A lawful and peaceful revolution.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I think I see the malfunction here..

our Constitution is simply our version of the "Rule of Law" in any given Republic.
therefore, the Constitution does not contain the "prime intent"

You'll be going up against Lincoln and what he said in an 1859 speech in Illinois.

"the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts"

And everyone knows that congress and the courts can only interpret the constitutions intent, not define it.

We contain it with our agreement, but the framing documents get very close as guides and Article V is law by which we define it with our states as part of each amendment.

Your agreement gets so empty that constitutional intent does not exist.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Do you recognize that most of the posters taking part in this particular topic are facetious in their actions and are simply utilizing you as a practice dummy with which to sharpen their supposed wits in an attempt to shred you down and discover your true intentions and possibly your true reason for creating this topic and posing these tough questions in increasingly elaborately worded and confusing ways that make the questions themselves difficult to answer?

Hah, of course. But they fail and the answers eventually become easier to
Make as well as understand as they grow in simplicity. I'm getting better with practice.

 

[Spikender]

Hah, of course. But they fail and the answers eventually become easier to
Make as well as understand as they grow in simplicity. I'm getting better with practice.

Cool.

You have to understand, with a lot of people, especially on this website, it's never "yes" or "no". It's always "Well..." and then three paragraphs later there still hasn't been an answer in the affirmative or the negative.

Don't worry, bud, you'll break through to people eventually.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

You missed the "calmly and lucidly" part. This is where they explain to the riot squad the 1787 constitution and abridgement of free speech. Then the people in the crowd will ask each officer if he accept the true purpose of free speech, then ones who don't will expose themselves as coginfil agents and immediately be dismissed by the ones who do.

Wrong, one or two officers completely get it and school their peers while the people approve. Cops can be very lucid when they know they are absolutely correct in non stressful situations.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Cool.

You have to understand, with a lot of people, especially on this website, it's never "yes" or "no". It's always "Well..." and then three paragraphs later there still hasn't been an answer in the affirmative or the negative.

Don't worry, bud, you'll break through to people eventually.

Exactly!

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Your only direct reply to me was #91. One whole sentence.

You already admitted on another thread that you dropped out of school at 8th grade.

It's hard to find a relative, coherent, intact sentence to reply to. Let alone seeing that more than one is copied and pasted or selected properly while working on a phone.

You can't find that admission because it doesn't exist.

I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara County high school system in the 3rd month of 8th grade for telling off a teacher. I did it far too well, no yelling, no cussing, just facts, observations of her psychological abuses and failures as a teacher for 3 months. She left the classroom in tears.

The class loved it because they watched her try and provoke me for 3 months. The school admins were very threatened by it and could not have me becoming a default leader.

I wish you would have answered the question. As close as you got was composing a malformed question in reply.

My only question, to simplify it for you, is that if you understand the "possible" greater purpose, how do you know they won't use "alter or abolish" to change the greater purpose?

Apples and oranges.

Alter or abolish addresses what we do to government destructive to unalienable rights.

The greater purpose of free speech is that practice of it creates understanding which leads to; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Or it enables the unity needed to alter or abolish.

You have things quite confused, at least you have most of the pieces. Happy to get it straightened out for you

 

[wizardwatson]

It's had to find a relative, coherent intact sentence to reply too. Let alone

seeing that more than one is copied and pasted or selected properly on a phone.

You can't find that admission because it doesn't exist.

I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara a County high school system in the 3rd month of 8th grade for

telling off a teacher. I did it far too well, no yelling, no cussing, just facts, observations of her psychological

abuses and failures as a teacher for 3 months.

The class loved it. The school admins were very threatened by it and could not have me becoming a default leader.

I wish you would have answered the question. As close as you got was composing a malformed question.

Ugh, you apparently still are under the impression that you have some kind of advantage. You are outgunned, dude.

The admission does exist. Excuse me for saying "dropped out" instead of expelled.

You really are deeply conditioned by the system, and probably graduated high

school where the social conditioning got you all programming into thinking like a socialist. I was such a rebel, I

was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara high school system in 8th grade and have not been back.

source thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473730-Constitutional-Intent-Baltimore-thread-

split&p=5855617&viewfull=1#post5855617

So yes, you didn't 'admit' to dropping out. But the point was only that you didn't have a formal education.

Apples and oranges.

Alter or abolish addresses what we do to government destructive to unalienable rights.

The greater purpose is that understanding leads to; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship

and love protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Or it enables the unity needed to alter or abolish.

You have things quite confused,

Or maybe you are confused.

I'm simply asking that what if people don't think the greater purpose is forgiveness, tolerance, love, etc? Couldn't they alter or abolish to support hate and evil instead?

In other words, what is the SOURCE of the morality? How do we determine the greater purpose? I guess maybe I'm trying to understand how exactly the "leads to" mechanism works.

As far as the mystical stuff, you've made it clear that while you claim to be an expert and understand it, you do not wish to discuss it with me. Which is your choice. I may just have to find someone who is willing.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Ugh, you apparently still are under the impression that you have some kind of advantage. You are outgunned, dude.

I'm simply asking that what if people don't think the greater purpose is forgiveness, tolerance, love, etc? Couldn't they alter or abolish to support hate and evil instead?

In other words, what is the SOURCE of the morality? How do we determine the greater purpose? I guess maybe I'm trying to understand how exactly the "leads to" mechanism works.

Okay, you have a keyboard and can type fast. That I'll admit

People would have to come up with some alternative that they can agree upon. They haven't and won't.

God is love and the source of morality, sheesh, you of all people should know that well. Hint = natural law.

We determine the greater purpose by shutting off corporate entertainment and then use our own survival and evolution in discussion as entertainment. Can you think of anything better that excludes those?

 

[wizardwatson]

Okay, you have a keyboard and can type fast. That I'll admit

People would have to come up with some alternative that they can agree upon. They haven't and won't.

God is love and the source of morality, sheesh, you of all people should know that well. Hint = natural law.

We determine the greater purpose by shutting off corporate entertainment and then use our own survival and evolution in discussion as entertainment. Can you think of anything better that excludes those?

That God is love is spoken in the New Testament. You are using the words of the apostles. Do you also agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that only through him can mankind be saved?

Ultimately, that is the primary question. You see, while you're system you've developed is quite clever, there is already a system in place which is designed to save mankind. That system was put in place by the Creator of the universe.

So natural law is simply the law that is written on our hearts.

Jeremiah 31 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

And the cornerstone, the center of this nexus is the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

Matthew 5 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So although I have agreed with the Founders intent, I made it quite clear that it wasn't my intent. Because my intent is not to pretend that anyone but the Lord is in control of things.

 

[wizardwatson]

Okay, you have a keyboard and can type fast. That I'll admit

People would have to come up with some alternative that they can agree upon. They haven't and won't.

God is love and the source of morality, sheesh, you of all people should know that well. Hint = natural law.

We determine the greater purpose by shutting off corporate entertainment and then use our own survival and evolution in discussion as entertainment. Can you think of anything better that excludes those?

So your "litmus test", has a corresponding version as relates to being a Christian.

1 John 4 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Now, it's clear to me that you do not. Which means the spirit of the anti-christ needs to be removed from you. I was trying to do that. You resisted the process.

I am the keeper of the gates of this temple. Last man standing so to speak. You can play around here with all the other evil spirits if you'd like, but I doubt you will make any progress. This is a Christian movement at root.

 

[wizardwatson]

Do you recognize that most of the posters taking part in this particular topic are facetious in their actions and are simply utilizing you as a practice dummy with which to sharpen their supposed wits in an attempt to shred you down and discover your true intentions and possibly your true reason for creating this topic and posing these tough questions in increasingly elaborately worded and confusing ways that make the questions themselves difficult to answer?

Is this reply supposed to be ironic?

Because it is.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

You see, while you're system you've developed is quite clever, there is already a system in place which is designed to save mankind. That system was put in place by the Creator of the universe.

You are mistaken in thinking I claim to have developed the system for unity and government I'm trying to promote.

Firstly, the framers of the founding documents created the system of the peoples control over government I seek to inform people of and invoke.

Secondly they learned of the greater purpose of free speech from the first people of this land. The belief systems of the colonists destroyed their civilization and now is destroying the descendants of colonists.

Notice the greater meaning of free speech is not in the first amendment. The belief systems of the colonists would not allow it, which is why freedom of religion is mentioned first. The greater meaning of free speech was seen to compete with those belief systems which under the more recent fears of crusade and inquisition then controlled a majority of the powerful people. Thusly religion was placed before freedom of speech and the greater meaning was not only left out, it was COMPLETELY REMOVED from written history.

Today, not only can Americans not unify, they cannot believe the needed unity to restore the republic the framers fashioned can be created.

That is how well the belief systems of religion have worked.

Whereas the practices of the first people derived from the creator very directly; via their acceptance of and capacity to work with their unconscious existence; to develop the understanding to create the greater meaning of free speech as a doctrine of civility that supports survival and evolution by nurturing the process of understanding itself, has survived and tries to return.

It is only through that capacity, despite remaining deeply suppressed, that the first people have managed to return the greater meaning of free speech through me, in the hopes that understanding and love can cause a return of a respect for the practice leading to understanding adequate to protect life on this planet.

So that system the creator put in place is our spirit of working together to survive and it is trying, free of dogmatic adhesion, to work.

To combine these things again, the system of creating understanding is needed to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish the corrupted government becoming destructive to our unalienable rights.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

What this means is that less truth propagates in the dark. Because in the dark people are less willing to attack a lie for fear of persecution, and more willing to tell lies for the love of pride.

The metaphors of dark and light need to be consistent with historical uses, convention, rather than used as labels subject to distorted meanings.

Light means something can be seen, dark means it cannot.

So what is said is that people who do not have information, because it is hidden, are subject to fear which weakens them. Weakened because they do not understand, they do not have enough information for that.

The word "pride" is being used in the paragraph as a metaphor of what is really response to social fears that are operated on unconsciously due to childhood conditioning and that which occurs later.

I have a hard time imagining how the confusion propagated to ask the following.

In other words, what is the SOURCE of the morality? How do we determine the greater purpose?

Again, apples and oranges.

The source of morality is love and understanding from natural sources, our instincts, as God rendered them over the vastness of time. The purpose was that we have a guide for survival and evolution towards the eternal.

 

[wizardwatson]

You are mistaken in thinking I claim to have developed the system for unity and government I'm trying to promote.

Firstly, the framers of the founding documents created the system of the peoples control over government I seek to inform people of and invoke.

Secondly they learned of the greater purpose of free speech from the first people of this land. The belief systems of the colonists destroyed their civilization and now is destroying the descendants of colonists.

Notice the greater meaning of free speech is not in the first amendment. The belief systems of the colonists would not allow it, which is why freedom of religion is mentioned first. The greater meaning of free speech was seen to compete with those belief systems which under the more recent fears of crusade and inquisition then controlled a majority of the powerful people. Thusly religion was placed before freedom of speech and the greater meaning was not only left out, it was COMPLETELY REMOVED from written history.

Today, not only can Americans not unify, they cannot believe the needed unity to restore the republic the framers fashioned can be created.

That is how well the belief systems of religion have worked.

Whereas the practices of the first people derived from the creator very directly; via their acceptance of and capacity to work with their unconscious existence; to develop the understanding to create the greater meaning of free speech as a doctrine of civility that supports survival and evolution by nurturing the process of understanding itself, has survived and tries to return.

It is only through that capacity, despite remaining deeply suppressed, that the first people have managed to return the greater meaning of free speech through me, in the hopes that understanding and love can cause a return of a respect for the practice leading to understanding adequate to protect life on this planet.

So that system the creator put in place is our spirit of working together to survive and it is trying, free of dogmatic adhesion, to work.

To combine these things again, the system of creating understanding is needed to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish the corrupted government becoming destructive to our unalienable rights.

Well, I'll admit, this is a lot more straightforward. But all we've really established is that we have a serious point of disagreement on a very fundamental level. We both agree with the Founders intent, but we both disagree about where it all went wrong. You say it's because dogmatic adhesion was in the way, I say it's because the people forgot God and turned from his ways.

So essentially you say the problem is because of abandoning the wisdom of the "First People".

I say it's from abandoning the laws of the God of Abraham.

