Grading the Threads

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

In an attempt to raise standards in this forum, I have picked at random these top 10 threads to grade. The criteria used to judge these threads are based on:

a) How does this thread challenge a national media who support openly an agenda to ignore Dr. Ron Paul and other Independents and Third parties?
b) How does this thread challenge the myth that Dr. Ron Paul attracts extremists?
c) Does this thread perpetuate conspiracy?
d) Does this thread forsake the use of rational thought processes for the sake of using the political spectrum?
While there is certainly other criteria that one can use when judging the quality of these threads, I am well aware that many who post in here don't have the time to be thoughtful.

1) Both McCain and Obama are left-handed, is that "sinister" or what?

C-
This post is harmless really. Just a current event humor thing. This would be a great post to have your children practice their reading.

2) Comedian George Carlin dies

B- A weakness in this thread is how it posts a link without a comment. But it is a good thread because George Carlin is a political figure as well as an entertainer.

3) 49% think Feds should regulate Internet

D
This thread is not rational in that it clearly leads 49% of the people to be belittled and ridiculed by thread responders. It is an irrational thread in the way it doesn't take the trouble to present both sides of the debate. Of course, this 49% of the people here represent lame homosexuals, emotional women, uneducated blue collar workers and rebellious minorities and so on. Catch words conservatives are left to determine are:

Social
One World Government
The Collective
Capitalist Pigs

4) Peak Oil

D+
I was going to respond to this thread but then realized it demanded proof. So I held my peace. I like the way this fellow posts like a professor. He just writes the question on the board and then leaves the room.
If this were 1986 I would give this thread an A+. While there is a question whether global warming is real, there is no question that 2.6 billion Chinese and Indians desire to drive cars. So, the supply of oil should no longer be considered the problem as much as environment.

5) Man Declares Independence from UK!!!

C-
This is another harmless current event story. Remember that these were the kinds of stories that the national media aired rather than report on the more serious issues Dr. Ron Paul wanted to discuss.

6) Neocon Kristol: Bush might bomb Iran if he thinks Obama will win

F
This thread lacks a comment while it pretends to be unbiased. But that isn't what gives it an F. The thread gets an F because it mentions the policy of a lame duck president while it refers to Israel in a negative way -- albeit in a very indirect round about way. Rule number 101: Never say anything negative about the Jewish people or the nation of Israel for such is political suicide. Enough said. Just put on your best face by remembering that Jews are normal human beings much like Mexicans. No more, no less.

7) Israel Getting Ready to Bomb Iran

F
Ditto.

8) Article: Republics vs. Democrac

B+
Although the author fails to write an introduction to this thread, the posted link deals with the extenisive history read by our founding fathers when they were creating the masterpiece which is the United States government.

9) an essay on trial by jury

C
This thread does nothing to add to or take away from Dr. Ron Paul and his "Revolution." It is just "there." Let me add that I think peole in here read far too many books. Not enough care is taken in the dicisions regarding whether the material written is poisonous or not. Let us remember that consumption is not always good. Most times it is just better to remain ignorant.

10) U.S. Spinning Out of Control?

F
Conspiracy angle.

[pcosmar]

Grading the Threads

F

[New York For Paul]

xx

[Truth Warrior]

Grading the Threads

F

QFT!

+ a bunch

;)

[brandon]

Ron Paul drinks fiji water!

A+

[asgardshill]

How does Yongrel so eloquently put it?

Oh yeah, now I remember.

:rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Grading the Threads

F

I base my grades on the following criteria:
a) How does this thread challenge a national media who support openly an agenda to ignore Dr. Ron Paul and other Independents and Third parties?

We only have 4 years to address this problem. So, how does one go about doing this? One does it by questioning the quality of those who edit. Does the editor edit the quality of the writing or does he or she repress political content? One can expose poor editing by reporting the news that the media are repressing (This happens a lot). This takes diligence and a very serious mind so we should drop the habbit of posting nonsense.

b) How does this thread challenge the myth that Dr. Ron Paul attracts extremists?

Dr. Ron Paul attracts both liberals and conservatives and yet extremist threads posted in here belittle both liberals and conservatives. I know that I am a moderate American who will kick the ass of anyone who claims otherwise.

c) Does this thread perpetuate conspiracy?

While media bias is a problem that needs addressing, links are posted in here often which substantiate the media and their policy of airing news entertainment rather than the serious news Dr. Ron Paul likes to discuss.

d) Does this thread forsake the use of rational thought processes for the sake of using the political spectrum as a playing field?

Just because I am on our side, it doesn't mean that I understand you. In order to keep politics intelligent, we need to take the little trouble necessary to keep it from becoming a sporting event between baby blue conservatives and hot pink liberals. This requires that the author use a rational thought process when writing.

[Truth Warrior]

I base my grades on the following criteria:
a) How does this thread challenge a national media who support openly an agenda to ignore Dr. Ron Paul and other Independents and Third parties?

We only have 4 years to address this problem. So, how does one go about doing this? One does it by questioning the quality of those who edit. Does the editor edit the quality of the writing or does he or she repress political content? One can expose poor editing by reporting the news that the media are repressing (This happens a lot). This takes diligence and a very serious mind so we should drop the habbit of posting nonsense.

b) How does this thread challenge the myth that Dr. Ron Paul attracts extremists?

