Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 395

Thread: Only Sincere Americans Accept The Root Purpose Of Free Speech

  1. #1

    Are there Americans That Accept The Root Purpose Of Free Speech

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

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

    Yea, brainy question huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I start a list with my username:

    1.Christopher A. Brown

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

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

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

    1.Christopher A. Brown
    2.John Doe


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

    This is about un conditional defense of the constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Sincere Americans:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    The whole idea of this thread is to show how ambiguity does not work for constititional defense. Realize that the infiltration of the government seeking to dispose of the constitution ONLY has to prevent citizens from using or engaging a method which will be effective at stopping them. That is exactly what the insincere are doing, whether they know it or not.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 08-07-2015 at 09:45 AM. Reason: update list-explain



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Just adding to what you said...

    I believe the intent of Free Speech is not to protect the "popular" thing to say, but the Rights of the people to speak something "unpopular". Like Howard Stern. I dont always agree with what he says, but I will defend his Right to say it.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    [B][I][SIZE=3]

    This is about un conditional defense of the constitution.
    Some things just cannot be discussed in public.

    A sad and debilitating reality.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  5. #4
    Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?
    I keep thinking the same thing. Another poster asked him, and he denied it, but...can there really be two people in this world with such a similar distinctive style? It's like saying there are two Aratuses...or maybe the proper plural would be Aratusi?
    Quote Originally Posted by President John F. Kennedy
    And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. That we are only 6% of the world's population, and that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind. That we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
    I need an education in US history, from the ground up. Can you help point me to a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly resource?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Mini-Me View Post
    I keep thinking the same thing. Another poster asked him, and he denied it, but...can there really be two people in this world with such a similar distinctive style? It's like saying there are two Aratuses...or maybe the proper plural would be Aratusi?
    And where the hell is Aratus???

  8. #7
    Alrighty, then.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  9. #8
    True, and the root definition of purpose includes it. But are you going to be accountable to add your name to our list of sincere Americans?

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



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    What about Schifference regarding his perspective on religion?

  12. #10
    Looks like Mini-me and Antifed are teaming up on cognitive infiltration. I've seen this character assassination technique before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mini-Me View Post
    Another poster asked him, and he denied it, but...can there really be two people in this world with such a similar distinctive style?
    I had never heard of uncle, said so, no answer, I did a search which ended up at a thread here and I posted so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    I took the hint, did a search, found a thread back here.

    Yea, Uncles theory is what I'm doing. I believe I've proven it as real and functional to a significant degree.

    Also, recall the "Return of the Sith" and the discussion between the empire and the Sith in the scene with a bunch of flames, about "absolutes", same thing.

    Absolutes disgust the empire. They are what people unify around to resist them.
    Mini-me, what I'm doing is not a "distinctive style". It is the use of the concept uncle describes. The concept of using absolutes to deteime intentions.

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

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

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

    Cognitive infiltrators MUST work to interfere with group thinking that can lead to unity which might successfiy oppose their masters.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-11-2014 at 08:33 PM.

  13. #11
    Considering the timing here, we have these 2 using IRC chat to coordinate their teamwork.

    Anti Federalist said:
    Today 06:58 PM

    Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?

    Mini-Me said:
    Today 07:21 PM


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

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

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

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

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

    I've sent him certified mail regarding another, related aspect to what I'm doing here. He will remember that from 2011 I think.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-11-2014 at 08:36 PM.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Looks like Mini-me and Antifed are teaming up on cognitive infiltration. I've seen this character assassination technique before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    [b]InSiNcErE AmErIcAns[b/]
    1. Anti Federalist
    2. Mini-Me
    Damn, AF! What the hell, Mini-Me?

    You two oughtta be ashamed of yourselves!
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 03-05-2014 at 12:04 AM.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Some things just cannot be discussed in public.

    A sad and debilitating reality.
    Hmm, you appear sincere but are also in error twice.

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

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

    If you are not a cognitive infiltrator you should be able to post acceptance for the root definition of the purpose of free speech.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-05-2014 at 12:28 AM. Reason: Typo

  16. #14
    Eye...eye...eye...eye...



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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Considering the timing here, we have these 2 using IRC chat to coordinate their teamwork.

    [B][i]Anti Federalist said:
    Today 06:58 PM

    Uncle Emmanuel Watkins?

