.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

Oh my god. I am a 19 year old guy who was wondering what the $#@! you were talking about (you and others on RPF would make great esoterica authors) and now I'm an accomplice of Anti-Federalist. Some people on here just embarrass me as a libertarian.

----------


## CPUd

Chris, you don't seem to be connecting with these guys.  Perhaps you should explain in more detail how people can become coginfils at the subconscious level, because they think you are insulting them.  I would try to explain it myself, but I would probably get it wrong.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> You have had multiple people come into this thread and others, wondering, politely or not, just what in the hell you were talking about.


I expected that because cognitive infiltration of forums is the dominant use.  Your behavior demonstrates this amply.




> Did it ever once occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with you and not shadowy hoardes of internet coginfils, NWO shills and sock puppets?


A confirming admission.  Consider freedom of speech is of the constitution.  All I'm doing is providing a definition that reveals the  intent and design of the constitution protecting life.





> Ummm, raid your home at oh dark thiry with a squad of amped up SWAT goons, keen to blow somebody away.


Fear monger of the NWO you are.  They'll never get past the coyotes and rattlers.




> Get *what* done?
> Elect better politicians?
> Have a "peaceful" revolution?
> Restore liberty?


Absolutely, by use of Article V and other prime constitutional principles.




> Guess what?
> 
> Outside of a few rabble rousers, *people want this*.
> 
> They are quite happy with the tyranny.


So the NWO Schill writes .  .  . in error.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Chris, you don't seem to be connecting with these guys.  Perhaps you should explain in more detail how people can become coginfils at the subconscious level, because they think you are insulting them.  I would try to explain it myself, but I would probably get it wrong.


Very insightful at this point.  Thanks for pointing it out.
Early in the thread I posted about how the environment created by cognitive infiltration over the last 9 years has conditioned people unconsciously (deeper than subconscious) which makes their behaviors indistinguishable from cognitive infiltration.

All of that was/is part of the plan of cognitive infiltration and cognitive distortions subliminally used in media of all types.  Now that much of our society has learned these ways of interacting, THEY HAVE BECOME INVISIBLE.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Oh my god. I am a 19 year old guy who was wondering what the $#@! you were talking about (you and others on RPF would make great esoterica authors) and now I'm an accomplice of Anti-Federalist. Some people on here just embarrass me as a libertarian.


You have been drawn into a social structure with conditioned perceptions and responses, and yes, to me you appear(ed?) as an accomplice.

Here is a fact that people who spend time online should remember:

When speaking or listening, the left or cognitive mind is always used to som degree.

When reading or writing it might not be used.

This applies to myself as well CPUd reminded me and I realized I has forgotten to revisit the issue of the unconscious conditioning and instead assumed that all posters were NWO agents of infiltration simply because they acted like them.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Philosotarians.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Philosotarians.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.


//

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Fear monger of the NWO you are.  They'll never get past the coyotes and rattlers.


Yoda fail. Should be: "Fear mongers of the NWO you are. Never get past the coyotes and rattlers they will."

----------


## acptulsa

> You of course will not explain yourself because you are not accountable, but you are wrong.


You need me to explain myself, meaning you didn't understand what I said, but I'm wrong anyway.

Operating on faith, we are?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> You need me to explain myself, meaning you didn't understand what I said


You misinterpret my words.  Another aspect of I sincerity.


*Originally Posted by acptulsa*
Contradiction much?"

Christopher A. Brown wrote:
"You of course will not explain yourself because you are not accountable. I've not contradicted myself."

I did not ask you to explain yourself, and you have not.  You are not accountable and cannot be so, because I've not contradicted myself.

Petty misinterpretation is disgusting when it comes to constitutional intent.

----------


## Danke

> So the NWO Schill [Anti Federalist] writes .  .  . in error.


Thanks for backing up something I suspected for a long time.  You, Christopher, earn this month's Sincere American award.  Congratulations!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Okay then.  Show us how you can initiate Article V.


Why in the *world* would I want to do that?

_Idiocracy_ at a Con-Con?

Are you nuts?

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

Where is the post about cognitive infiltration into the unconscious? Sounds spooky.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> The title "*Only Sincere Americans Accept The Root Purpose Of Free Speech*," cracks me up.  Not just the attempt to manipulate using the word "sincere,"


Not manipulation, simply an inadequate or even erroneous term for appealing  to sincere American who are truly interested in restoring constitutional government. 

I felt as though some would understand what I was up against, and simply post their acceptance.  But what I find is confused  Americans that are too afraid for whatever reason to post acceptance of the obvious.

What exposes the insincere is they do not attack a process that is 100% legally valid, however idealistic the entire strategy is.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

They do not attack because they do not want to bring attention to the.fact of it veracity and total function for constitutional defense and ending the infiltrations of all, state and federal governments.
The sincere, albeit fearful, realize it is actually the ONLY real plan which the people can deploy separate from all existing powers that WILL be over those powers.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Where is the post about cognitive infiltration into the unconscious? Sounds spooky.


You could try a google site search with terms like; media cognitive distortion semiotics.  It's really just social conditioning but the fact that the infiltrators are a covert group manipulating citizens thinking over such long periods of time is spooky.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Why in the *world* would I want to do that?
> 
> _Idiocracy_ at a Con-Con?
> 
> Are you nuts?


I asked if you could do it alone.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I asked if you could do it alone.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668


And I answered here: 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5434930

I can think of nothing more dangerous and counter productive than an Article V convention at this point in time.

Besides, there is no need, everything we need is in the Bill of Rights now.

All we have to do is act on it.

But, nobody wants to do that.

So here we sit.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> can think of nothing more dangerous and counter productive than an Article V convention at this point in time.


If that is how you think then sign this petition and start posting all over the web to get enough sigs for me to send it to the targets.

SERIOUSLY, COS & ALEC might be working to hijack the constitution!

IF you cared about the constitution as you imply, or worried about Article V,  THEN you are worried about unconstitutional amendments.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/298/6...tional-intent/

But you really do not want the constitution or you would be working to see this process , using the purpose of free speech to assure constitutional intent.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

But you don't even have the accountability to attempt to show why such a plan won't work, as idealistic as it is.

Really, your agenda will not allow you to bring attention to the simple, logical strategy.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> All sincere Americans can agree that our natural law constitutional right to alter or abolish abusive government is enabled by our unity upon acceptance of the purpose of free speech as being to assure info vital to survival is shared and understood.






> I do agree.
> 
> However I see no need to put myself on your list, or anybody's list for that matter, in order to do so.


Now here is a contradiction.  You agree that all Americans can agree that "our natural law constitutional right to alter or abolish abusive government" (Article V) and that unity is enabled by agreement on the purpose of free speech, but will have no part of functional unity.

I can understand your fear of being a visible part of the beginning of that unity, but doubt you can actually show a substantiated reason for being fearful of inclusion on a list in a web forum where Americans are trying to consolidate their sincerity.  

Seems to me you basically accepted the definition of purpose of free speech as being assurance that information vital to survival is shared and understood.

----------


## Uriel999

What in the ever living $#@! is this crap I just spent at least ten minutes trying to figure out? How did I end up at this retardation of a thread. I still have no clue what the OP is getting at, but apparently he's Santa Claus making his naughty and nice list. WTF Over!?

----------


## acptulsa

> What in the ever living $#@! is this crap I just spent at least ten minutes trying to figure out? How did I end up at this retardation of a thread. I still have no clue what the OP is getting at, but apparently he's Santa Claus making his naughty and nice list. WTF Over!?


It was more fun before he edited the living snot out of the OP.  Originally, he requested--no, he demanded--real names, not user names.

A failed attempt at data mining.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If that is how you think then sign this petition and start posting all over the web to get enough sigs for me to send it to the targets.
> 
> SERIOUSLY, COS & ALEC might be working to hijack the constitution!
> 
> IF you cared about the constitution as you imply, or worried about Article V,  THEN you are worried about unconstitutional amendments.
> 
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/298/6...tional-intent/
> 
> But you really do not want the constitution or you would be working to see this process , using the purpose of free speech to assure constitutional intent.
> ...


I love how this nutter tells everyone what they think, he is wrong 100% of the time, but he keeps on pushing as though he were always right.  LOL I dunno what drugs this guy is on but I would avoid breathing near him. :-D

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What in the ever living $#@! is this crap I just spent at least ten minutes trying to figure out? How did I end up at this retardation of a thread. I still have no clue what the OP is getting at, but apparently he's Santa Claus making his naughty and nice list. WTF Over!?


He is better than all of us put together, and only he and he alone has the special mystical key to decoding the Constitution in order to discern what it REALLY means.

----------


## Spikender

Wow, a lot went down since I posted in this topic.




> Now here is a contradiction.  You agree that all Americans can agree that "our natural law constitutional right to alter or abolish abusive government" (Article V) and that unity is enabled by agreement on the purpose of free speech, but will have no part of functional unity.
> 
> I can understand your fear of being a visible part of the beginning of that unity, but doubt you can actually show a substantiated reason for being fearful of inclusion on a list in a web forum where Americans are trying to consolidate their sincerity.  
> 
> Seems to me you basically accepted the definition of purpose of free speech as being assurance that information vital to survival is shared and understood.


You still haven't given up on trying to get together names of people as if somehow our inclusion on a list makes us anymore sincere in our defense of our beliefs than if we weren't.

I'm sorry, but the title of "Spikender, Defender of the Purpose of Free Speech" doesn't do much for me. I'm glad everyone is still staying off this list, it's pointless. If only you put this much effort into actually contributing something rather than trying to get posters to be a part of your club.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Wow, a lot went down since I posted in this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't given up on trying to get together names of people as if somehow our inclusion on a list makes us anymore sincere in our defense of our beliefs than if we weren't.
> 
> I'm sorry, but the title of "Spikender, Defender of the Purpose of Free Speech" doesn't do much for me. I'm glad everyone is still staying off this list, it's pointless. If only you put this much effort into actually contributing something rather than trying to get posters to be a part of your club.


He doesn't even do that, really.  He spouts gibberish and then calls everybody on the planet except himself 'stupid' or 'NWO Shill' or worse.  He has some freakishly bizarre and blatantly illogical concept of how we should be obeying the Constitution, and in his universe anybody who doesn't agree with him is a functional retard.  What's gonna be funny as hell s when we all gather at the gates of St Peter and he learns that he's actually the dumbest one in the room....

----------


## Spikender

> He doesn't even do that, really.  He spouts gibberish and then calls everybody on the planet except himself 'stupid' or 'NWO Shill' or worse.  He has some freakishly bizarre and blatantly illogical concept of how we should be obeying the Constitution, and in his universe anybody who doesn't agree with him is a functional retard.  What's gonna be funny as hell s when we all gather at the gates of St Peter and he learns that he's actually the dumbest one in the room....


He's evolving really. He was kind of coherent at first, but it's becoming harder and harder to understand exactly what he's saying as time goes on.

I don't see him a lot in other topics, but this topic seems to be his roost so my only real exposure to him is in this topic.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> He's evolving really. He was kind of coherent at first, but it's becoming harder and harder to understand exactly what he's saying as time goes on.
> 
> I don't see him a lot in other topics, but this topic seems to be his roost so my only real exposure to him is in this topic.


Not really evolving, more like slipping the clutches on his disguise at rationality and exposing his true form for RPF's to see. Some time back when he and I were going at it, one of my +Rep messages had links to his banned accounts on other boards and a cautionary note to back slowly away from this guy. We've just seen the tip of the iceberg on this guys crazy here on RPFs.  He's not really getting worse, he's just becoming a bit more genuine.

----------


## Spikender

Ah I see. I figured this wasn't Christopher's first time doing something like this, but I suppose you're right. One can only keep up insanity so long before it starts to get out of hand.

----------


## Aratus

Gunny, as a hypothetical contender for several very real public offices in the not so far or distant future, you do need
to keep focused on the eternal verities and conduct yourself in a cautious, careful and dignified manner. Flame*wars
are beneath thee, i sense a Common Sense future that lets you arrive near to greatness and a level of actualization!!!!

----------


## Aratus

> And where the hell is Aratus???


i was very on vacation.  i was missed?  i'm feeling wanted. 
besides in the winter of 2015/16 i may be trekking up
to N.H happily. i just might have a ride that getz me
over our mutual border. Scott Brown is about to do a
senate run but that is not the campaign that may draw
me in! hint!hint!hint! i toyed with a 2012 POTUS run for him!

----------


## Anti Federalist

Squirrel!

----------


## acptulsa

> Squirrel!


Good for the cats.  Encourages them to exercise.

Where the hell's Aratus?

----------


## Anti Federalist

They *were* getting the message.




> I'm glad that you brought that up, in order to clear the air once and for all:
> 
> There are a few people here that know me personally and know what I do for living, rest assured, I am not a government mole.
> 
> Yes, I am anti-cop, I make no bones about that, I view the million man cop army as the standing army of oppression that the founders warned us about, enforcing the laws and edicts of a corrupt system in increasingly harsh ways.
> 
> I have also made it clear that I think, ultimately, there will need to be more forceful measures taken to restore a semblance of a free republic, or at least the credible threat of such action needs to be on the table, than simply SWLODs.
> 
> I am not in any way advocating or wishing that anybody take such action now, or alone, as that is foolhardy suicide at this point.
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> i was very on vacation.  i was missed?  i'm feeling wanted. 
> besides in the winter of 2015/16 i may be trekking up
> to N.H happily. i just might have a ride that getz me
> over our mutual border. Scott Brown is about to do a
> senate run but that is not the campaign that may draw
> me in! hint!hint!hint! i toyed with a 2012 POTUS run for him!