Dr. Ron Paul attracts both liberals and conservatives and yet extremist threads posted in here belittle both liberals and conservatives. I know that I am a moderate American who will kick the ass of anyone who claims otherwise.

c) Does this thread perpetuate conspiracy?

While media bias is a problem that needs addressing, links are posted in here often which substantiate the media and their policy of airing news entertainment rather than the serious news Dr. Ron Paul likes to discuss.

d) Does this thread forsake the use of rational thought processes for the sake of using the political spectrum?

Just because I am on our side, it doesn't mean that I understand you. In order to keep politics intelligent, we need to take the little trouble necessary to keep it from becoming a sporting event between baby blue conservatives and hot pink liberals. This requires that the author use a rational thought process when writing.

Explaining "Grading the Threads".

F

[HOLLYWOOD]

Delete this stupid thread...

Grading, the Grading of Threads:

F-

[acptulsa]

Explaining "Grading the Threads".

F

They can't all be gems.

I disagree. One the one hand, there's a lot to be said for, let's just enjoy our forum and let people enjoy it who will and leave if they don't. On the other hand, we should put at least a little thought into whether this forum is just a place for us to use to organize and socialize, or if this can be a useful tool for education. The latter takes a little thought and self-control.

[pcosmar]

They can't all be gems.

I disagree. One the one hand, there's a lot to be said for, let's just enjoy our forum and let people enjoy it who will and leave if they don't. On the other hand, we should put at least a little thought into whether this forum is just a place for us to use to organize and socialize, or if this can be a useful tool for education. The latter takes a little thought and self-control.
An opinion is just that, an opinion.
You either agree, disagree or expand on the idea.
Grading is not necessary except on a personal level.

When encountering a DUMB thread you have two choices, leave it alone or comment.
When encountering a GREAT thread you have two choices, leave it alone or comment.

[Truth Warrior]

They can't all be gems.

I disagree. One the one hand, there's a lot to be said for, let's just enjoy our forum and let people enjoy it who will and leave if they don't. On the other hand, we should put at least a little thought into whether this forum is just a place for us to use to organize and socialize, or if this can be a useful tool for education. The latter takes a little thought and self-control.

Rationalizing: Explaining: Grading the threads!

F
:D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

They can't all be gems.

I disagree. One the one hand, there's a lot to be said for, let's just enjoy our forum and let people enjoy it who will and leave if they don't. On the other hand, we should put at least a little thought into whether this forum is just a place for us to use to organize and socialize, or if this can be a useful tool for education. The latter takes a little thought and self-control.

As people have the freedom to post nonsense in here, I have the freedom to set a standard. This is how liberty works. So far the response has been by and large ad hominem nonsense rather than someone posting criteria to challenge the method of grading in the OP.

[acptulsa]

When encountering a DUMB thread you have two choices, leave it alone or comment.
When encountering a GREAT thread you have two choices, leave it alone or comment.

I know I try to bump responsibly.





Did I just sound like I was advocating condom usage? Sorry.

[Truth Warrior]

As people have the freedom to post nonsense in here, I have the freedom to set a standard. This is how liberty works. So far the response has been by and large ad hominem nonsense rather than someone posting criteria to challenge the method of grading in the OP.
Supporting: Rationalizing: Explaining: Grading the Threads!

F

[acptulsa]

Obnoxiously repeating the same big scarlet letter:

FU!

[Truth Warrior]

I know I try to bump responsibly.

C

Did I just sound like I was advocating condom usage? Sorry.

A+ :D



;)

[Truth Warrior]

Obnoxiously repeating the same big scarlet letter:

FU!
Felix Unger? :D

[acptulsa]

Felix Unger? :D

At least I got some variety out of you! :)

[Truth Warrior]

At least I got some variety out of you! :)
At least I got you off the UEW bandwagon! :D ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

;)

Did I happen to grade one of your threads earlier, Truth Warrior? In my effort to be completely impartial, I just can't remember. Well, whatever the case, have I ever complemented you on your wholesome writing style? I am tempted to save your posts just so children can recite from them.

C+

[acptulsa]

I like Unc. He makes people think. Obviously, this nation could use a lot more of him!

[Mahkato]

I don't think "grading" threads is worthwhile, but I would like to see a +1/-1 button on each thread and comment, similar to what Digg has. For that matter, a threaded comment system like Digg's would be nice as well, but I know not everyone agrees.

[Truth Warrior]

Did I happen to grade one of your threads earlier, Truth Warrior? In my effort to be completely impartial, I just can't remember. Well, whatever the case, have I ever complemented you on your wholesome writing style? I am tempted to save your posts just so children can recite from them.

C+

.... my effort to be completely impartial ......

F

[Truth Warrior]

I like Unc. He makes people think. Obviously, this nation could use a lot more of him!
He makes me think, what the hell is this guy really talking about? :D

[Truth Warrior]

I don't think "grading" threads is worthwhile, but I would like to see a +1/-1 button on each thread and comment, similar to what Digg has. For that matter, a threaded comment system like Digg's would be nice as well, but I know not everyone agrees.
We've got the gold star ranking system. :) Works for me! ;)

[Acala]

As people have the freedom to post nonsense in here, I have the freedom to set a standard.

No, you DON'T have the freedom to SET a standard. You can post your opinions and put them in the form of a grading system. But setting a standard is not a unilateral exercise unless you are a monarch. You aren't (although you ARE king of oblique rhetoric and metaphorical malapropism).

Setting a standard here requires that people agree with your proposal. So far it doesn't appear to be fairing well.

People just don't want to sit at the dinner table with self-appointed judges.

[Truth Warrior]

No, you DON'T have the freedom to SET a standard. You can post your opinions and put them in the form of a grading system. But setting a standard is not a unilateral exercise unless you are a monarch. You aren't (although you ARE king of oblique rhetoric and metaphorical malapropism).

Setting a standard here requires that people agree with your proposal. So far it doesn't appear to be fairing well.

People just don't want to sit at the dinner table with self-appointed judges.
;) :D

[yongrel]

I sleep in this morning, and I wake up to find this?

*sigh*

[Anti Federalist]

I'll comment on threads that I have started that "professor professor" has graded:

UEW wrote:


3) 49% think Feds should regulate Internet

D
This thread is not rational in that it clearly leads 49% of the people to be belittled and ridiculed by thread responders. It is an irrational thread in the way it doesn't take the trouble to present both sides of the debate. Of course, this 49% of the people here represent lame homosexuals, emotional women, uneducated blue collar workers and rebellious minorities and so on.

How is that "not rational"?

That was a result from a nationally recognized polling company (Rasmussen) that indicates a major freedom disconnect in the majority of the American people. Nothing could be more relevant or important to understand than that.

UEW wrote:


6) Neocon Kristol: Bush might bomb Iran if he thinks Obama will win

F
This thread lacks a comment while it pretends to be unbiased. But that isn't what gives it an F. The thread gets an F because it mentions the policy of a lame duck president while it refers to Israel in a negative way -- albeit in a very indirect round about way. Rule number 101: Never say anything negative about the Jewish people or the nation of Israel for such is political suicide. Enough said. Just put on your best face by remembering that Jews are normal human beings much like Mexicans. No more, no less.

Ok, so let me see if I have this right: any criticism of the nation state of Israel is off limits?

All three major candidates (Obama, Hillary and McCain) prostrated themselves before the multi billion dollar lobbying arm of a foreign government, AIPAC, and swore fealty to the foreign policy goals of that nation, even to the detriment of the American people's interests, and the deaths of perhaps millions of people.

This is "off limits"?

Posting the comments of a neocon big wig, who has the ear of this administration, that suggests this administration will invade another country, without congressional approval, at the behest of Israel, is "off limits"?

Are we the United States of America, or the Mossad enforcement auxiliary?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'll comment on threads that I have started that "professor professor" has graded:

UEW wrote:



How is that "not rational"?

That was a result from a nationally recognized polling company (Rasmussen) that indicates a major freedom disconnect in the majority of the American people. Nothing could be more relevant or important to understand than that.

I'm not questioning the content of the posted link but the intentions and the efforts of the person who posted the link. We see the smirked face liberal media airing their crap like this all the time with the excuse that it has been done so in an unbiased fashion.
While we can't see clearly how the media divides our nation before conquering it with stupid commercials, we can see how such tactics divide up this forum.


UEW wrote:



Ok, so let me see if I have this right: any criticism of the nation state of Israel is off limits?

All three major candidates (Obama, Hillary and McCain) prostrated themselves before the multi billion dollar lobbying arm of a foreign government, AIPAC, and swore fealty to the foreign policy goals of that nation, even to the detriment of the American people's interests, and the deaths of perhaps millions of people.

This is "off limits"?

Posting the comments of a neocon big wig, who has the ear of this administration, that suggests this administration will invade another country, without congressional approval, at the behest of Israel, is "off limits"?

Are we the United States of America, or the Mossad enforcement auxiliary?

I plead rule 101 because there isn't any way I'm touching this question with a 50 foot pole. I would just like to establish that I love all Jewish people.

[Anti Federalist]

UEW wrote:


I'm not questioning the content of the posted link but the intentions and the efforts of the person who posted the link. We see the smirked face liberal media airing their crap like this all the time with the excuse that it has been done so in an unbiased fashion.
While we can't see clearly how the media divides our nation before conquering it with stupid commercials, we can see how such tactics divide up this forum.

You're attempting to read my mind and assuming ulterior motives where none exist.

I fail to see how that post could "divide this forum" when I doubt there is one single person here in favor of government regulation of internet content.

My purpose in posting that is to make clear how much work needs to be done, especially among women, to get people to understand the freedom message.

UEW wrote:


I plead rule 101 because there isn't any way I'm touching this question with a 50 foot pole. I would just like to establish that I love all Jewish people.

I have a love of all humanity, which is why I don't want to see millions of my fellow human beings killed in another war of aggression carried out at the behest of a demonstrably corrupt nation/state that exerts an extremely undue amount of influence within our own corrupt government.

To close your eyes and ears to this travesty and injustice, out of some vague, ephemeral fear of being branded "politically incorrect", while millions of people's lives hang in the balance is outrageous and cowardly.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You're attempting to read my mind and assuming ulterior motives where none exist.

I fail to see how that post could "divide this forum" when I doubt there is one single person here in favor of government regulation of internet content.

My purpose in posting that is to make clear how much work needs to be done, especially among women, to get people to understand the freedom message.

Although your determination to write quality threads in here is honorable, I cannot lower my standards. Simply put, sir, you graded poorly when you failed to submit an introduction with your posted link. I wish I could take this error back for you, but you will just have to live with it forever. Sorry. If efforts are not taken by us to maintain our dignity in this forum, we will be confused with the mass media.



I have a love of all humanity, which is why I don't want to see millions of my fellow human beings killed in another war of aggression carried out at the behest of a demonstrably corrupt nation/state that exerts an extremely undue amount of influence within our own corrupt government.

To close your eyes and ears to this travesty and injustice, out of some vague, ephemeral fear of being branded "politically incorrect", while millions of people's lives hang in the balance is outrageous and cowardly.

As I have respect for the sufferings of the hundreds of millions of African Americans and the Mexicans, sir, I must also pay homage to the plight of the thousands of Jews who once suffered as Hebrews at the hands of the ruthless Egyptians. As these Jews would later unite to become the great nation of Israel, I ask you sir what price is too much to pay? One billion trillion? One trillion trillion? Where is your sense of responsibility as a puritan American? Can't you work 7 jobs a week for cripes sake?
If a billion Chinese have to be sacrificed to save just one precious Jewish life, who are we to argue as naive Neocons? This is Bush Democracy at work after all! This isn't just a war against terrorism, no, but against Saddam tyranny and Sunni persecution over the Shiites and the Kurds. While the unalienable rights of these Arabs to squat in the desert is protected by President Bush under the self evident truths in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, we must also feel obligated as responsible Americans to spend whatever is necessary to destroy Iran before we set about spending whatever is necessary to rebuild it into our image as a Bush Democracy. It it just money after all.
How long will we keep our heads buried in the sand ignoring the hell that we must all suffer as Americans for the sake of the great nation of Israel?

[Anti Federalist]

UEW wrote:


As I have respect for the sufferings of the hundreds of millions of African Americans and the Mexicans, sir, I must also pay homage to the plight of the thousands of Jews who once suffered as Hebrews at the hands of the ruthless Egyptians. As these Jews would later unite to become the great nation of Israel, I ask you sir what price is too much to pay? One billion trillion? One trillion trillion? Where is your sense of responsibility as a puritan American? Can't you work 7 jobs a week for cripes sake?
If a billion Chinese have to be sacrificed to save just one precious Jewish life, who are we to argue as naive Neocons? This is Bush Democracy at work after all! This isn't just a war against terrorism, no, but against Saddam tyranny and Sunni persecution over the Shiites and the Kurds. While the unalienable rights of these Arabs to squat in the desert is protected by President Bush under the self evident truths in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, we must also feel obligated as responsible Americans to spend whatever is necessary to destroy Iran before we set about spending whatever is necessary to rebuild it into our image as a Bush Democracy. It it just money after all.
How long will we keep our heads buried in the sand ignoring the hell that we must all suffer as Americans for the sake of the great nation of Israel?

Ummm, ahhh, errrg, yarrrrgh!!!!
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/bst0020l.jpg

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

UEW wrote:



Ummm, ahhh, errrg, yarrrrgh!!!!
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/bst0020l.jpg

Never forget rule #101.

[Anti Federalist]

Never forget rule #101.

I don't know about that, but I'll agree you've got me baffled Uncle.

Is it satire, serious, tongue in cheek or are you just fucking with me?

Or just a case of this:
http://somecallmeduh.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/arguing_over_internet.jpg

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I don't know about that, but I'll agree you've got me baffled Uncle.

Is it satire, serious, tongue in cheek or are you just fucking with me?

Or just a case of this:
http://somecallmeduh.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/arguing_over_internet.jpg

I think it is a little of everything. The one thing I am serious about though is rule #101. No more negative talk about the Jews or Israel. We might get away with using the N word now and then but one never gets away with breaking rule #101.

[Mach]

So, instead of just speaking my mind I should think about the grading system and how it's going to affect the opinion I give and then reline things up so that "the system" is satisfied......... fuck that! Did you ever hear of personality? Sometimes people with faults in one area have great strengths in another, I want to read real peoples opinions not a factory opinion.... that gets boring quick! This is a.... take the good with the bad, it keeps things stirred and no mold grows.


By the way, I apologize to everyone here (and myself) for wasting this space :rolleyes: on this Thread, even though it is just.... my opinion. :D

[Anti Federalist]

I think it is a little of everything. The one thing I am serious about though is rule #101. No more negative talk about the Jews or Israel. We might get away with using the N word now and then but one never gets away with breaking rule #101.

Sorry, but I can't go down that road with you Uncle.

The government of Israel is as corrupt and complicit in dirty dealings as, well, our own is, if not more so.

[Kludge]

This thread is epic...

[american.swan]

Though I agree the OP, I find the irony of this thread hilarious.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So, instead of just speaking my mind I should think about the grading system and how it's going to affect the opinion I give and then reline things up so that "the system" is satisfied......... fuck that! Did you ever hear of personality? Sometimes people with faults in one area have great strengths in another, I want to read real peoples opinions not a factory opinion.... that gets boring quick! This is a.... take the good with the bad, it keeps things stirred and no mold grows.


By the way, I apologize to everyone here (and myself) for wasting this space :rolleyes: on this Thread, even though it is just.... my opinion. :D


Let me see if I can expound just a little. I don't just think of integrity in terms of the leadership of "Obama" or "McCain"; rather, I think of integrity in terms of the organizations set up behind these 2 gentlemen. While Obama and McCain are indeed intelligent and would be impressive people to go fishing with, most of the people behind these 2 gentlemen probably have the integrity of pig crap.
So, I myself expect more than to be part of such an organization. I think it is important that the integrity of the Ron Paul movement have depth to it so that its significance isn't just Dr. Ron Paul the figurehead. There needs to be a trust that runs deep.
If this isn't the purpose, I may as well quit to become a full time Christian. But I think it is the purpose. As I have stated in here quite often, while campaigns are victories for the tyrants, American Movements are victories for the people.