    Mini-Me said:
    Today 07:21 PM[b/][i/]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Looks like Mini-me and Antifed are teaming up on cognitive infiltration. I've seen this character assassination technique before.



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



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

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

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nvention/page2

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

    Cognitive infiltrators MUST work to interfere with group thinking that can lead to unity which might successfiy oppose their masters.
    Christopher, since you've gone so far as to call Anti Federalist and myself "cognitive infiltrators," allow me to share my honest feelings with you:

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

    There's some sincerity for you.
    Last edited by Mini-Me; 03-05-2014 at 12:53 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by President John F. Kennedy
    And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. That we are only 6% of the world's population, and that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind. That we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
    I need an education in US history, from the ground up. Can you help point me to a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly resource?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Damn, AF! What the hell, Mini-Me?

    You two oughtta be ashamed of yourselves!
    I hang my head in forum shame.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Mini-Me View Post
    Unless and until you convincingly reveal yourself to be Sophie Scholl, Patrick Henry, Ron Paul, Frederick Douglass, Lysander Spooner, Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Gandalf the White uncloaked, Keanu Reeves, or someone else who has earned a degree of trust and respect, no one else has any reason to consider you a moral authority on anything or feel pressure to follow your lead.
    I lost it at "Keanu Reeves"...ROFL

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I lost it at "Keanu Reeves"...ROFL
    I had to put a joke in there for my own sanity. The rest is totally serious (obviously). I wasn't TOTALLY joking with the Keanu Reeves reference either: I genuinely admire him for his humility and generosity, and I would value and respect his opinions, at least on interpersonal if not political matters. It was only a joke because of its apparent randomness...and Gandalf was a bit of a joke too, since he's fictional. I guess hearing from him isn't too much less likely than hearing from the dead though.
    Last edited by Mini-Me; 03-05-2014 at 12:46 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by President John F. Kennedy
    And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. That we are only 6% of the world's population, and that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind. That we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
    I need an education in US history, from the ground up. Can you help point me to a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly resource?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Is there any point is discussing constitutional defense and restoration of constitutional government with Americans that are not sincere?

    This is about un conditional defense of the constitution.
    Depending on how you want to frame that discussion, would determine how likely you are to join the millions of other people in prison.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    I took the hint, did a search, found a thread back here.

    Yea, Uncles theory is what I'm doing. I believe I've proven it as real and functional to a significant degree.
    So don't get all huffy and defensive when people are reminded of him when they read you.

  24. #21
    I don't believe in lists.

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

  25. #22
    Free speech HAS no purpose and needs no purpose. It is simply what people do when not crushed under the boot of tyranny. Freedom doesn't need to justify itself with a purpose.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I hang my head in forum shame.
    You are corrosive to democratic politics.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  27. #24
    xxxxx
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 05-01-2016 at 11:44 AM.
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Damn, AF! What the hell, Mini-Me?

    You two oughtta be ashamed of yourselves!
    I always had my suspicions.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  30. #26
    Uncle Em's style? Not even close. Uncle Em was always more obtuse and never so obnoxious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Considering the timing here, we have these 2 using IRC chat to coordinate their teamwork.

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

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

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

    I have to believe they are not an infiltrating forum, and I do. Ron Paul and I have differences, and he probably knows who I am...
    Pop up out of the blue, demand people publish personal information, attack the first two regular members who pop up even though neither attacked you, throw around buzzwords that mean nothing by way of casting aspersions at this forum, make no sense at all to anyone who is familiar with either the forum or the two members in question, and intimate that you're important enough, or think you're important enough, for Ron Paul's personal attention.

    I think Big Pharma now makes medication for that condition.

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

    I hope no one is silly enough to bite on this data miner's bait...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  31. #27

  32. #28
    Wait, what about Root?

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    You are corrosive to democratic politics.
    I should hope so

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I should hope so
    I meant it as a compliment.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2014, 09:20 AM
  2. YouGov: 72% of Americans hate free speech, 9% like it
    By Anti-Neocon in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 11:38 AM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-14-2013, 12:56 PM
  4. Does America’s Free Speech Model Endanger Muslim Americans?
    By presence in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2013, 08:14 AM
  5. What is the purpose of the right to free speech?
    By ibaghdadi in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-05-2010, 06:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •