America at Red Giant stage

[Ender]

Holy crap! What long winded sniveling.

And only sniveling, totally unwilling to do anything about it. Even agreement upon prime constitutional rights as a start to a lawful and peaceful revolution is more than AF can manage.

AF sez "Leave that for the sincere Americans that do shit, I'm just a sniveler".

As I have said- why do you repeatedly accuse others of what YOU are:

 

[bunklocoempire]

No, but there was a thread about a county parking ordinance preventing people for parking I their own property. I tried to find it but the search function on this site doesn't work well.

Google works better for searching this site, ironically.

I read the story. A different issue more dealing with an extreme shortage of parking on public street than trying to control peoples uses of their own property like agenda 21 does.

Thanks for your answer. It answers me much. Good luck.

It seems a little mercy is in order.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Thanks for your answer. It answers me much. Good luck.

It seems a little mercy is in order.

My bad, this is that thread

Hard to believe AF rates the HOA parking issue to America going into the "red giant" phase. But he does start the thread with that as signaling such a phase.

So much evasion in getting accountability to accepting solution, when many problems are solved the same way, and he's not interested in solution for anything, I have hard time keeping track of which thread I'm in on a phone.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I have hard time keeping track of which thread I'm in on a phone.

Does it really matter? Pretty much every thread you start spamming seems to end up the same, anyway.

You're like a Borg thread-assimilator ...

 

[Anti Federalist]

Hard to believe AF rates the HOA parking issue to America going into the "red giant" phase.

The OP has nothing to do with an HOA.

The county passed an “open space community” zoning ordinance after the Oviedo family bought their house. Faster than you can say ex post facto, it became an offense – punishable – for any homeowner to have more than two cars parked outside.

It was local government.

The point has little to do with cars and parking however.

This is the point:

Which is what it’s coming down to in red giant stage America. A red giant is a sun on the verge of going supernova – or collapsing in on itself and becoming either a black hole or a crisped out cinder of its former self. Its main fuel (hydrogen) spent, it burns other, less (and less) fissionable elements until – at last – there is no longer anything left to burn.

America is a red giant.

The liberty that was its fuel for so many generations is virtually spent. There is no longer any aspect of our lives not subject to interferences, orders, micromanagement… and ultimately, punishment. Not because of a harm caused. But only because someone else doesn’t like whatever it is you’re doing and wants you to stop doing it – or wants you to do something else.

Our freedoms are nullities. We exist on sufferance. There is nothing that’s off limits. No tiny corner of peace where we may rest secure in the knowledge that no one may interfere with us – under color of law, at least.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

The OP has nothing to do with an HOA.

It was local government.

The point has little to do with cars and parking however.

This is the point:

Okay, but why won't you explain why you do not accept that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is to enable the unity to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

What is the great sacrifice in accepting that?

Here is your history of unaccountability and evasion.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Giant-stage&p=5947153&viewfull=1#post5947153

There is no longer any aspect of our lives not subject to interferences, orders, micromanagement… and ultimately, punishment.

And you do not advocate any way for even the people counter that for their own interests.

As I've stated, you construct a fortress of hopelessness and acknowledge no fact which counters that.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Does it really matter?

Are you trying to say that the peoples unalienable rights do not matter to you?

What is your plan to stop their destruction by government?

Pretty much every thread you start spamming seems to end up the same, anyway.

You're like a Borg thread-assimilator ...

Why do you not accept the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish?

Why do you not agree that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to alter or abolish and protect those rights?

Do you have any accountability?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Okay, but why won't you explain why you do not accept that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is to enable the unity to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

What is the great sacrifice in accepting that?

And you do not advocate any way for even the people counter that for their own interests.

As I've stated, you construct a fortress of hopelessness and acknowledge no fact which counters that.

Oh sweet Jesus, why do I bother...

OK, once again, I did agree, my quote is in post #15 in this thread.

What you just cannot comprehend, whether it's because you are deliberately obtuse, trolling me, or really are clueless, is that there is no unity.

There can be no action taken, of the kind you wish, unless and until you have, maybe not a full majority, at the very least a strong minority.

And there is nothing, nothing even close to that right now.

The vast majority of AmeriKa thinks everything is just hunky dory, and at the worst, think just getting rid of or electing (insert Politician X here) and everything will be unicorn farts and candy mountains.

Unless and until they are educated and made aware of what is going on, there will be no action to "alter or abolish" any damn thing.

 

[tod evans]

Oh sweet Jesus, why do I bother...

Box-O-Rocks man........

 

[Occam's Banana]

Does it really matter?

Are you trying to say that the peoples unalienable rights do not matter to you?

Nice try, but no dice. You don't get to cut my words out of context and then assign them to whatever other context you please.

Here is what I actually replied to:

I have hard time keeping track of which thread I'm in on a phone.

Does it really matter? [...]

So ... are you trying to say that having a hard time keeping track of which thread you are in when you're on a phone is a violation of your unalienable rights?

(I wonder ... what did the framers intend vis-à-vis viewing forum threads on phones ...?)

What is your plan to stop their destruction by government?

It certainly isn't to annoy the hell out of other people by obsessively spamming threads with tediously repititive declarations and interrogations.

(After all this time, how many have you won to your "cause?" Are you aware of the definition of insanity apocryphally attributed to Einstein?)

Why do you not accept the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish?

I have never said that they did not intend such a thing. It appears to me that some of them (such as Jefferson) did - and that others (such as Hamilton) did not.

In any case, I have no problem with anyone anywhere (not just Americans) "altering or abolishing" their government.

More power to 'em, I say - and "ultimately," it's got nothing at all to with what some old dead guys might or might not have intended ...

(The framers intended to permit Americans to continue the practice of human chattel slavery. Are you going to insist that we adopt that intention as well?)

Why do you not agree that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to alter or abolish and protect those rights?

Because it isn't. Liberty does not require the "justification" of any "ultimate" purposes.

Apart from the particular purpose(s) any given speaker might have for speaking, speech ("free" or otherwise) has no purpose ("ultimate" or otherwise).

(And only Borg who are hell-bent on the assimilation of all into some kind of hive-mind could think that it does ...)

Do you have any accountability?

Why, yes. Yes, I do.

I just don't have any accountability to YOU.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Why, yes. Yes, I do.

I just don't have any accountability to YOU.

Well stated.

 

[opal]

Just another reason to not buy where there's any HOA in the vicinity.. they spread like wet cement





aside.. these threads go so much faster when I use a fantastic forum feature called "ignore" for trolls

and another one is added to the list

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Why do you not agree that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to alter or abolish and protect those rights?

Because it isn't. Liberty does not require the "justification" of any "ultimate" purposes.

Uh, you've just intentionally misinterpreted what was stated.

What was stated in other words was that the peoples preservation of liberty requires the peoples unity.

Why, yes. Yes, I do.

I just don't have any accountability to YOU.

Do you have accountability to your position on the preservation of liberty? Can you show the accountability you state you have, so Americans can see it, making it meaningful towards the preservation of liberty?

If you do not think your showing accountability to other Americans is needed to preserve liberty, please show how your accountability IS meaningful towards preserving liberty without showing accountability.

 

[JK/SEA]

Box-O-Rocks man........

i should neg rep you for insulting rocks.

 

[Cissy]

My bad, this is that thread

Hard to believe AF rates the HOA parking issue to America going into the "red giant" phase. But he does start the thread with that as signaling such a phase.

So much evasion in getting accountability to accepting solution, when many problems are solved the same way, and he's not interested in solution for anything, I have hard time keeping track of which thread I'm in on a phone.

If you have a hard time telling threads apart, you will likely find it helpful to write a reasoned, nonspamming reply to each thread.

It takes more effort than copying and pasting the same material, but it aids in comprehension.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why do you not agree that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to alter or abolish and protect those rights?

Because it isn't. Liberty does not require the "justification" of any "ultimate" purposes.

Uh, you've just intentionally misinterpreted what was stated.

"Uh," I haven't misinterpreted anything. You asked a question. I answered it.

I told you why I do not agree. You've just intentionally ignored that answer.

What was stated in other words was that the peoples preservation of liberty requires the peoples unity.

That is NOT what you "stated in other words." THIS is what you asked (emphasis added):

Why do you not agree that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to alter or abolish and protect those rights?

And THIS is what I answered: (I have underlined the most directly relevant parts this time, so you won't have any excuse for pretending they aren't there.)

Because it isn't. Liberty does not require the "justification" of any "ultimate" purposes.

Apart from the particular purpose(s) any given speaker might have for speaking, speech ("free" or otherwise) has no purpose ("ultimate" or otherwise).

(And only Borg who are hell-bent on the assimilation of all into some kind of hive-mind could think that it does ...)

Or to paraphrase Lord Acton: "Free speech is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end."

Furthermore, if anything, "free speech" promotes, fosters and "enables" disunity, not unity - as I have told you before:

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

No, I don't. In fact, I categorically reject the thesis, root and branch. Quite frankly, I think it's a load of happy-crappy.

Free speech does NOT enable "unity" - if anything, exactly the opposite is the case: free speech enables disunity. (And that's a good thing ...)

Or to put it another way: free speech is to disunity as unfree speech is to "unity" (or the illusion of such) [see Orwell, George: 1984].

If "unity" signifies so greatly to you, then "free speech" ought not even be on your list of concerns - let alone as any kind of "ultimate" thing.

Nor had I noticed that you are not free to speechify about means "adequate to effectively alter or abolish" (or whatever it is you like going on about so much). Indeed, given the monomaniacal profligacy of your posts concerning the matter, one is rather led to the contrary conclusion.

Not to mention the fact that if you really gave a damn about "free speech," then you would not feel the need to post any "notices" preemptively denouncing anyone who has the temerity to disagree with what you say.

I'll say it again, in case it still isn't clear:

Free speech does not have any "ultimate purpose." It is merely one of the necessary and defining characteristics of any free society.

And in any case, free speech certainly does NOT foster "unity" - because free speech results in greater diversity (NOT uniformity) of thought and opinion.

It is for precisely this reason that unfree societies seek to foster "unity" (or the illusion of such) by curtailing, prohibiting or punishing free speech.

Liberty does not consist in the (positive) "enablement of unity," but rather in the (negative) toleration of disunity.

Do you have accountability to your position on the preservation of liberty? Can you show the accountability you state you have, so Americans can see it, making it meaningful towards the preservation of liberty?

If you do not think your showing accountability to other Americans is needed to preserve liberty, please show how your accountability IS meaningful towards preserving liberty without showing accountability.

I'm curious - in Borg-talk, is "accountablity" some kind of code word for publicly announcing one's "assimilation" into the hive-mind ... ?

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

"Uh," I haven't misinterpreted anything. You asked a question. I answered it.

Not an answer to my question. My question is misrepresented by your RESPONSE.

What is your plan to protect unalienable rights? Do you have one?

And this guy is wrong while you refuse or fail to define how the power needed to alter or abolish is acquired by the people without the PURPOSE of free speech serving to create unity which is power.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Not an answer to my question. My question is misrepresented by your RESPONSE.

I misrepresented nothing. I answered you - but you just don't like the answer (and you've got nothing but droning repitition to offer in rebuttal).

So go away, Borg. "Assimilation is futile. You will be resisted."

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Free speech does not have any "ultimate purpose." It is merely one of the necessary and defining characteristics of any free society.

But you are not accountable enough to explain reasonably how that free society has the power to resist tyranny or where that power comes from. Accordingly you are not reasonable.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Accordingly you are not reasonable.

You'll have to excuse me while I laugh hysterically at being called "not reasonable" by someone who says the following (from your signature - bold emphasis added):

You always want what you need, but do not always need what you want.

People that do not want what they need, have a problem.

If "you always want what you need," then how can there be "people that do not want what they need" ... ?

(Unless, of course, "you" are not "people" ... but if "you" are not "people" ... then what could "you" be ... ? *cough*Borg*cough* ...)