[Anti Federalist]

So, instead of just speaking my mind I should think about the grading system and how it's going to affect the opinion I give and then reline things up so that "the system" is satisfied......... fuck that! Did you ever hear of personality? Sometimes people with faults in one area have great strengths in another, I want to read real peoples opinions not a factory opinion.... that gets boring quick! This is a.... take the good with the bad, it keeps things stirred and no mold grows.


By the way, I apologize to everyone here (and myself) for wasting this space :rolleyes: on this Thread, even though it is just.... my opinion. :D

No apologies needed Mach.;)

[Anti Federalist]

Let me see if I can expound just a little. I don't just think of integrity in terms of the leadership of "Obama" or "McCain"; rather, I think of integrity in terms of the organizations set up behind these 2 gentlemen. While Obama and McCain are indeed intelligent and would be impressive people to go fishing with, most of the people behind these 2 gentlemen probably have the integrity of pig crap.
So, I myself expect more than to be part of such an organization. I think it is important that the integrity of the Ron Paul movement have depth to it so that its significance isn't just Dr. Ron Paul the figurehead. There needs to be a trust that runs deep.
If this isn't the purpose, I may as well quit to become a full time Christian. But I think it is the purpose. As I have stated in here quite often, while campaigns are victories for the tyrants, American Movements are victories for the people.

Would it not stand to reason that, if one surrounds oneself with corrupted people lacking integrity, that your integrity will suffer as well?

And that doesn't speak much to your own leadership skills or integrity, if you surround yourself with corruption, then you either complicit in it, or too weak to notice it, both of which are dis qualifiers to honesty and integrity.

I am distrustful of movements and campaigns. I am not a "joiner". However, I realize the need for collective action at key times in the course of human events. But my suspicions are aroused when someone steps and starts talking about what the "movement" needs to be or become.

This is "movement" means nothing more for me other than an attempt to revive and restore my right (while a peaceful option is still somewhat open to us) and everybody's else's, to mind their own business and be left be.

But how does personal integrity jive with the willful silence toward the policies of Israel? Is not "self censoring" a way in which one's personal integrity can be self abased?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Would it not stand to reason that, if one surrounds oneself with corrupted people lacking integrity, that your integrity will suffer as well?

[One would expect when surrounded with corrupt people that one's integrity will suffer as well.]

Yes.


And that doesn't speak much to your own leadership skills or integrity, if you surround yourself with corruption, then you either complicit in it, or too weak to notice it, both of which are dis qualifiers to honesty and integrity.

[And {The use of a conjunction here requires one to at least match the first sentence transitionally with the second one either as a compound sentence or as two complete sentences outright. But the first part of the sentence is already an independent clause or a complete sentence. To attach the first complete sentence with an If/Then complex sentence requires one to either create two complete sentences or the use of a semi-colon (;). But then you continue to make matters worse by adding onto the comma splice with unnecessary commas after "it, or too weak to notice it . . . " and after "it, both of which are dis qualifiers to honesty and integrity. The trailing dependent clause "both of which are dis qualifiers to honesty and integrity . . . " is a definitive statement that can be rewritten as "it -- both of which are disqualifiers to honesty and integrity. Possible rewrite might be: It doesn't speak much of ones own leadership skills or integrity; that, when found to be surrounded with corruption oneself, one is determined to be either complicit in it or too weak to notice it. Either way, such complicity or weakness disqualify honesty and integrity.]


I am distrustful of movements and campaigns. I am not a "joiner".

[These two sentences are adequate independent clauses so they are okay. Because their structure is similar, one might rewrite them as: "{Dependent clause} Not a joiner myself, {Independent clause} I am distrustful of movements and campaigns.]

But there is a difference between campaigns and movements. While a campaign ushers in a victor, an American movement is victorious because it attracts both liberals and conservatives alike back to the Civil Purpose in the Constitution.


However, I realize the need for collective action at key times in the course of human events. But my suspicions are aroused when someone steps and starts talking about what the "movement" needs to be or become.

An American movement always ends up reconsecrating the Civil Purpose in the Constitution. Either a movement reconsecrates the established government or it overthrows it as an obsolete one so that it can replace it with a better one.


This is "movement" means nothing more for me other than an attempt to revive and restore my right (while a peaceful option is still somewhat open to us) and everybody's else's, to mind their own business and be left be.

We hold these liberties to be self evident that "all men should mind their own business" with the unalienable right "to be left alone."
Sorry, I just don't get it.
Repeat after me: American has a SOCIAL agenda.


But how does personal integrity jive with the willful silence toward the policies of Israel? Is not "self censoring" a way in which one's personal integrity can be self abased?

I plead rule #101.

[Conza88]

Ohhh fuck me dead. 5 pages of tears... I'm afraid by commenting, I may fuck things up... But I've been literally, laughing non stop for about 10minutes... Had to wipe my eyes twice. This thread, I don't think can be beaten.. Anyway, carry on - I was never here. (Epic Smiley)

[pcosmar]

[
Repeat after me: American has a SOCIAL agenda.



I plead rule #101.

