A Message to the Liberty Movement

[Christopher A. Brown]

Because osan is a genuinely sincere and intelligent poster who has a brilliant way with words.

I don't make my case with as much wordsmithery, but the facts of the matter are simple, at least to me:

1 - The anti federalists were correct in their warnings and concerns about the 1787 constitution.

2 - And so was Lysander Spooner when he said: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

3 - Therefore, we have the right to alter or abolish this form of government and institute a new one, better suited to protecting and enhancing liberty.

4 - Certainly a peaceful sort of change is desired, but that needs to be spontaneous, like the Berlin Wall falling, which did not rely on large amounts pre planning and "free speech providing unity" beforehand. But in the end, I believe that only a credible display of force and the willingness to use it will result in the massive shift needed from our current trend to absolute despotism.

America has been the target of social infiltrations since before Spooner. But he is correct.
The loyalists took over the printed word and academia in order to steer the society into accepting the governmental infiltration that eventually completed after the civil war.

We did not and do not know enough about how infiltration and secrecy works to defend from it no matter what form of government exists. Or, even in anarchy we cannot resist secret collusions that create impetus to tyranny.

In Berlin, there is more awareness of the potentials of infiltration and secrecy. The people had unity in that awareness all along, or at least after hitter. It was just a matter of time.

It is very likely it will be our military displaying its force, if force is to be a critical element, in defense of the constitution by supporting the people as "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

Americans are deeply confused about unity from corporatism imbued into the society. What culture we had, we've lost, particularly in suburban and metropolitan areas. The psychological earmarks of this are a separation and assumption that we do not need agreement upon who we are and what we are doing.

Corporate media did that with about four generations of misleading while education left out the cooperative training towards meeting needs.

The contiguous land mass of Europe with various borders makes it much more difficult to mislead a significant mass, particularly following WWII.

America has been separated and effectively isolated from the rest of the world in order to facilitate a great misleading.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It is very likely it will be our military displaying its force, if force is to be a critical element, in defense of the constitution by supporting the people as "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

Yes, this I can see, or at least factions within.

Which, of course, would render that system useless to our opressors, as they, in their minds, could no longer be trusted.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Yes, this I can see, or at least factions within.

Which, of course, would render that system useless to our opressors, as they, in their minds, could no longer be trusted.

By "our oppressors" I assume you mean the infiltration of the federal government that has spread to the states in varying degrees.

And yes, that system of the military would no longer be under control of the infiltration if "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" took charge via Article V. Or at least control would be strictly defensive from other nations attempting to take advantage of the situation.

This is probably a good reason for soldiers to parallel the people with an Inquiry upwards in command to determine if they can be properly authorized by a constitutional civil government. Finding they can't basically puts them in a position to take their orders from the people.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html

If it cannot be seen there is a constitutional civil government, then the joint chiefs of staff need to be tested by soldiers to determine if they favor a truly constitutional civil government.
It's likely the MIC has alternate control over the joint chiefs, and the MIC is mostly a sidearm of the infiltration. All command will probably be tested according to the peoples priorities and definitions of constitutional intent.

For the civilian hawks to be comfortable, defensive potential would have to remain at the ready while the civil Government rearranged itself with regard to the infiltrations obsession with offensive military action.

It seems possible, if the civil government cannot quickly purge itself of infiltrations, that the military might operate as another branch of armed citizens with command authority going to those officers that can parallel the defined intents of the people who have initiated preparatory amendment.

The conquesting empire will be shutting down slowly. As Americans become more informed via the purpose of free speech restored during preparatory amendment.

Alongside of this, a portion of the rest of the world will relax as it realizes America is finally waking up.

Personally I feel we have a decent amount of good Americans in civil government and that even the bad ones do not want a complete breakdown all at once. Therefore orderly transfers of power within civil authority will cause purges of joint chiefs of staff too closely associated with the infiltrations or MIC.

FBI, CIA, NSA, secret service will see resignations as their counterparts of the infiltration, joint chiefs MIC, are purged. It's more important to learn what has happened than prosecute all violators. There are too many and the courts are not yet constitutional.

There will be another series of transfers of power in the banking industry which will be difficult and take some years as multinational corporations embedded in the MIC have to shift out of favored positions to avoid obvious criminality inherent to the restructuring that will be too collusive to maintain.

About this time the NWO is going to freak out because they are going to lose their secret source of funding.

All of that is dependent upon the peoples ability to agree upon prime constitutional intent and unify with political functionality around it for use of a Article V.
If we can't agree, tyranny under the current structures will continue with its slow dynamic takeover of every aspect of our lives making us compliant to whatever structures it thinks we can be formed to in order to meet its needs.

 

[osan]

You left out comment on the below. Such is not comprehensive and not competent in rational discussion.

Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown
The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Obviously structure and semantics are strong enough to last 226 years despite the act of 1871. You are wrong.

But in a very real sense they have not lasted that long. To have "The Constitution" as we currently do, is to have it more in name than anything else. The Constitution is not an all-or-nothing monobloc. It is a composite structure, as I am sure you will agree. Given that, how much of "The Constitution" does one still really have in the deepest spirit of the original? Given that most of the rights to which the document refers are now crushed under the heel of the government boot, please tell me the significance of paying some marginal lip-service to some scrawl on nearing-ancient parchment. When we no longer abide by the most singularly important aspects of the Constitution, does its technical status as the "law of the land" really matter?

Seriously now Christopher - why should be give the least damn about the Senate, House of Representatives, courts, and so on and so forth when the Bill of Rights, by FAR the most important section of the document, is all but ignored in toto? Ask yourself what it means when you say that it has lasted "226 years". It has been gutted in point of practice, has it not? Well now, you can still go and vote vote vote... whoopdee doo... Has voting restored your liberties? It surely has done nothing to help mine. So please, if you can articulate how and why the Constitution is relevant when the key players no longer pay it all that much mind, please do so.

In the past I have written what I shall now repeat: it is not the Constitution that has failed, but rather we, the "People" to whom it refers and for whom it was ostensibly drafted. The bottom line is that any constitution is only as good as the people over whom it purports to serve as Law. That said, it remains true that ours is weakly written, for had it been better constructed, then legislation such as the Act of 1871 would have been either impossible to enact or vastly more difficult.

I will again repeat myself: the jewels enshrined in our Constitution are imperiled by the dangerous structural elements and declarations also contained therein. The "power to lay taxes", without specific and strict delimitation, opened the door to what we have today. The absence of an explicitly expressed and properly designed, irrefutable mechanism for each individual human being to defeat legislative violations of their inherent rights has lead to heaps of such violations and the rise of the instruments to those ends - mainly police. As we have learned in the intervening years, especially since 9/11, the Constitution enshrined both the rights of man and the mechanisms for defeating them in a "law abiding" and peaceable population, which would be us.

Originally Posted by osan
And in such contexts, "compromise" is perhaps the most vile of all the words.

Are you saying that violence is better?

In some cases, it becomes the only solution that does not include capitulation to tyrants. Without violence, we'd be subjects of the Crown... that is, if any of us would even be alive.

Is that constitutional?

In the right circumstances, it most certainly is. Ref. the Second Amendment. As some say, "it ain't about duck hunting."

Are you constitutional by suggesting such a thing, or the effect of your ambiguity?

Not following your reference to my "ambiguity". I do not see where my words have been ambiguous. Can you point it out so I may respond clearly?

And you have not defined which compromise is "vile".

Any compromise on the fundamental and inherent rights of men is vile. No man may lay claim to the authority to deny any right of a free man to act in accord with the dictates of his will. This stands in contrast to one's authority to circumscribe the rights of men who stand under debt for the crimes of which they have been duly and rightly convicted or are in the process of committing.

Cherry picking in ambiguous obfuscation.

I may be guilty of some faults, flaws, and errors, but cherry picking is one of those things that I NEVER do for the sake of "winning". Therefore, you have somewhere misconstrued my intended meaning, perhaps through my flawed constructions or your poor eyesight, I cannot tell which. But cherry picking has not occurred. I will point out that there is a fundamental difference between cherry picking and unintentional omission, and that difference in intent.

If I cannot prevail with a clean argument, I will not argue and will, in fact, admit my inferior position and have the point in question settled. I am nothing, if not honorable in that regard.

No wonder AF is slamming you.

Can you show me?