You are _always_ missed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You are _always_ missed.


She needs to check in with us.

----------


## Anti Federalist

nutz

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

It appears the covert operators here are without argument against a lawful peaceful revolution using the purpose of free speech as a point of unity.  All they can do is use their covert group to abuse the reputation system of the forum to complain about me providing a solution to all the problems they pretend to be concerned about.

Why do they all uniformly refuse to agree and accept that the ultimate, legal, constitutional purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

Why do they refuse to explain why they will not agree and accept that simple principle.

Why do they not explain what sacrifice agreeing and accepting such a principle represents to them?

Here they are on my reputation page working together to provide group negative rep rather than explaining themselves.



If they agreed and accepted this most American concept, I would stop calling them agents, I would even apologize.  But they refuse.  Why?  There is really only one logical answer.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It appears the covert operators here are without argument against a lawful peaceful revolution using the purpose of free speech as a point of unity.  All they can do is use their covert group to abuse the reputation system of the forum to complain about me providing a solution to all the problems they pretend to be concerned about.





> Why do they all uniformly refuse to agree and accept that the ultimate, legal, constitutional purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?


Because we are covert-op cog-infil agents.




> Why do they refuse to explain why they will not agree and accept that simple principle.


Because we are covert-op cog-infil agents.




> Why do they not explain what sacrifice agreeing and accepting such a principle represents to them?


Because we are covert-op cog-infil agents.




> If they agreed and accepted this most American concept, I would stop calling them agents, I would even apologize.  But they refuse.  Why?  There is really only one logical answer.


Because we are covert-op cog-infil agents.

Can I help you with any other questions?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If they agreed and accepted this most American concept, I would stop calling them agents, I would even apologize.  But they refuse.  Why?  There is really only one logical answer.


Actually, that's a lie.  I stated on one of your obsessive rants that your unique formulation was indeed _one of the several_ purposes of free speech, but you couldn't handle the notion that free speech might have any other purpose in the universe except the one you dictate, whereupon you doubled down on your 'agent' nonsense.  

Freedom from religious persecution and the application of confinement or even death for religious speech in Europe was one of the primary drivers for immigration to the new world in the 18th Century.  In addition to having the freedom to speak against the government and rally an association of citizens together to overturn that government, the ability to speak freely on religious subjects and proselytize was in fact very high on the priority list of the Framers who penned the 1st Amendment.

But it's not enough that I acknowledged that your...unique....formulation of anti-government speech was in fact one of the several purposes of free speech, because I did not agree that it was the *only* purpose for free speech, you doubled, maybe even tripled down on this whole 'agent' thing.

You are seeing agents in your closet, under your bed and around every corner because you are utterly and completely irrational when it comes to your particular obsession.  You will note that in your screenshot list of negreps there is only one, single repeat customer showing.  You are not being targeted by some concerted campaign to neg you, you are really just being so obstinate that people _want_ to neg you.

Whatever message you have to share, you are destroying your own message by being self-obsessed, thinking you are some kind of One True Savior™ and anybody else that does not bow and scrape in your presence is some kind of agent of evil.  I have said that you have a psychological problem based on your behavior and I meant it.  You seem to have some kind of messiah complex.  I am not the only one who feels that way.  Someone who acts like you attacking all of the established members for failing to pay obeisance to you would ordinarily have been banned long ago, except people are taking pity because they think (and rightly so!) you are unwell.

----------


## The Northbreather

Hey Chris. 

Has it occurred to you that members here might mistake your constant appeals that everyone pledge allegiance your "lawful and peaceful revolution" for some kind of snare.

By denouncing all who disagree exactly with your methods you are insinuating that these people are not law abiding or are in some way planing the opposite of what you advocate.

In this age of warrantless surveillance and secret courts many good natured freedom loving people have to be cautious and your singling out of people may be construed as entrapment (and you as the trapper) to a thinking person.

Food for thought.

----------


## Anti Federalist

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Here they are on my reputation page working together to provide group negative rep rather than explaining themselves.


Well, I see now, you'll have to read this from ban-land.

You'll note that my "negs" were as promised: calling long established and _bona fide_ members "agents", got you neg rep.

Your first foray into the forum started with the InSInCeRE AmErICaNs nonsense and continued to now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Here they are on my reputation page working together to provide group negative rep rather than explaining themselves.


Well, I see now, you'll have to read this from ban-land.

You'll note that my "negs" were as promised: calling long established and _bona fide_ members "agents", got you neg rep.

Your first foray into the forum started with the InSInCeRE AmErICaNs nonsense and continued to now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If the forum is an infiltrating forum, these two will complain and I'll be banned in a day or two.


So, since it took over a year, and it's only temporary, I guess we're NOT a cog-infil forum.

ETA: I did not complain, nor call for your banning.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So, since it took over a year, and it's only temporary, I guess we're NOT a cog-infil forum.


I am sure that he will find some method to adjust the facts to fit his preconceived perception.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I am sure that he will find some method to adjust the facts to fit his preconceived perception.


Yeah, more than likely.

You said somebody tipped you off to this guy's past history on other forums.

Got a linky?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yeah, more than likely.
> 
> You said somebody tipped you off to this guy's past history on other forums.
> 
> Got a linky?


It was via rep message and it happened prior to 4/11 so the links have slipped past my rep cutoff.  

Don't remember who it was or I would ask again.

Better than zero chance that whoever sent it will be reading this thread.  So hopefully they will send them to you via PM

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, I see now, you'll have to read this from ban-land.
> 
> You'll note that my "negs" were as promised: calling long established and _bona fide_ members "agents", got you neg rep.
> 
> Your first foray into the forum started with the InSInCeRE AmErICaNs nonsense and continued to now.


  Funny that all those that neg repped probably have a rep power of 40-50 it's amazing he is still in the green. I'd like to see who the positive reps were from and why.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Funny that all those that neg repped probably have a rep power of 40-50 it's amazing he is still in the green. I'd like to see who the positive reps were from and why.


I was actually wondering about that.  Negs must subtract fewer points than +s add.  If he had any greens they should have showed up in his screenshot.  In terms of +Reps, that screenshot alone should have represented t least 300 points, or 3 pips.  Having nothing else to go on, I would guess that a negrep is 20%-30% the power of a +rep.

----------


## wizardwatson

> If they agreed and accepted this most American concept, I would stop calling them agents, I would even apologize.  But they refuse.  Why?  *There is really only one logical answer*.


Actually, there are others.  The correct one for instance.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Funny that all those that neg repped probably have a rep power of 40-50 it's amazing he is still in the green. I'd like to see who the positive reps were from and why.





> I was actually wondering about that.  Negs must subtract fewer points than +s add.  If he had any greens they should have showed up in his screenshot.  In terms of +Reps, that screenshot alone should have represented t least 300 points, or 3 pips.  Having nothing else to go on, I would guess that a negrep is 20%-30% the power of a +rep.


I know that as of this post from yesterday he had two green pips (before the first of my two neg reps). So what is that? At least 100 rep points?

And per the pic in post #283 above, he had just 14 points left ... so that's at least 86 points of damage in a single day, and probably more (by an amount up to the upper bound for two green pips).

----------


## Suzanimal

> I was actually wondering about that.  Negs must subtract fewer points than +s add.  If he had any greens they should have showed up in his screenshot.  In terms of +Reps, that screenshot alone should have represented t least 300 points, or 3 pips.  Having nothing else to go on, I would guess that a negrep is 20%-30% the power of a +rep.


I think all negs count the same.

----------


## acptulsa

> I was actually wondering about that.  Negs must subtract fewer points than +s add.  If he had any greens they should have showed up in his screenshot.  In terms of +Reps, that screenshot alone should have represented t least 300 points, or 3 pips.  Having nothing else to go on, I would guess that a negrep is 20%-30% the power of a +rep.





> I think all negs count the same.


I believe negs count for half what your +reps count.  Rounded up.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Gentleman,

Is it not clear that the OP is mentally ill?

Rhetorical question; yes, it's perfectly clear. 

If you mean just to amuse yourselves, well then by all means.

But if you're attempting a serious, non-psychotic conversation with this poor man, I think you're going to be disappointed.

----------


## acptulsa

> Gentleman,
> 
> Is it not clear that the OP is mentally ill?
> 
> Rhetorical question; yes, it's perfectly clear. 
> 
> If you mean just to amuse yourselves, well then by all means.
> 
> But if you're attempting a serious, non-psychotic conversation with this poor man, I think you're going to be disappointed.


Well, they'll be less interesting for the next month.

But they'll be a lot less redundant for the next month.  And will probably make more sense than ever.

----------


## CPUd

> Gentleman,
> 
> Is it not clear that the OP is mentally ill?
> 
> Rhetorical question; yes, it's perfectly clear. 
> 
> If you mean just to amuse yourselves, well then by all means.
> 
> But if you're attempting a serious, non-psychotic conversation with this poor man, I think you're going to be disappointed.


Yes, he admitted 7 or 8 years ago on another forum that he is mentally ill, and I believe had posted some docs to prove it.  He is still functional though, like he can dress himself and cross the street without getting hit by a car.  At some time in the past, he could even operate heavy machinery.  To be honest, there are very few people out there with the level of commitment he has shown to whatever the hell he believes he is doing.  If I had to guess, I'd say his goal is to drop as many links back to his site as possible.  His M.O. is the same across all the sites he has posted on, he will rotate in cycles of 3-6 months, and he will keep posting in that rotation until he is permanently banned.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, he admitted 7 or 8 years ago on another forum that he is mentally ill, and I believe had posted some docs to prove it.  He is still functional though, like he can dress himself and cross the street without getting hit by a car.  At some time in the past, he could even operate heavy machinery.  To be honest, there are very few people out there with the level of commitment he has shown to whatever the hell he believes he is doing.  If I had to guess, I'd say his goal is to drop as many links back to his site as possible.  His M.O. is the same across all the sites he has posted on, he will rotate in cycles of 3-6 months, and he will keep posting in that rotation until he is permanently banned.


Hmmm. I think he's quite well-intended, but ill, poor fellow.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Garble drives Grammarian and Nitpick absolutely nuts, but he disdains all efforts at correction, and if complaints persist he will indignantly sign exit saying, "yuor forum si stupef. bYE!"


After reading the whole thing again...

----------


## Origanalist

> Well, they'll be less interesting for the next month.
> 
> But they'll be a lot less redundant for the next month.  And will probably make more sense than ever.


No.

----------


## wizardwatson

> It appears the covert operators here are without argument against a lawful peaceful revolution using the purpose of free speech as a point of unity.  All they can do is use their covert group to abuse the reputation system of the forum to complain about me providing a solution to all the problems they pretend to be concerned about.
> 
> Why do they all uniformly refuse to agree and accept that the ultimate, legal, constitutional purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?
> 
> Why do they refuse to explain why they will not agree and accept that simple principle.
> 
> Why do they not explain what sacrifice agreeing and accepting such a principle represents to them?
> 
> Here they are on my reputation page working together to provide group negative rep rather than explaining themselves.
> ...


I don't know dude.

Doesn't God control everything?

Even the agents?

Legitimate question.

----------


## HVACTech

this is Major Tom to ground control..
I'm stepping through the door.
and I'm floating in a most peculiar way...
and the stars look very different today...

----------


## Spikender

Christopher is probably in my top ten of posters on this site.

No joke.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Christopher is probably in my top ten of posters on this site.
> 
> No joke.


Where am I at?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> I don't know dude.
> 
> Doesn't God control everything?
> 
> Even the agents?
> 
> Legitimate question.


God only has time as a competitor as far as I can tell.  God is not infinite in time, only eternal.  Eternal relates to life.

Time relates to evolution, of course survival is first.  Agents are not working for that unconditionally.  Maybe the NWO told they were, but those conditions are not going to work and 9/11 tells us that. 

What if we share God and our shared agreement unconditionally supporting Gods living creatures is what helps God in the struggle against time.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> this is Major Tom to ground control..
> I'm stepping through the door.
> and I'm floating in a most peculiar way...
> and the stars look very different today...


But the framers intent is still the same.

*Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?*

----------


## wizardwatson

> But the framers intent is still the same.
> 
> *Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?
> 
> Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?*


I agree with those statements for the most part, but it is not the foundation for Christian fellowship.  The foundation for true fellowship is in repentance and believing on the Lord.  

Come on, Chris.  I bumped this thread.  No one else is awake here that wants to talk to you.  The zombies can't hear.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> I agree with those statements for the most part, but it is not the foundation for Christian fellowship.  The foundation for true fellowship is in repentance and believing on the Lord.  
> 
> Come on, Chris.  I bumped this thread.  No one else is awake here that wants to talk to you.  The zombies can't hear.


The purpose of free speech is what it is about, not the freedom of religion.  Which we won't have if we do not have a lawful peaceful revolution. 

Comprehensiveness is next to Godliness.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The purpose of free speech is what it is about, not the freedom of religion.  Which we won't have if we do not have a lawful peaceful revolution. 
> 
> Comprehensiveness is next to Godliness.


Again, you blaspheme the name of the Holy One of Israel.




> Job 5 12 He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise.
> 
> 13 He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.


Are you dissapointed that I have thwarted your crafty device so that you could not perform your device hear in the Temple?  

I bet you would have liked for it to gestate and birth itself in this movement started and blessed by God.  It might even work if you could dislodge me.

 

But you cannot destroy the Metal.  The Metal will strike you down with a vicious blow.




> Psalm 2:9  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.







So comprehend this.  It is written:




> *The meek shall inherit the earth. - Jesus*


Not you smarty pants spiritual this, and spiritual that, lying bully-boys from the jungle.  

*MEEK:  quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive.*

Your key word is submissive.  You showed your true colors by your failure to submit to your own agenda.  Therefore you think you are above the law you wish to impose.  The Spirit of the Lord is not upon you.

----------


## Spikender

> Where am I at?


You're not top ten but you're nowhere near the bottom.

My Bottom Ten poster list would actually just be the same poster's name repeated nine times with one other poster in tenth place. I won't name those two posters for posterity reasons though.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You're not top ten but you're nowhere near the bottom.
> 
> My Bottom Ten poster list would actually just be the same poster's name repeated nine times with one other poster in tenth place. I won't name those two posters for posterity reasons though.


Wow.  Thanks.

Here's my list of top posters:

*I AM*

Proverbs 16:1

----------


## osan

> *The purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.*



Firstly, what in hell is this, some sort of loyalty oath?  Or is someone attempting to collect names?  Be serious.

Next, there are manifold purposes for free speech.  Not all reasons for want to speak freely are rooted in purpose, but in desire.  The common root _there_ is the inborn and fundamental freedom of the human animal.

What you are trying to do here, whether you are aware of it, is justify the maintenance of the right to free speech.  This, of course, is the bassackwards approach to the issue precisely because it attempts to justify that which requires no justification and for which justification itself poses the greatest threat to the right.  The reason is this: if you base the preservation of a right on justification, you render it strongly vulnerable to dependence upon it.  Under that circumstance, the moment the justification is speared, the pretext for the denial of the right has been established, and it is all downhill from there.  Once you place justification upon a right, intentionally or not, you have demoted it from a fundamental element of life to one of a contractual nature.  The former cannot be validly limited, all else equal, but the latter can be at any time and, in principle, for any reason or no reason at all.  To justify rights is to open the door for the grand entrance of the Lord of the Flies.

Rights simply ARE.  They are part and parcel of who and what we are as beings, mainly in the context of our relationships to one another.  The only thing we should ever do is demonstrate that they exist, which is easily accomplished by anyone with the least education on the matter.  Their existence is all that is needed and represents the acme of their status.  Tacking on justifications only serves to diminish that status and leads to... well... to 21st century America.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Firstly, what in hell is this, some sort of loyalty oath?  Or is someone attempting to collect names?  Be serious.
> 
> Next, there are manifold purposes for free speech.  Not all reasons for want to speak freely are rooted in purpose, but in desire.  The common root _there_ is the inborn and fundamental freedom of the human animal.
> 
> What you are trying to do here, whether you are aware of it, is justify the maintenance of the right to free speech.  This, of course, is the bassackwards approach to the issue precisely because it attempts to justify that which requires no justification and for which justification itself poses the greatest threat to the right.  The reason is this: if you base the preservation of a right on justification, you render it strongly vulnerable to dependence upon it.  Under that circumstance, the moment the justification is speared, the pretext for the denial of the right has been established, and it is all downhill from there.  Once you place justification upon a right, intentionally or not, you have demoted it from a fundamental element of life to one of a contractual nature.  The former cannot be validly limited, all else equal, but the latter can be at any time and, in principle, for any reason or no reason at all.  To justify rights is to open the door for the grand entrance of the Lord of the Flies.
> 
> Rights simply ARE.  They are part and parcel of who and what we are as beings, mainly in the context of our relationships to one another.  The only thing we should ever do is demonstrate that they exist, which is easily accomplished by anyone with the least education on the matter.  Their existence is all that is needed and represents the acme of their status.  Tacking on justifications only serves to diminish that status and leads to... well... to 21st century America.


Moonbat to Central, come in Central, over.
Central, this is Moonbat, please come in, over.

Moonbat this is Central, go ahead, over.

Roger Central, I have uncovered another agent who will not recite the required psychological programming mantra. Please advise, over.

Understood Moonbat.  Mark and observe, over.

Central, this is Moonbat, requesting permission to engage with lethal force, over.

Negative Moonbat, mark and observe.

Roger that, Moonbat out.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## wizardwatson

The Wizard must not be as sincere as he thought.

Guess, I'll just go back to sleep.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> The Wizard must not be as sincere as he thought.
> 
> Guess, I'll just go back to sleep.


Why are you still doing what the NWO wants?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> spam


Typical covert manipulator post. Based in the invocation of attitude, no facts.

----------


## presence

The root purpose of the first amendment is its function as a peaceful alternative to the second amendment.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you are a sincere American you feel a need to see the congress and the courts respect every letter of the constitution, all the way to Article V, and, you are not afraid of using that right, BECAUSE you know you, all of you, WE, can agree; and become the rightful masters.


Again, appealing to the jailer to let you free.

Not going to happen.

----------


## Ender

> Typical covert manipulator post. Based in the invocation of attitude, no facts.


Dear Typical OVERT Manipulater, 


THIS is what the facts are:

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"Sincerity is the most important thing. When you can fake that, you've got it made."*

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Again, appealing to the jailer to let you free.
> 
> Not going to happen.


Speaking of numb.

Don't you get that 3/4 of the states CAN and WILL control the federal government? 

Don't you get that congress and the courts have no say when 3/4 of the states are ratifying amendments?

Maybe your little mind cannot wrap itself around the notion of something being more powerful than the federal government?

What created it?  The states numb man. They can alter and abolish it.

Why do you protect the federal government by making it appear to be omnipotent?  Why do you disable the people with hopeless negativity?

Why do you bash the only real plan in existence to alter or abolish, while you state you agree the framers intended for us to have the right to do it.  Your existence here is a contradiction of terms.

You can address this in your thread where your facetious, conditional agreement is exposed and accountability is requested with GREAT clarity.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...53#post5947153

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> *"Sincerity is the most important thing. When you can fake that, you've got it made."*


Cant fake it in America.  You will be exposed by those that understand natural law and how the framing documents are woven from it.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Dear Typical OVERT Manipulater, 
> 
> THIS is what the facts are:


If you knew the facts you could just state them rather than relying on corporatism to do it for you in anachronistic allegory.

And BTW, education is what I'm doing, as bad as you prefer ignorance, you are going to learn or you will be groveling with the covert infiltrators if you already are not.

----------


## phill4paul

The true purpose of the root....

----------


## phill4paul

> Cant fake it in America.  You will be exposed by those that understand natural law and how the framing documents are woven from it.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> The root purpose of the first amendment is its function as a peaceful alternative to the second amendment.


A quality alternative GENERAL definition.

You will see that I provide that basic definition for AF here.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...30#post5935730

Another way to state, very much congruent and pro 2nd amendment AFTER, if we fail in our lawful and peaceful revolution, like AF is working towards, is seen in the simple logic that IF we unify for that peaceful revolution, and fail, then we are still unified, but with use of our weapons.  Which is a HELL OF A LOT more functional than not being unified.