But which one?
Do you refer to the agenda of the Founding Fathers. One that was based on personal liberty, private property and a strictly limited government.
OR
The Agenda that was adopted in the early 1900s, that is based on social control, and government control, to build a Utopian Unified World under the control of certain elites.??

I resist the later and am trying to preserve and restore the former.

[Anti Federalist]

UEW wrote:


We hold these liberties to be self evident that "all men should mind their own business" with the unalienable right "to be left alone."
Sorry, I just don't get it.

Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

That is the "social contract" you talk so much about.

Please pay attention here:

One CAN NOT engage in the pursuit of happiness unless one is left alone to find what that route is.

My "happiness" and the pursuit thereof, cannot be defined by you or anybody else, anymore than I can define yours.

[Truth Warrior]

Repeat after me: America has a SOCIALIST agenda TOO! :p

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

But which one?
Do you refer to the agenda of the Founding Fathers. One that was based on personal liberty, private property and a strictly limited government.
OR
The Agenda that was adopted in the early 1900s, that is based on social control, and government control, to build a Utopian Unified World under the control of certain elites.??

I resist the later and am trying to preserve and restore the former.

Take Newton's natural law for example: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In order to get closer to the truth set out in Newton's natural law, it was believed one would have to be in the presence of the Almighty Himself. This is how the truth had to be both deduced and reduced during those days when conclusions in science had yet to develop as a theory verus other opposing theories. This is why they called it a "natural law" or a "law of nature." These types of conclusions were undeniable save for scientists in opposing foreign nations.

Through the creation of the formal documents of the Declaration of Independence and of the U.S. Consitution, our founding fathers used natural laws to define 3 different types of power:

1) The Declaration of Independence defines the corrupt power of the tyrant and of tyranny. This divorce decree rejects the corrupt power of tyrant George because he did not behave as a responsible King. A divorce decree is a legal document for all you lawyers out there who like to claim legal precedence.
2) The formal document of the Declaration of Independence also outlines a transitional power the people. This power became necessary between the divorce of the tyrant in the Declaration of Independence and the reestablishment of a new King in the U.S. Constitution.
3) The formal document of the U.S. Constitution establishes a new King as a necessary evil over the people.

While the King is still the administrator over the people at the dinner table, the people themselves have the greatest power at the dinner table as mediators. In other words, while the people don't have the power to tell the King what to do, they do have the power to either bind him as the King to remain at the table; or, they have the power to remove him altogether from the table as a tyrant. The people also have the power to grant liberties to the *untouchable to encourage him or her to come and sit at the same dinner table as the King. When the untouchables are left to thirst, it is a sign the King is acting like a tyrant.

*An untouchable is someone so uncomely that he or she is even rejected as an outcaste by the slaves. These people need civil rights to remain seated at the national dinner table.

[pcosmar]

2) The formal document of the Declaration of Independence also outlines a transitional power the people. This power became necessary between the divorce of the tyrant in the Declaration of Independence and the reestablishment of a new King in the U.S. Constitution.
3) The formal document of the U.S. Constitution establishes a new King as a necessary evil over the people.


False
I reject this out of hand.
This is a total confusion of the Constitution, and of the Bill of Rights.

Take Newton's natural law for example: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

This is physics, a physical law.
It has little to do with politics or human relations.
It may or may not be true in various circumstances, and then only coincidentally.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Okay, first off let me make a point here. Imagine that the message produced by our founding fathers found its way back to the time of Plato. In reading the message, Plato would recognize in it formal meanings highlighted by informal transitions because of how certain terms are capitalized while others are not. When reading from such a formal document, Plato would demand that his students be quiet if necessary because the usage of such formality in documents were recognized as finished in meaning. So, we should be careful in how we highlight the terms. The "T" in the word "the" and the "P" in the word "Pursuit" are spelled incorrectly. It should read like this:

[Life], [Liberty] {and the pursuit of} [Happiness.]
with these [] bracketing [formal meanings] and these {} bracketing {informal transitions between formal meanings}.


That is the "social contract" you talk so much about.

Social contract theory imples the utilization of a positive govenment. This positive government exists in oppostion to the primitive caste systems that sat a ruling master class at a different table from its subjected slave class. So, this type of government ideally addresses the thirst of every citizen by sitting them all down at the same dinner table.


Please pay attention here:

One CAN NOT engage in the pursuit of happiness unless one is left alone to find what that route is.

My "happiness" and the pursuit thereof, cannot be defined by you or anybody else, anymore than I can define yours.

When rushing an injured child to the doctor, a mother isn't doing it because she recognizes her child is unhealthy. Unhealthiness is a meaningless legal precedent after all without the added Civil Purpose of happiness.
Likewise, we don't send our sick to fight in wars for our health; rather, we send our healthy to fight in wars for our happiness.
Our founding fathers recognized early on that the greatest enemy to the implementation of a positive government is "interpretation." The matter of interpretation is always where the Civil Purpose in the Constitution is eroded away by the legal precedence of tyranny.
That is why they created irreducible self evident truths with unalienable natural rights that could not be misunderstood because they are written like Dna onto the conscience of our human souls. So, a natural law conclusion is greater than even an ideal while any opposing interpretation to it should be considered an enemy.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

False
I reject this out of hand.
This is a total confusion of the Constitution, and of the Bil of Rights.


This is physics, a physical law.
It has little to do with politics or human relations.
It may or may not be true in various circumstances, and then only coincidentally.