Oh, now your vague ambiguity is "shorthand"

Your tone and the very content of this last statement seem to indicate that you are looking to pick a fight, which I do not grok in the least. I am attempting to have an adult discussion here, making points, asking questions, and so forth. You appear to be seeking to interpret my words as being somehow confrontational and disingenuous, which they are not. Furthermore, you appear to be reading into my words that which is not present. Here I am unable to help you, save to say that I am engaging in no chicanery whatsoever. I seek to learn and perhaps on occasion to illuminate, that is all. I have no agenda beyond this. Were it otherwise, I would have to assess my last five years on this site as a miserable failure... which it may be anyway, but not for that reason.

Originally Posted by osan
Here, my use of "states" might more precisely have been taken to mean that the PEOPLE of each of the states would have convened with each other to work out these irrelevant details of structure and procedure by which the functions of governance would be carried out and carried forth.






But you have NO DESCRIPTION of how the people would have convened.

So? I was not intending to speak of those mechanisms. I'd not even given it consideration because in the context of the discussion it was not relevant. If you are interested in my thoughts on it, just ask. I see no need to adopt a tone that takes on an accusatory quality. You appear to believe me ot be of nefarious intent, or are otherwise attempting to paint me in such a light. There is not much I can say about that.

Again, not comprehensive enough to be competent in this discussion BECAUSE I am defining HOW the people are to convene by describing how social unity can be created around "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all [resonable, honest] men".

Once again, your tone. Perhaps we should simply ignore one another because at this point I see no way that I am going to please you, save to agree fully with everything you write.

Prime constitutional intent relating to the ultimate purpose of free speech is what Americans can unify around.

They could also unify around my kitchen sink - all well and good, but to what effect? You accuse me of vagaries, then turn around and commit the self-same sin. You are becoming difficult to follow. Perhaps I am simply not smart enough?

Unity is convening in a social sense. When that escalates it becomes officially "convening". Accordingly, with your argument you are refusing to convene, to unify, to agree with "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all men" or at least those that are honest.

The hell? I can divine no rational sense of this at all. Apparently I was correct in assessing myself intellectually insufficient.

Originally Posted by osan
With the proper expression, understanding, and holding of the fundamental principles of human sovereignty and human relations, this potential would have remained vanishingly small. Smart people, imbued with the attitude of intolerant vigilance pursuant to their love and desire to be free, would flay and slay anyone who would date so much as suggest the adoption or imposition of anything that would diminish the Individual Prerogative. A nation of such übermenschen would be indomitable by would-be tyrants.







We have said almost exactly the same thing, except I have been specific and you have been vague.

OK, now I have to call "bullshit". I do not need to be epsilon-specific to make a valid argument that is generalized in order to express the point without writing a tome 3x the length of War and Peace. For heaven's sake man, have you no sense of proportion in terms of a given discussion? We can have that other discussion, but it requires you come at me with proper questions and not vaguely expressed quasi-accusations of disingenuousness, dishonesty, and general incompetence.

I specifically have stated that unity creates the power to defeat tyranny and I've defined that such statement IS constitutional intent but that one of the deficiencies of the constitution is that IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY state that fact.

OK... and?

It is by implication and inference. Both of which can be logically and competently made in this case.

IF the framers stated we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, THEN they intended for us to have power adequate to do so.

WHERE would that power come from?

Ultimately, the muzzles of their rifles. Therefore, the 2A.

Our unity is the only logical answer.

It is an element of the answer, not the entirety of it. As history shows, people can be convinced to rally around almost anything. Just look at sporting events.

Freedom of speech is the only possible logical answer.

You appear to conflate the necessary with the sufficient.

CONCLUSION-Free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Non sequitur.

Now, if you cannot compromise at this point, you will forever be the bitch of the infiltrated government that you hate so much you've developed intellectual myopia.

Oh BULLSHIT. You have your opinion, which you make clear, and I have mine. Let us leave it at that.

Originally Posted by osan
Those principles have been worked out right here in the past few weeks. I'd begun work on them years ago and finally put them forth to the rest and we came up with this. From these principles, the entire body of objectively correct and complete Law may be derived, which I will add would manifest the compact elegance that appears to have charmed so many about our Constitution. With that in hand, the nation would right itself in short order, were it to be recognized as the supreme and immutable law of the land.






Okay, I've read some of your blog and find it quite good relating to the united nations which I do not trust anymore than you. However, the same deficiency exist here where you skip over the social mechanism that enables unity.