----------


## Root

> The true purpose of the root....


Nah, more like:


But the Hard Root Beer that's becoming more available is $#@!ing delicious.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> spam intended to create cognitive dissonance


The exact behavior covert manipulators use to try and inspire cognitive dissonance.  Sick puppy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Speaking of numb.
> 
> Don't you get that 3/4 of the states CAN and WILL control the federal government? 
> 
> Don't you get that congress and the courts have no say when 3/4 of the states are ratifying amendments?
> 
> Maybe your little mind cannot wrap itself around the notion of something being more powerful than the federal government?
> 
> What created it?  The states numb man. They can alter and abolish it.
> ...


*
 "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Stalin*

----------


## phill4paul

> The exact behavior covert manipulators use to try and inspire cognitive dissonance.  Sick puppy.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## Spikender

Huh.

I never realized my name was on the list of "Sincere Americans" in this topic.

Blessed be Chris's heart.

Reading over our past arguments was pretty fun. Good times.

----------


## CPUd

The early posts were from the real Christopher A. Brown.  He has been infiltrated since then, which is why the wording in his posts are slightly different than before.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> *
>  "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Stalin*


Do you get there are only 38 votes or ratifications and the states voting count them?

Do you get that preparatory amendment, ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, securing the vote and reforming campaign finance are the only amendment proposed UNTIL the preparations have taken effect?

This is a total game changer.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Huh.
> 
> I never realized my name was on the list of "Sincere Americans" in this topic.
> 
> Blessed be Chris's heart.
> 
> Reading over our past arguments was pretty fun. Good times.


Yea, even though you've been responsive to their socialization of the covert group to a degree, I do not see you rallying their crap.

I'm very intuitive about the subtle nonchalance the covert group espoused through example with their constant negativism.  That crap about sharing problems is more important than solutions is the heart of their psyops.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> The early posts were from the real Christopher A. Brown.  He has been infiltrated since then, which is why the wording in his posts are slightly different than before.


BS.

Even attempting that is stupid and a just like an agent would do in an effort to discredit when their ass is getting kicked and exposed.

I've explained before how my understanding of the PURPOSE of free speech evolved from the biological to the legal after I was banned and went elsewhere for a year.

----------


## phill4paul

> BS, even attempting that is stupid and a just like an agent would do in an effort to discredit when their ass is getting kicked and exposed.

----------


## Spikender

> Yea, even though you've been responsive to their socialization of the covert group to a degree, I do not see you rallying their crap.


I rally no one's crap but mine, sir, of that I can assure you.




> I'm very intuitive about the subtle nonchalance the covert group espoused through example with their constant negativism.  That crap about sharing problems is more important than solutions is the heart of their psyops.


To be fair, that tactic is hardly covert. Most of what I saw from the debates on national television tonight is nothing but talking about problems and then speaking in wide platitudes about "what we need to do" without the nitty-gritty details. I guess at this stage, they hardly need to be covert with it since the population at large aren't even aware the tactic exists at all.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Speaking of numb.
> 
> Don't you get that 3/4 of the states CAN and WILL control the federal government?


You will not get 3/4 of the states to call a convention.

You will not get this, because the people hate, and do not want freedom.

And if they do, the feds will invalidate it.

And when you say, "you cannot, that is unconstitutional!", they will produce nine government lawyers who will tell you that you are wrong.

The *only* way that anything *will* change is to make people aware of threat they face.

That is what I do every day.

That is what you, in your creepy thread stalkish way, undermine, at every turn. 

*You* are the cog-infil agent and are *insincere*.

----------


## Anti Federalist

>

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> You will not get 3/4 of the states to call a convention.
> 
> You will not get this, because the people hate, and do not want freedom.
> 
> And if they do, the feds will invalidate it.
> 
> And when you say, "you cannot, that is unconstitutional!", they will produce nine government lawyers who will tell you that you are wrong.
> 
> The *only* way that anything *will* change is to make people aware of threat they face.
> ...


You do not want 3/4 of the states to have conventions in them because your agenda is against that and the rights such conventions will protect.  So of course you will state exactly what you have.  This is exactly what an agent in your capacity will logically do in this given situation.

The fact is people already know they need to take action, and the agreement I seek from them they are willing to make.  It's just a matter of time.

They do not hate freedom, they are afraid of it, many of them.  They've been made dependent.

Currently there are 19 states working for a countermand amendment that empowers states to remove unconstitutional federal laws.  Over halfway with state unity on that.  The people won't be far behind.

When those conventions occur the Feds will start resigning in the order of greater to lessor culpability for treason.  The military and law enforcement are of the people for the most part, except for the freaks that are featured here killing unarmed people etc.

Accordingly, when 3/4 of the states ratify to end the abridging of free speech.  All those entities are going to stand down and start seeing what the purpose of free speech will do when 3/4 of the states end the abridging of it.

It will be profound to see what happens in the people when just a few important truths are known!

Soldiers and cops do not want their children growing up as slaves either.   Currently big brother offers the most security, but they are not happy.  They see the tyranny rising and don't want it.

People are aware of the threat, but media is careful to never show it.  The option of a lawful and peaceful revolution will spread slowly at first then snowball as activists realize how impotent their current activism is.

But you don't want that so work against it.  I understand how agents must behave.

You cannot try and turn the tables here by calling me a cognitive infiltrator BECAUSE I am asking people to think!  You want them to FEEL helpless.  Emotional reasoning is your main tool.

You cannot enforce a charge of insincere upon me because you have NOT explained reasonably what sacrifice answering YES and agreeing then accepting these prime constitutional intents presents to you.

*Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?*

*Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?*

You are screwed, you lose, you and your sordid little groups behavior is logically exactly what I say it is.

None of you can even make a rational argument at this point.  You are all posting crappy little images trying to induce cognitive dissonance.

It's just a matter of time before people reading figure out how bad your manipulations and misleadings really are and how long the conditioning of them has been going on in this environment in an effort to make them think like you do, just as your job description states Mr. 61,859
 posts.

This is your job.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## Ronin Truth

*freedom of speech meaning
*
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...IVy9GACh36wwLT

----------


## phill4paul

> This is your job.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Why are you still doing what the NWO wants?


I've told you numerous times I'm a Christian.  You seem to be obsessed with thinking that I'm a liar, faking, or delusional on this point.  

There are intelligent people who believe the bible.  It is a thing.

There isn't anything else I follow really.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> The *only* way that anything *will* change is to make people aware of threat they face.
> 
> That is what I do every day.


At best you act on a BELIEF, this is true while you fail to work with fact.

Notice lurkers that AF does not argue for the truth of 9/11, while AF also does not support a lawful and peaceful revolution.

This inconsistency means something.

This thread link has engineering fact.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=Concrete+core

Just like the present thread has legal, historical, philosophical and psychological fact.  But niether set of facts is logically engaged.