Sorry, there is nothing here to respond to.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Repeat after me: America has a SOCIALIST agenda TOO! :p

Any party attempting to manipulate the American people with a political science rather than reestablishing them by reconsecrating the Civil Purpose in the Constitution should be considered the equal to a socialistic government.

[HOLLYWOOD]

We've got the gold star ranking system. :) Works for me! ;)

Yeap...

For the members that may have been exposed to LEAD, ALUMINUM, MERCURY, FLOURIDE, etc...

5 Stars = A
4 Stars = B
3 Stars = C
2 Stars = D
1 Star = F

No Stars... To Lazy, Not My Job, Waste of Time, Who Gives a SH*T

The CONSTITUION?

SUPREME COURT = We Say, "Pah-Tah-Toe"
American People = We Say, "Pah-Tay-Toe"

Congress = We Say Whatever Our; Lobbyist/Corporations/Special Interest SAY!

[Truth Warrior]

Any party attempting to manipulate the American people with a political science rather than reestablishing them by reconsecrating the Civil Purpose in the Constitution should be considered the equal to a socialistic government.
INCOMPREHENSIBLE! :p Send in the editors.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

INCOMPREHENSIBLE! :p Send in the editors.

Any party attempting to manipulate the American people with a political science rather than reestablishing them by reconsecrating the Civil Purpose in the Constitution should be considered the equal to a socialistic government.

Aristotilean Formal Logic:

Major premise: The only purpose a government conveys is either civil or legal.
Minor premise: Legal precendents convey no purpose other than they rightfully or wrongfully express power through established laws, rules, ordinances regulations and so on.
Conclusion: The only purpose expressed by Government is civil. Therefore, Civil Purpose.

The Socratic Dialectic expressed as "What is any?"

Any - A guaranteed selection from (a set). At least one, sometimes more (of a set).

Party - A legal entity which represents a faction of the people from a country and is united under one specific political platform of issues.

Attempting - Present participle of attempt -- The action of trying at something.

To - A particle used to mark the following verb as an infinitive.

Manipulate - (transitive) To influence, manage, direct, control or tamper with something to one’s own advantage

The - Indicates all persons to whom an adjectival noun applies.

American - Of or pertaining to the United States of America, or American culture

People - A body of human beings considered generally or collectively; a group of two or more persons.

Reconsecrating - Third-person singular simple present indicative form of reconsecrate -- consecrate again; consecrate -- To declare, or otherwise make something holy.

A definition provided by the use of the Platonic truth engine "Theory of the Forms" while expressed as a "Best Principled Statement."

Formal statement = Civil Purpose
What is informal civil purpose? (what is the worst living?) = living an impoverished life in a nation ruled by legal precedents.
Best Principled Statement = The narrow, simple, formal definition of the Civil Purpose within the U.S. Constitution is the inverse to the infinite, complex, informal definition of the legal precedents outside of it.

[Truth Warrior]

Any party attempting to manipulate the American people with a political science rather than reestablishing them by reconsecrating the Civil Purpose in the Constitution should be considered the equal to a socialistic government.

Aristotilean Formal Logic:

Major premise: The only purpose a government conveys is either civil or legal.
Minor premise: Legal precendents convey no purpose other than they rightfully or wrongfully express power through established laws, rules, ordinances regulations and so on.
Conclusion: The only purpose expressed by Government is civil. Therefore, Civil Purpose.

The Socratic Dialectic expressed as "What is any?"

Any - A guaranteed selection from (a set). At least one, sometimes more (of a set).

Party - A legal entity which represents a faction of the people from a country and is united under one specific political platform of issues.

Attempting - Present participle of attempt -- The action of trying at something.

To - A particle used to mark the following verb as an infinitive.

Manipulate - (transitive) To influence, manage, direct, control or tamper with something to one’s own advantage

The - Indicates all persons to whom an adjectival noun applies.

American - Of or pertaining to the United States of America, or American culture

People - A body of human beings considered generally or collectively; a group of two or more persons.

Reconsecrating - Third-person singular simple present indicative form of reconsecrate -- consecrate again; consecrate -- To declare, or otherwise make something holy.

A definition provided by the use of the Platonic truth engine "Theory of the Forms" while expressed as a "Best Principled Statement."

Formal statement = Civil Purpose
What is informal civil purpose? (what is the worst living?) = living an impoverished life in a nation ruled by legal precedents.
Best Principled Statement = The narrow, simple, formal definition of the Civil Purpose within the U.S. Constitution is the inverse to the infinite, complex, informal definition of the legal precedents outside of it.

I don't acept your premises therefore, I don't accept your conclusion.

Shall we try AXIOMS?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I don't acept your premises therefore, I don't accept your conclusion.

Shall we try AXIOMS?

I can get this type of immature crap in a chatroom for cripes sake.

[Truth Warrior]

I can get this type of immature crap in a chatroom for cripes sake. Too tough for ya, huh?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axioms

Please DO, as I've previously requested! :rolleyes:

BTW, do you think that you're in a symposium? :D

[pcosmar]

I can get this type of immature crap in a chatroom for cripes sake.

gob·ble·de·gook /ˈgɒbəldiˌgʊk/
–noun
language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand: the gobbledegook of government reports.
Also, gob·ble·dy·gook.

[Origin: 1940–45; fanciful formation from gobble2]

—Synonyms gibberish, doubletalk, bosh, mumbo jumbo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobbledygook

Gobbledygook or gobbledegook (sometimes shortened to gobbledegoo) is an English term used to describe nonsensical language, sound that resembles language but has no meaning, or unintelligible encrypted text. It is also used to refer to official, professional or pretentious language. In this sense, gobbledygook is a hurdle of communication at best, a means of imposing power at worst.