What does my treatment of the UN have to do with the issue at hand?

You assume that definition of the positive and negative aspects completes your analysis.

I have assumed no such thing. I made an analytic statement and nothing more. I am afraid I can no longer trust what you write or the purpose behind it.

Honesty in discussion is required too.

And here you make yourself almost plain in your accusations.

You have a good day. Believe what you will, and I shall do the same.

End of discussion.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

But in a very real sense they have not lasted that long. To have "The Constitution" as we currently do, is to have it more in name than anything else.

The act of 1871 which renders it so and identifies that there has been an infiltration of government by very powerful elements.
The constitution still exists but American collective mental weakness or inability to unify as human beings in their own interest prevents our restoration of government under it.

Enough of your obfuscation.

In all of that you still did not indicate HOW Americans are to unify. You implied that rifles under the 2A are useful to defend rights, but again failed to define HOW those pointing the rifles became unified enough to be effective.

I see a large manipulation here between you and AF.

You pretend to be constitutional, he then applies his praise of you. You NEVER do accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable the unity needed to alter or abolish, as he never has.

You never defined what was so onerous about the definition of the purpose of free speech that prevents you from simply accepting it.

Conclusion:
You guys are covert agents attempting cognitive infiltration.

Cognitive infiltrators of American activist groups must say things that appear to support the constitution or rights under it, but of course can never actually agree to something which could spread into a group action of unity because that is against the agenda.

Correct, end of discussion.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I see a large manipulation here between you and AF.

You pretend to be constitutional, he then applies his praise of you. You NEVER do accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable the unity needed to alter or abolish, as he never has.

Conclusion:
You guys are covert agents attempting cognitive infiltration.

Oh god, I'm done with you and HVACTech.

I try to talk rationally to you and now I, along with osan and Gunny are agents.

I try to talk rationally to HVACTech the last time, and he called me a dickhead for posting interesting refrigeration info.

I try again here, and I'm a dangerous radical.

Enough, shaddup, both of your brands of crazy are pretentious, grating and boring.

Leave me out of your fevered fantasies.

ETA: FFS at least Fire11 was funny...

 

[Anti Federalist]

And derp on me, I try to give a neg rep to Chris and hit positive instead.

Shows you how often I do that.

Well, neg rep from here on out every time I see you calling a long established member here an "agent".

 

[CPUd]

Does this mean Anti Federalist is no longer on the list of sincere Americans?

 

[HVACTech]

But in a very real sense they have not lasted that long. To have "The Constitution" as we currently do, is to have it more in name than anything else. The Constitution is not an all-or-nothing monobloc. It is a composite structure, as I am sure you will agree. Given that, how much of "The Constitution" does one still really have in the deepest spirit of the original? Given that most of the rights to which the document refers are now crushed under the heel of the government boot, please tell me the significance of paying some marginal lip-service to some scrawl on nearing-ancient parchment. When we no longer abide by the most singularly important aspects of the Constitution, does its technical status as the "law of the land" really matter?

Seriously now Christopher - why should be give the least damn about the Senate, House of Representatives, courts, and so on and so forth when the Bill of Rights, by FAR the most important section of the document, is all but ignored in toto? Ask yourself what it means when you say that it has lasted "226 years". It has been gutted in point of practice, has it not? Well now, you can still go and vote vote vote... whoopdee doo... Has voting restored your liberties? It surely has done nothing to help mine. So please, if you can articulate how and why the Constitution is relevant when the key players no longer pay it all that much mind, please do so.

In the past I have written what I shall now repeat: it is not the Constitution that has failed, but rather we, the "People" to whom it refers and for whom it was ostensibly drafted. The bottom line is that any constitution is only as good as the people over whom it purports to serve as Law. That said, it remains true that ours is weakly written, for had it been better constructed, then legislation such as the Act of 1871 would have been either impossible to enact or vastly more difficult.

I will again repeat myself: the jewels enshrined in our Constitution are imperiled by the dangerous structural elements and declarations also contained therein. The "power to lay taxes", without specific and strict delimitation, opened the door to what we have today. The absence of an explicitly expressed and properly designed, irrefutable mechanism for each individual human being to defeat legislative violations of their inherent rights has lead to heaps of such violations and the rise of the instruments to those ends - mainly police. As we have learned in the intervening years, especially since 9/11, the Constitution enshrined both the rights of man and the mechanisms for defeating them in a "law abiding" and peaceable population, which would be us.