Just want to point out here that the laws of the God of Abraham are public knowledge while your hypnosis based cryptology is shrouded in mystery and purposefully hidden for unknown reasons.

How exactly do we resolve this? There's no way in a thousand years as far as I'm concerned that I'd abandon my faith, what is to be done with me and the many others who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? How can we coexist?

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Well, I'll admit, this is a lot more straightforward. But all we've really established is that we have a serious point of disagreement on a very fundamental level. We both agree with the Founders intent, but we both disagree about where it all went wrong. You say it's because dogmatic adhesion was in the way, I say it's because the people forgot God and turned from his ways.

So essentially you say the problem is because of abandoning the wisdom of the "First People".

I say it's from abandoning the laws of the God of Abraham.

How exactly do we resolve this? There's no way in a thousand years as far as I'm concerned that I'd abandon my faith, what is to be done with me and the many others who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? How can we coexist?

If the leadership that removed the greater meaning of free speech knew in the beginning, why did they or anyone abandon laws of God?

Then, minimizing the proper term of "destroying the first people and removing the greater meaning of free speech" lacks fidelity to understanding, tending to occlude, to obscure, to darken the truth.

But, to be fair, the worst of that happened occurred after the civil war when crusaders took over the federal government. Keeping that distinct difference present is important to both of our positions.

There is no need to abandon your beliefs, but there is a need to recognize the natural law underlying them in terms free of dogma that allow understanding.

 

[wizardwatson]

The metaphors of dark and light need to be consistent with historical uses, convention, rather than used as labels subject to distorted meanings.

Light means something can be seen, dark means it cannot.

So what is said is that people who do not have information, because it is hidden, are subject to fear which weakens them. Weakened because they do not understand, they do not have enough information for that.

The word "pride" is being used in the paragraph as a metaphor of what is really response to social fears that are operated on unconsciously due to childhood conditioning and that which occurs later.

Why take something I said that's simple and make it more complex? Why not simplify it further.

People gossip and talk about others when no one is looking. Aggression enhancing.
People are more willing to give into gossip when their small group is doing it. Peer pressure. Won't attack what they know is a lie.
People are more willing to boast when there's no one to contradict and peer pressure rules the group. Love of pride.

So it's always better to promote social unity in the open. Secret groups within the group break it down. Even if the "group" is a nebulous set of rule based behavior designed to inhibit unity as you describe.

 

[wizardwatson]

I have a hard time imagining how the confusion propagated to ask the following.

In other words, what is the SOURCE of the morality? How do we determine the greater purpose?

Again, apples and oranges.

The source of morality is love and understanding from natural sources, our instincts, as God rendered them over the vastness of time. The purpose was that we have a guide for survival and evolution towards the eternal.

It's very simple why there is confusion. You are blaspheming the name of God, consistently. You keep saying God is like this and this and this.

There is only one God. And there is no one with him. And this God sent his Son into the world.

You don't believe that.

So who is this God you speak of?

Because it isn't the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Why take something I said that's simple and make it more complex? Why not simplify it further.

Cognitive distortions, labels, are only functional when used within a framework of understanding.

Simplification at the expense of accuracy is not worth it.

Here is a list of cognitive distortions for later reference.

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure.

3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.

6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established

7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.

8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation. ie.

9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.

12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

 

[wizardwatson]

Cognitive distortions, labels, are only functional when used within a framework of understanding.

Simplification at the expense of accuracy is not worth it.

Here is a list of cognitive distortions for later reference.

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure.

3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.

6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established

7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.

8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation. ie.

9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.

12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

God = Creator of Universe, God of Bible, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Holy One of Israel, Father of Lord Jesus Christ

Is that accurate enough?

When you use the label God, what do you mean? I don't think I'm the one distorting or being inaccurate here. At least not on the very important matter of God.

 

[Ender]

Cognitive distortions, labels, are only functional when used within a framework of understanding.

Simplification at the expense of accuracy is not worth it.

Here is a list of cognitive distortions for later reference.

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure.

3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.

6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established

7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.

8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation. ie.

9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.

12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

WRONG.

Over talking/explaining/rambling and pontification distort ALL messages.

Try the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid

You will be amazed at how much more understanding and support you will get.