> I've told you numerous times I'm a Christian.  You seem to be obsessed with thinking that I'm a liar, faking, or delusional on this point.  
> 
> There are intelligent people who believe the bible.  It is a thing.
> 
> There isn't anything else I follow really.


Wiz also works with BELIEF, and won't use the legal, historical, philosophical and psychological fact.

Wiz won't use the engineering facts of 9/11.

At best we are looking at a form
of incompetence, at worst, they are both out and out infiltrators.  This becomes the most useful truism when neither will rationally debate facts as niether does.

AF is refusing to complete the logic of the agreement started in the imprisioned grandfather thread.  Oops, so much evasion going on that I lost track of where the most recent is.  AFs own red giant thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5947153

That post has links to the beginning of what AF wants to present as agreement.  It is but it's empty because it doesn't end up with the PURPOSE of free speech restored through preparatory amendment.

Preventing that is a bottom line agenda item of the NWO and infiltration government.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I've told you numerous times I'm a Christian. You seem to be obsessed with thinking that I'm a liar, faking, or delusional on this point. 
> 
> There are intelligent people who believe the bible. It is a thing.
> 
> There isn't anything else I follow really.



He just may be having a really hard time believing that ANYONE may actually be on his side.   LOL!   Understandable.

----------


## wizardwatson

> He just may be having a really hard time believing that ANYONE may actually be on his side.   LOL!   Understandable.


Well, he seems to be on a power trip.  I agreed with his statements and because I didn't submit to all his intellectual demands he created a "probabationary phase" for anyone who agrees with him so that he can weed out those who are not 100% obedient.

So I'm guessing he'll be alone for quite some time considering his qualifications for sincerity are absolute obedience to his perfect wisdom and instruction.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Well, he seems to be on a power trip. I agreed with his statements and because I didn't submit to all his intellectual demands he created a "probabationary phase" for anyone who agrees with him so that he can weed out those who are not 100% obedient.
> 
> So I'm guessing he'll be alone for quite some time considering his qualifications for sincerity are absolute obedience to his perfect wisdom and instruction.


I wonder how many sheeple have actually passed his cult litmus test, and anointed him as their shepherd for the flock?  LMAO!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *Notice lurkers that AF does not argue for the truth of 9/11*


LOL, now that's just silly, right there.

Go away, silly man.

----------


## Anti Federalist

>

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

While Wiz had a 9/11 thread, it uses no fact and Wiz was provided some very profound facts to perhaps reinforce his own beliefs in a a Rabbis projections in a mystical sense.

Agreement and acceptance with these legal, philosophical, historical facts doesn't mean one is free to take off on a merry-go-round of beliefs.  It means one is equipped to start a logical and factual effort in the creation of greater unity enabling the alteration or abolishment of government destructive to unalienable rights.

Heavenly boy tries to work a worn out perspective that the Declaration of Independence is not law and presents that it was forgotten after the constitution.

What is forgotten there is that as "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" it is our prerogative to derive the basis of intent wherever it logically is found. 

The Declaration of Independence is a very logical place to find constitutional intent.

The notion that there was such a competitive environment in the years of the framers that the original intents were intentionally obscured or left out; is a fully rational position for the "rightful masters" to take as they work towards the elements of functional unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.  But no, that ruling, logical position is not assumed.

Instead a completely subjective position is uniformly assumed with what are varied basis!  How can this uniformity of evasion of logic be explained?

And it must be explained if Americans are to retain their rights and freedoms.

It appears that each party does not care about actual change.  Their personal sensibilities of their unconscious existence clash with their knowledge of the real world.  Activism is driven by a blind integrity if these are actually sincere individuals,  Integrity that refuses to look at the realities of politics, history and engineering (9/11) for what ever, unaccounted for reason, and instead invests in pure fear mongering constructing a fortress of hopelessness to hide in OR, mystical jargon entrenched in ancient dogmatic beliefs currently responsible for massive warfare occupying a significant segment of the world.

Wuz up with your brain people?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> While Wiz had a 9/11 thread, it uses no fact and Wiz was provided some very profound facts to perhaps reinforce his own beliefs in a a Rabbis projections in a mystical sense.
> 
> Agreement and acceptance with these legal, philosophical, historical facts doesn't mean one is free to take off on a merry-go-round of beliefs. It means one is equipped to start a logical and factual effort in the creation of greater unity enabling the alteration or abolishment of government destructive to unalienable rights.
> 
> Heavenly boy tries to work a worn out perspective that the Declaration off a Independence is not law and presents that it was forgotten after the constitution.
> 
> What is forgotten there is that as "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" it is our prerogative to derive the basis of intent wherever it logically is found. 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is a very logical place to find constitutional intent.
> ...


Recognizing phony pompous made up BS when one sees it, is a valid brain exercise and test. It's called recognition and discernment. 

Not, is a sure sign of brain damage.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Recognizing phony pompous made up BS when one sees it, is a valid brain exercise and test. It's called recognition and discernment. 
> 
> Not, is a sure sign of brain damage.


So, is it safe to assume that, upon reading this passage, when my brain started to hurt, that I do NOT have brain damage.




> The notion that there was such a competitive environment in the years of the framers that the original intents were intentionally obscured or left out is a fully rational position for the "rightful masters" to take as they work towards the elements of functional unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights. But no, that ruling, logical position is not assumed.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So, is it safe to assume that, upon reading this passage, when my brain started to hurt, that I do NOT have brain damage.


I'd say you are safe. Feel free to stop at any point, before it begins to hurt.  

BTW, whatever DID happen to Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?  

See the resemblance?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'd say you are safe. Feel free to stop at any point, before it begins to hurt.  
> 
> BTW, whatever DID happen to Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?  
> 
> *See the resemblance?*


Oh yes, well over a year ago.




> Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?


But I don't recall UEW being so belligerent and combative, or frankly, as dense as CAB.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Oh yes, well over a year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> But I don't recall UEW being so belligerent and combative, or frankly, as dense as CAB.


He may not have been, but we did manage to go several rounds on occasion about just who gets to sit down at the big table for dinner and who doesn't and why.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## Todd

> While Wiz had a 9/11 thread, it uses no fact and Wiz was provided some very profound facts to perhaps reinforce his own beliefs in a a Rabbis projections in a mystical sense.
> 
> Agreement and acceptance with these legal, philosophical, historical facts doesn't mean one is free to take off on a merry-go-round of beliefs.  It means one is equipped to start a logical and factual effort in the creation of greater unity enabling the alteration or abolishment of government destructive to unalienable rights.
> 
> Heavenly boy tries to work a worn out perspective that the Declaration of Independence is not law and presents that it was forgotten after the constitution.
> 
> What is forgotten there is that as "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" it is our prerogative to derive the basis of intent wherever it logically is found. 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is a very logical place to find constitutional intent.
> ...





> Christopher A. Brown has not made any friends yet


...

----------


## wizardwatson

> While Wiz had a 9/11 thread, it uses no fact and Wiz was provided some very profound facts to perhaps reinforce his own beliefs in a a Rabbis projections in a mystical sense.
> 
> Agreement and acceptance with these legal, philosophical, historical facts doesn't mean one is free to take off on a merry-go-round of beliefs.  It means one is equipped to start a logical and factual effort in the creation of greater unity enabling the alteration or abolishment of government destructive to unalienable rights.
> 
> Heavenly boy tries to work a worn out perspective that the Declaration of Independence is not law and presents that it was forgotten after the constitution.
> 
> What is forgotten there is that as "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" it is our prerogative to derive the basis of intent wherever it logically is found. 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is a very logical place to find constitutional intent.
> ...


My 9/11 Shemitah thread is based on Rabbi Cahn's two bestselling books The Harbinger and The Mystery of the Shemitah which are entirely fact based so you are just flat out lying now.  You haven't read the books like so many others so you have no basis to make accusations about "facts" concerning them.

The Shemitah Mystery is nothing but facts.  The book is non-fiction.  The question is what you think the "coincidences" of those facts mean.

Of course I have my own beliefs that the Rabbi's book reinforces, that doesn't change the "facts" he presents.

All the other crap you keep saying is just same old same old.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> So, is it safe to assume that, upon reading this passage, when my brain started to hurt, that I do NOT have brain damage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The notion that there was such a competitive environment in the years of the framers that the original intents were intentionally obscured or left out is a fully rational position for the "rightful masters" to take as they work towards the elements of functional unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights. But no, that ruling, logical position is not assumed.


Well ... it may have been safe to assume before you read it ... during or afterwards, however ... <insert hand-wiggle here>

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Recognizing phony pompous made up BS when one sees it, is a valid brain exercise and test. It's called recognition and discernment. 
> 
> Not, is a sure sign of brain damage.


Easy to say, but specificity and accountability will expose your fraud.

How about getting specific, be accountable.

What goes above, goes below.




> Well ... it may have been safe to assume before you read it ... during or afterwards, however ... <insert hand-wiggle here>


Specificity, accountability?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> The Shemitah Mystery is nothing but facts.  The book is non-fiction.  The question is what you think the "coincidences" of those facts mean.


All that is your topic, not mine.  If the info I brought to your topic is something you do not care to relate to your topic, that's your biz.

You know all about your topic, go over there and correlate it if you care to. 

 I know nothing about your topic.  If you show you care enough about it to try and correlate some of what I brought about 9/11 to the Rabbis product, you will at least be showing your interest in your own thread topic.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Christopher A. Brown has not made any friends yet


This of course pleases covert agents, but it's only relevance with regard to that fact, in this thread, is that it shows the intent of an agent in bringing the information to begin with.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> He may not have been, but we did manage to go several rounds on occasion about just who gets to sit down at the big table for dinner and who doesn't and why.


Holy $#@! that's right...I forgot about that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Easy to say, but specificity and accountability will expose your fraud.
> 
> How about getting specific, be accountable.
> 
> What goes above, goes below.


Well, if that is true, then that would seem to provide excellent rational and logical reasons to refrain from getting specific, and accountable. 

So be it. 

We all really have no interest in further feeding your paranoia. At least that's our "secret" plot. SHHHHH!

----------


## phill4paul

>

----------


## oyarde

> I always knew Danke was a insincere american.


Ya , so far , that is all I have got out of this .

----------


## oyarde

> Is there an appeal process? I really shouldn't be on your list, I am the epitome of a Sincere American. Ask anyone, ask Eduardo.


I can handle your appeal , ask me about my retainer later .Huge discount for you .This weekend only.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> 03-07-2014 03:20 PM
> "Is there an appeal process? I really shouldn't be on your list,


Of course, but you should have been able to figure out by now that all you have to do is take actions that a sincere American would take.  Like agreeing with and accepting prime constitutional principles.

*Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ULTIMATE purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?*

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## phill4paul

> 


  You just found a meme generator didn't you? Lol. Share it damnit!

----------


## Aratus

The more things change, the more they stay the same. imoho.
AF has multiple postings in this thread. I got talked about, too.

----------


## Aratus

> Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?





> And where the hell is Aratus???


Admin... Where the heck/dang/hades is AF? We all need him back a.s.a.p!

----------


## Danke

> Admin... Where the heck/dang/hades is AF? We all need him back a.s.a.p!



"We"?

----------


## Danke

Sincere Americans:

1. Christopher A. Brown
2. DamianTV  
3. ClydeCoulter
4. Danke
5. Spikender  
6. Mini-me

PROBATIONARY STATUS-Psychological issue? confused, or personal agenda placed over unconditional support for Americans prime constitutional right to alter or abolish.
1. Wizard Watson

InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
1. CPUd
2. Occam's Banana
3. acptulsa
4. Cutlerzzz
5. phill4paul
6. Ronintruth
7. Gunnyfreedom
8.[uAnti Federalist[/u]
9. pcosmar
10.Ronin Truth

----------


## Aratus

> "We"?

----------


## Origanalist

> Sincere Americans:
> 
> 1. Christopher A. Brown
> 2. DamianTV  
> 3. ClydeCoulter
> 4. Danke
> 5. Spikender  
> 6. Mini-me
> 
> ...


You sir, are no Sincere American.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You sir, are no Sincere American.


Well, that's common knowledge about the dankster. Not everyone can be sincere like you and I.

----------


## Anti Federalist

LOL - I had forgotten about that guy.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I know I probably shouldn't bother, but this thread is really tweaking my OCD...I get frustrated when I can't comprehend something, and that is what is happening here, frustration.
> 
> The OP will post something that seems to get very close to making some sense to me, then go off on some weird tangent that makes no sense to me.
> 
> Am I over thinking this, are we being trolled, what is the point??!!!
> 
> Besides being Sincere Americans...ugh...makes my head hurt.


iNsiNCerE

----------


## Swordsmyth

> iNsiNCerE


Is this another thread for secret code messages?

----------


## Origanalist

> Is this another thread for secret code messages?


Only if you're a sincere American. I didn't see you on the list.

----------


## Stratovarious

>

----------


## oyarde

> Sincere Americans:
> 
> 1. Christopher A. Brown
> 2. DamianTV  
> 3. ClydeCoulter
> 4. Danke
> 5. Spikender  
> 6. Mini-me
> 
> ...


I am not even convinced Cristopher A Brown is an American .

----------


## CCTelander

> I am not even convinced Cristopher A Brown is an American .



Perhaps not. But the real question is, is he SiNcErE?

----------


## oyarde

I predict Danke & christopher A Brown will both be excluded from the Nobel Peace Prize list this year.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I am not even convinced Cristopher A Brown is an American .


I'm not sure he was human.

----------


## Anti Federalist

And note...Christopher A. Brown was never banned.

Hate to hear he passed away, he sounded "sincere" enough.

----------