In some cases, it becomes the only solution that does not include capitulation to tyrants. Without violence, we'd be subjects of the Crown... that is, if any of us would even be alive.



In the right circumstances, it most certainly is. Ref. the Second Amendment. As some say, "it ain't about duck hunting."



Not following your reference to my "ambiguity". I do not see where my words have been ambiguous. Can you point it out so I may respond clearly?



Any compromise on the fundamental and inherent rights of men is vile. No man may lay claim to the authority to deny any right of a free man to act in accord with the dictates of his will. This stands in contrast to one's authority to circumscribe the rights of men who stand under debt for the crimes of which they have been duly and rightly convicted or are in the process of committing.



I may be guilty of some faults, flaws, and errors, but cherry picking is one of those things that I NEVER do for the sake of "winning". Therefore, you have somewhere misconstrued my intended meaning, perhaps through my flawed constructions or your poor eyesight, I cannot tell which. But cherry picking has not occurred. I will point out that there is a fundamental difference between cherry picking and unintentional omission, and that difference in intent.

If I cannot prevail with a clean argument, I will not argue and will, in fact, admit my inferior position and have the point in question settled. I am nothing, if not honorable in that regard.



Can you show me?



Your tone and the very content of this last statement seem to indicate that you are looking to pick a fight, which I do not grok in the least. I am attempting to have an adult discussion here, making points, asking questions, and so forth. You appear to be seeking to interpret my words as being somehow confrontational and disingenuous, which they are not. Furthermore, you appear to be reading into my words that which is not present. Here I am unable to help you, save to say that I am engaging in no chicanery whatsoever. I seek to learn and perhaps on occasion to illuminate, that is all. I have no agenda beyond this. Were it otherwise, I would have to assess my last five years on this site as a miserable failure... which it may be anyway, but not for that reason.



So? I was not intending to speak of those mechanisms. I'd not even given it consideration because in the context of the discussion it was not relevant. If you are interested in my thoughts on it, just ask. I see no need to adopt a tone that takes on an accusatory quality. You appear to believe me ot be of nefarious intent, or are otherwise attempting to paint me in such a light. There is not much I can say about that.



Once again, your tone. Perhaps we should simply ignore one another because at this point I see no way that I am going to please you, save to agree fully with everything you write.



They could also unify around my kitchen sink - all well and good, but to what effect? You accuse me of vagaries, then turn around and commit the self-same sin. You are becoming difficult to follow. Perhaps I am simply not smart enough?



The hell? I can divine no rational sense of this at all. Apparently I was correct in assessing myself intellectually insufficient.



OK, now I have to call "bullshit". I do not need to be epsilon-specific to make a valid argument that is generalized in order to express the point without writing a tome 3x the length of War and Peace. For heaven's sake man, have you no sense of proportion in terms of a given discussion? We can have that other discussion, but it requires you come at me with proper questions and not vaguely expressed quasi-accusations of disingenuousness, dishonesty, and general incompetence.



OK... and?



Ultimately, the muzzles of their rifles. Therefore, the 2A.



It is an element of the answer, not the entirety of it. As history shows, people can be convinced to rally around almost anything. Just look at sporting events.




You appear to conflate the necessary with the sufficient.



Non sequitur.




Oh BULLSHIT. You have your opinion, which you make clear, and I have mine. Let us leave it at that.



What does my treatment of the UN have to do with the issue at hand?




I have assumed no such thing. I made an analytic statement and nothing more. I am afraid I can no longer trust what you write or the purpose behind it.




And here you make yourself almost plain in your accusations.

You have a good day. Believe what you will, and I shall do the same.

End of discussion.

damn dude, not ONLY are you very obtuse, and that would tough enough...
but your verbosity is unparallelled!
heh, you really do like to pick on Chris.

I will again repeat myself: the jewels enshrined in our Constitution are imperiled by the dangerous structural elements and declarations also contained therein. The "power to lay taxes", without specific and strict delimitation, opened the door to what we have today. The absence of an explicitly expressed and properly designed, irrefutable mechanism for each individual human being to defeat legislative violations of their inherent rights has lead to heaps of such violations and the rise of the instruments to those ends - mainly police. As we have learned in the intervening years, especially since 9/11, the Constitution enshrined both the rights of man and the mechanisms for defeating them in a "law abiding" and peaceable population, which would be us.

lets look at the bolded statement shall we?

irrefutable mechanism for each individual human being to defeat legislative violations

this sir, will require

each individual human being

to provide "CONSENT"

why gosh!! that sounds like a spoonerism!

please explain sir. how we might amend the 2nd document to reflect and encompass your views.