The term was coined on March 30, 1944 by Maury Maverick, chairman of the United States Smaller War Plants Corporation. In a memo banning "gobbledygook language", he wrote "anyone using the words activation or implementation will be shot".[1] Maverick later used the word in the New York Times Magazine on May 21, 1944 as part of a further complaint against the obscure language used by his colleagues. His inspiration, he said, was his neighbor of Dutch descent named Gobbel De Gook. He explained, "De Gook was always outside working on his tulips, talking aloud, incessantly, about something he apparently thought was important, but no one could understand a word he said, as we neighbors called it, he just spoke a bunch of Gobbel De Gook."

[Truth Warrior]

gob·ble·de·gook /ˈgɒbəldiˌgʊk/
–noun
language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand: the gobbledegook of government reports.
Also, gob·ble·dy·gook.

[Origin: 1940–45; fanciful formation from gobble2]

—Synonyms gibberish, doubletalk, bosh, mumbo jumbo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobbledygook
Good word AND very applicable! ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

gob·ble·de·gook /ˈgɒbəldiˌgʊk/
–noun
language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand: the gobbledegook of government reports.
Also, gob·ble·dy·gook.

[Origin: 1940–45; fanciful formation from gobble2]

—Synonyms gibberish, doubletalk, bosh, mumbo jumbo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobbledygook

Sorry, there is nothing here to respond to. Have a good day.

[pcosmar]

Sorry, there is nothing here to respond to. Have a good day.

That's OK.
I neither required nor expected a response.

I don't think I would understand one anyway.:D

[Anti Federalist]

Okay, first off let me make a point here. Imagine that the message produced by our founding fathers found its way back to the time of Plato. In reading the message, Plato would recognize in it formal meanings highlighted by informal transitions because of how certain terms are capitalized while others are not. When reading from such a formal document, Plato would demand that his students be quiet if necessary because the usage of such formality in documents were recognized as finished in meaning. So, we should be careful in how we highlight the terms. The "T" in the word "the" and the "P" in the word "Pursuit" are spelled incorrectly. It should read like this:

[Life], [Liberty] {and the pursuit of} [Happiness.]
with these [] bracketing [formal meanings] and these {} bracketing {informal transitions between formal meanings}.



Social contract theory imples the utilization of a positive govenment. This positive government exists in oppostion to the primitive caste systems that sat a ruling master class at a different table from its subjected slave class. So, this type of government ideally addresses the thirst of every citizen by sitting them all down at the same dinner table.



When rushing an injured child to the doctor, a mother isn't doing it because she recognizes her child is unhealthy. Unhealthiness is a meaningless legal precedent after all without the added Civil Purpose of happiness.
Likewise, we don't send our sick to fight in wars for our health; rather, we send our healthy to fight in wars for our happiness.
Our founding fathers recognized early on that the greatest enemy to the implementation of a positive government is "interpretation." The matter of interpretation is always where the Civil Purpose in the Constitution is eroded away by the legal precedence of tyranny.
That is why they created irreducible self evident truths with unalienable natural rights that could not be misunderstood because they are written like Dna onto the conscience of our human souls. So, a natural law conclusion is greater than even an ideal while any opposing interpretation to it should be considered an enemy.

So, ummm, we like, agree, or something?

I'll admit to a certain amount of sick pleasure in reading these mental gymnastics.

Like a train wreck you can't turn away from.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So, ummm, we like, agree, or something?

I'll admit to a certain amount of sick pleasure in reading these mental gymnastics.

Like a train wreck you can't turn away from.

I wish it were easier to understand, but our government wasn't built on the petty pagan culture of dancing naked around a maypole, on the more voodoo culture of dancing around a headless chicken or even on the kinder Salsa culture that dances while wearing a cembrero and eating from a bowl of delicious refried beans. Our government is far more important than these types of changes. A snap of the finger isn't better just because it offers us a way to get out of war. A fart is change. Our founding fathers did a lot more than just fart.

[pcosmar]

I wish it were easier to understand,
*snip
A fart is change. Our founding father did a lot more than just fart.

Well then,

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-farting-kitten.jpg

:D

[Kludge]

*snip*

OH! I remember having a dream that I met you this morning... Was very odd.

[Truth Warrior]

THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html

[asgardshill]

A fart is change. Our founding fathers did a lot more than just fart.

New sig material!

[Anti Federalist]

I wish it were easier to understand, but our government wasn't built on the petty pagan culture of dancing naked around a maypole, on the more voodoo culture of dancing around a headless chicken or even on the kinder Salsa culture that dances while wearing a cembrero and eating from a bowl of delicious refried beans. Our government is far more important than these types of changes. A snap of the finger isn't better just because it offers us a way to get out of war. A fart is change. Our founding fathers did a lot more than just fart.

Ah, but they did fart. And no less than Dr. Franklin advocated farting proudly.

http://www.bffff.org/Images/bfffflogo.jpg

http://www.bffff.org/frtprd.html

On a more serious note, our government is built on the premise that, if dancing around a maypole or headless chicken is what blows your skirt up, you have the right to do so, and not be subject to mental flatulance directed at you by pettifogging government nannycrats whining about how you are stinking up the national table with your sordid dancing.