I also await your definition of Entropy sir.
perhaps if thou was able to communicate concisely, you would not have to repeat thyself?

note to the general audience. I am noting just how MANY high ranking members are intentionally, choosing NOT to participate in intellectual defense of OUR Constitution.
I have stated OPENLY that AF and Osan are in VIOLENT opposition to our 2nd Constitution.
this fact has NOT been challenged in 2 days.
only Chris and Rev3 have stepped up to the plate. to defend our Constitution.
your silence is deafening.

 

[HVACTech]

Oh god, I'm done with you and HVACTech.

I try to talk rationally to you and now I, along with osan and Gunny are agents.

I try to talk rationally to HVACTech the last time, and he called me a dickhead for posting interesting refrigeration info.

I try again here, and I'm a dangerous radical.

Enough, shaddup, both of your brands of crazy are pretentious, grating and boring.

Leave me out of you fevered fantasies.

all I did was correct you. sorry you took it wrong.

and he called me a dickhead for posting interesting refrigeration info.

and yeah, I got a real FUCKING problem with Osans definition of Entropy.

Entropy of of mind is perhaps the greatest danger of them all.

would YOU like to define this word for him?

lets discuss the "entropy" of my mind shall we?

me wonders the Enthalpy of his mind. he is avoiding me..

perchance.. seeking shelter, sympathy and Heroin on another thread?

 

[HVACTech]

And derp on me, I try to give a neg rep to Chris and hit positive instead.

Shows you how often I do that.

Well, neg rep from here on out every time I see you calling a long established member here an "agent".

yeah, I just did the same thing, I will give you a neg rep as soon as I can.
I await yours sir.

 

[HVACTech]

Does this mean Anti Federalist is no longer on the list of sincere Americans?

did you have a point to make?
or simple forum sliding?

auto anarchist neg rep.

AND, just so we are on the same page, a "CPU" is a configurable relay assembly.
as a high level HVACTech. I know MANY high level IT techs.
for warned is for armed.

Osan impresses me NOT.
fuck with me. and I can check your credentials.
have a nice day!

 

[Anti Federalist]

all I did was correct you. sorry you took it wrong.

You wrote:

would you like me to appear impressed?

absorption refrigeration was the very first type discovered by mankind.

there are ONLY two types. absorption and vapor compression.

go ahead, fuck with me dickhead.

Yah, I'm still trying to figure out what set you off there...now, you offered an apology and I accepted, figuring all was well.

Then you write this:

I was fooled by that, and it is still right down at the bottom of the page.
the fact is, that RPF's most popular member by FAR, Anti-Federalist. stands in violent opposition to the Constitution.

7 years and nearly 60 thousand posts... wow.
and you are STILL quoting Lysander Spooner?

what you are pushing for here is clearly violent Revolution.

Those are fighting words, that in this day and age can get a person SWATTed or thrown in prison.

I am no more "popular" or a "ring leader" of anything, other than the fact that I have a lot reps, because I have a lot of posts, because I have a lot of desk time behind a computer, sadly.

I am in favor a hundred Bundy Ranches a day.

I am to assume you are not, and are of the mind that all those people should have been arrested or shot.

 

[CPUd]

did you have a point to make?
or simple forum sliding?

auto anarchist neg rep.

LOL are you high?

 

[Anti Federalist]

yeah, I just did the same thing, I will give you a neg rep as soon as I can.
I await yours sir.

I, quite frankly, do not care.

But you're fucking right Chris Brown is getting one next time I see him accusing, especially somebody like Gunny, one of few here that truly did "walk the walk", at great personal expense to himself, of being a government agent.

I don't care for his crazy, or yours, so blow it out yer ass from now on.

 

[HVACTech]

LOL are you high?

about what?
vague, stupid shit is forum sliding.
I asked you if you had a point to make. did you? and if so, what?

 

[osan]

I, quite frankly, do not care.

But you're fucking right Chris Brown is getting one next time I see him accusing, especially somebody like Gunny, one of few here that truly did "walk the walk", at great personal expense to himself, of being a government agent.

I don't care for his crazy, or yours, so blow it out yer ass from now on.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

Can someone cover me on this? I'll owe you two.

I don't know what is going on with some of these characters here, but it makes my head hurt - all this non sequitur has gone well past my limits of tolerance. It's like trying to think in the presence of a mental strobe-light pulsing at the precise frequency most likely to elicit grand-mal seizures in an otherwise healthy brain.

I am very reticent to call for banning anyone, if for no other reason than the fact that opposing POVs keep us on our toes and go a long way toward preventing us from sucking each others' dicks, conversationally speaking. The danger of myopia stemming from too much agreement is very real and the "competition" keeps us more honest and honed. But a few of the posters here seem to go well beyond the pale. Censorship ultra-sucks, but some noises just do not seem worth tolerating.

 

[HVACTech]

You wrote:



Yah, I'm still trying to figure out what set you off there...now, you offered an apology and I accepted, figuring all was well.

Then you write this:



Those are fighting words, that in this day and age can get a person SWATTed or thrown in prison.

I am no more "popular" or a "ring leader" of anything, other than the fact that I have a lot reps, because I have a lot of posts, because I have a lot of desk time behind a computer, sadly.

I am in favor a hundred Bundy Ranches a day.

I am to assume you are not, and are of the mind that all those people should have been arrested or shot.

I will explain it to you again, there are only two types. (thermoelectric is... wimpy)
I did NOT chose HVACTech randomly. I can defend it.
I presume and admire that you at least HAVE a position. this offers an avenue for discussion.
why did I fuck with CPUd?
twas for the same reason.
peace.
others learn when we..
pontificate.
can't stand the heat? get out of the kitchen!

 

[HVACTech]

Can someone cover me on this? I'll owe you two.

I don't know what is going on with some of these characters here, but it makes my head hurt - all this non sequitur has gone well past my limits of tolerance. It's like trying to think in the presence of a mental strobe-light pulsing at the precise frequency most likely to elicit grand-mal seizures in an otherwise healthy brain.

I am very reticent to call for banning anyone, if for no other reason than the fact that opposing POVs keep us on our toes and go a long way toward preventing us from sucking each others' dicks, conversationally speaking. The danger of myopia stemming from too much agreement is very real and the "competition" keeps us more honest and honed. But a few of the posters here seem to go well beyond the pale. Censorship ultra-sucks, but some noises just do not seem worth tolerating.

I am sorry Honey.



google is fucking with me.

sorry for the + rep. I will fix that when I can. ~hugz~

 

[wizardwatson]

Can someone cover me on this? I'll owe you two.

I don't know what is going on with some of these characters here, but it makes my head hurt - all this non sequitur has gone well past my limits of tolerance. It's like trying to think in the presence of a mental strobe-light pulsing at the precise frequency most likely to elicit grand-mal seizures in an otherwise healthy brain.

I am very reticent to call for banning anyone, if for no other reason than the fact that opposing POVs keep us on our toes and go a long way toward preventing us from sucking each others' dicks, conversationally speaking. The danger of myopia stemming from too much agreement is very real and the "competition" keeps us more honest and honed. But a few of the posters here seem to go well beyond the pale. Censorship ultra-sucks, but some noises just do not seem worth tolerating.

My brain is already broken. There's nothing these goobers can do to make me any worse.

I may seem to post angry but I chose that voice on here years ago. It simplifies things.

Being nice to people with no loyalty, respect, or intellectual honesty of any kind is a waste of time. You just have to reply to one set of words at a time. Don't think about what they are going to say next or if they'll change their mind. It's pointless. Half the people are just trolling for laughs anyway. You have to write for the general reader. Someone who +reps you one day will attack you the next.

I haven't seen any Ron Paul Republican flavored posts but maybe 1 in 100. I see shitloads of collectivism, inciting of violence, white supremacists, liars, and hosts of others, but the old guard seems to have either left or gone into hiding.

We could speculate that this is engineered, that there are in fact disinfo agents in here, but doesn't matter. Result is the same whether it's by design or natural forces.

Just keep speaking the truth the best you know how. As Nock said, we aren't writing for the masses, we're writing for the remnant.