Maybe not, but I'm not on the list you and Mini-Me are:Originally Posted by Anti Federalist
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.
I'm sure this talk of sequential priority has nothing to do with the speaker being first on the list of "Sincere Americans."Christopher, now that Occam's Banana has found your blessing, do you plan to forbid us from being friends?
It's not that I'm reading a script, so much as I've been scripted in Python. There is for this reason a case to be made that it's not my fault.
Last edited by Mini-Me; 03-06-2014 at 04:17 PM.
I need an education in US history, from the ground up. Can you help point me to a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly resource?
Finding a scapegoat, first sign of an "InSiNcErE AmErIcAn"
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.
If it is as common as you say, you can make short list at anytime. But you are not accountable to a prime need of civil social and all stated is evasive or manipulative.
acptulsa wrote:
"I'm sure I can, but I'm not at all sure you're worth the trouble. It didn't occur to me to keep a list."
acptulsa wrote:
"I say again--free speech is in the Bill of Rights because the electorate of a Republic cannot properly discharge their duty without information."
Be careful you do not empower unity now, you are starting to agree. What you write can be derived from the root purpose I state, IF the republic stands to violate the individuals right to life.
Your statement is more likely to allow fundamental division while the root purpose I've developed over years is quite universal in human community.
The topic of the thread is the acceptance or not of the root definition of purpose of free speech. It is simple test of sincerity which also happens to be prime constitutional intent.
It tests at the least for a citizens conditionality towards the highest principles of the constitution conceived to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The fact is there was a lot of competition for inclusion of concept in the constitution which omits direct reference of the intended methods of connecting the independence (DOI) asserted then won. Thusly life connected, twice removed from the first amendment blurred the dependence of of life upon free speech.
Hah, everyone forgets I'm posting from an iPhone 90% of the time.
Antifed knows the answers to the questions it's asking. A bad boo boo for an infiltrator. Prolly thinking I forgot or can't get the link on my phone.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668
I think it is there on that page in that thread for sure. I posted exactly what this legal process of becoming "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" is.
Antifed opposed it all there and here. Definitely against Americans using natural law agreements. Not sincere for sure.
Yes, this list is dynamic. The thread is spammed by the insincere so finding individual statements is hard. I'm not goin to rev the list now because I saw Danke faked a sincere list with its name. At best, social spam, at worst spam hijacking by a more devious insincere.
All that is required to make the sincere list is to overtly state that the propose of free speech is accepted and show willingness to faithfully carry the list with the intent of having the group all having access to a current accurate list.
I suppose using the technology here. By putting the acceptance in ones signature, would be a continuous verification of sincerity.
The fact is there is no competent plan anywhere for uniting the masses as our constitution intends, OTHER than this one.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668
That post is basically a rabbit hole of my activity and results using this method. It is real and it works. It can grow as fast as our passion for using our constitution to protect our God given rights exists, if it sincerely does.
This is what we learn as we unite.
Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-11-2014 at 08:21 PM.
I'm trying, I really am, but I'm still...
Mini-me wrote:
"Christopher, now that Occam's Banana has found your blessing, do you plan to forbid us from being friends?"
It's all based in the individuals willing to admit and accept a common fact in order to be a part of a very large group that; if formed on this basis; becomes "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts." And does so because it is accepting and agreeing upon something which is prime constitutional intent.
Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-06-2014 at 11:16 PM.
Data miner tries to get people to violate their own anonymity.I'm trying, I really am, but I'm still...
Data miner discovers he underestimated said forum's average sense, intelligence, and love of privacy.
Data miner figures out he can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, and instead of bowing out silently (if not gracefully) tries to baffle them with bull$#@!.
Sound like a likely theory to you?
No it isn't. It's all based on something far, far simpler than that. We've all known AF for years. We all like AF. And we all know that everything you just said about AF is pure bull$#@!.
See how simple that is?
Last edited by acptulsa; 03-06-2014 at 11:20 PM.
You are the one talking about AstroTurf/cognitive infiltration BS.
acptulsa wrote;
"Data miner figures out he can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, and instead of bowing out silently (if not gracefully) tries to baffle them with bull$#@!"
Do you accept and agree that the root definition of the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?
Or is that bull$#@!?
You are all a bunch of $#@!s for making fun of this guy. He is the #1 Sincere American.
I know he has been doing this a long time. I can tell from the writing.
And you obviously don't understand how hard Internet is on an iphone.
No one is above the simple understanding, acceptance and agreement. It is natural law.
It is a principle of the republic.
The NWO loves it when the people can be made afraid of the agreement that puts the people in power over the infiltrations.
Wow, someone understands! A sincere American. And they may be on a computer.
Can I ask you to use your own judgement and update the lists:-)
Very possible...of course I'm not putting my name to some random list, but, like a moth drawn to flame, I am drawn to theses "Fire11" type threads.
Compelled, for some odd reason.
Why, thanks, in all SiNcErItY, the feeling is mutual.No it isn't. It's all based on something far, far simpler than that. We've all known AF for years. We all like AF. And we all know that everything you just said about AF is pure bull$#@!.
See how simple that is?
Very possible...of course I'm not putting my name to some random list, but, like a moth drawn to flame, I am drawn to theses "Fire11" type threads.
Compelled, for some odd reason.
Why, thanks, in all SiNcErItY, the feeling is mutual.No it isn't. It's all based on something far, far simpler than that. We've all known AF for years. We all like AF. And we all know that everything you just said about AF is pure bull$#@!.
See how simple that is?
Hmmmm ... some kind of "madlib" scripting would certainly explain a lot about certain posts to this thread ...
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 ·
If you shut off my air and water for a day, I have people who can lend a helping hand, not to mention I have emergency supplies ready just in case.
That is besides the point, however: you are comparing rights to resources in this case, and those are two things that cannot be compared because they do not mesh well together. Rights are intangible things, resources are tangible items. To live as an organism we need air, water, and food, to live as a human we need rights. Two completely different things. You could have no rights and still live if your merciful master provided them for you. Rights cannot be provided, they just are; if a Government is allowing you to exercise your rights, then you're doing it wrong, because the Government has no say in who can do what in the first place when it comes to natural rights.
You are obsessed with lists and you continue to use this as some sort of moral pillar to stand on. I don't care what you have on your list, but if you are a supporter of the Constitutions as it was in 1787 and a supporter of free speech, you are fine in my book.
However, the fact that come onto this forum looking to divide people who all agree with you on this topic is just silly, inane, and makes no sense. You yourself have provided no good answer for this behavior.
Is the purpose of free speech a subset of the civil 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
Spike wrote:
"If you shut off my air and water for a day, I have people who can lend a helping hand, not to mention. . ."
Gee you wasted a bunch of time tryimg to avoid stating it matters. Why did you do that?
You have a right to life and the resource which supports it.
Spike wrote:
"That is besides the point, however: you are comparing rights to resources in this case, and those are two things that cannot be compared."
Some things are dependent on others. not comparison, dependency.
I just showed the dependency. Not rocket science. Why cant you do this?
Some things cannot be separated and manipulated in effort to evade.
Do you accept and agree that the root definition of the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?
Spike wrote:
"However, the fact that come onto this forum looking to divide people who all agree with you on this topic is just silly"
The people are well divided already. For you to imply otherwise is effort to misinform. Why did you do that?
We, IF sincere, are united in our awareness of needs and can share information vital to survival.
Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-07-2014 at 10:46 AM.
Free speech is a feature of civil
Society. Civil society has a duty to assure free speech for continuity and civility.
What is this obsession?
I accept that the phrase 'the root definition of the purpose' is so stilted and convoluted as to be legalistic and nearly meaningless. I accept that it is wise to distrust any language which is both legalistic and vague. I don't know if you're trying to discuss why free speech made it into the Bill of Rights, or why God invented it, or just what the hell you mean by 'purpose'. I find the phrase 'information vital to survival' even more vague. And I don't understand how any sane person could be so adamant about having strangers agree with something like this.
Which leaves me wondering what kind of trap this is.
acptulsa, as a confuser, you fail.
As I've stated. An infiltrator can not give up, no matter how stupid they look trying to twist and deceive.
They also cannot ever agree. You are consistent wth that.
Put him on the list!!!
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
"Let any one of you who is without Sincerity be the first to throw a stone at him."
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.
I bow to the master.
WHO is consistent with that? The person who is asking questions and not getting them answered, who is being forthright as hell about his concerns and not getting them addressed, and who has far, far too many posts on this forum to be considered an 'infiltrator'?
You think (or at least pretend) you're talking about me, but you're looking in a mirror.
When conducting this kind of test of sincerity, it is not possible to know the level of admission of acceptance which might
be found. Never the less, if discussion productive towards restoration of constitutional government is going to happen, a test needs to be done so participants have seen fundamental intents from individuals of the group based on response to common factor of prime constitutional intent.
Often social fears control and no matter how much inherent natural law agreement inherently exists, in a case as far out of the box as this effort, the effort itself might be too stigmatized because it is out of the box, even BEFORE the coginfils spam the thread with distraction and efforts to misinterpret the threads purpose, premise and information.
Despite being out of the box, it is an absolutely valid legal approach and it is also valid in the sociological sense, however, seems strange so participation in the beginning can easily be sparse.
Therefor a best guess is the only way to start to create a title and context presenting the notion of a test and list of results. IF the socials fears are so great that no one posts overt acceptance, THEN an evaluatation of what is written between the lines is all that can be used to know how the concept is working. A basic sentiment towards the agreement, or about it, is detectable given an amount of discourse. This is the revised list based on that.
DamianTV posted indirectly support for the basic topic of free speech right away, he had posted elsewhere indicating that there was sincerity barring anything but sincerity. Then Occam's Banana took a position of acceptance with "alrighty then". The iphone app I use made his signature appear as part of the post and spamish. That with obscure acceptance caused an error and had him on the wrong list. CPud is very supportive but not necessarily ready for full overt participation with the constitutional intent as it can be used to build agreement upon the principals of the republic
Sincere Americans:
1. Christopher A. Brown
2. DamianTV
3. Occam's Banana
4. CPUd
The usual "tight" social feeling is carried as SOP by the infiltrations I've seen over the last 9 years of testing these covert groups to examine enough of their product to understand the basic strategy they expect to work. Interesting to not is that the infiltrations with their tight social group, emotional reasoning etc. can fairly well convert a sincere American given some time. There are admissions that indicate this has a lot of control here.
Antifed and Acala teamed on the "I don't understand" tactic right away, which wasn't applied in the past until all else failed.
InSiNcErE AmErIcAns:
1. Anti Federalist
2. Mini-me
3. Acala
4. acptulsa
5. Danke
Antifed pretended to not know what the thread is about, which is a very coginfil strategy, seen over and over for years. This thread details the over all plan which is quite complete with valid legal process at all levels.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668
I asked first, and the answer is really easy. Your questions are completely suspect until the OP topic question is addressed. None matter except "what is this about". The thread I just posted has a link that has been posted before which details the entire proposal of legal process which the agreement sought here fully empowers.
Is there an appeal process? I really shouldn't be on your list, I am the epitome of a Sincere American. Ask anyone, ask Eduardo.
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.
Well. I finally got put on A List.
Da Judge hath arrived. Thank God. How did we understand each other all these years without him?
The post you linked to is a large set of private messages about orrupt bureaucrats and gnarly cats and other errata in the middle of some poor, unsuspecting OP's otherwise cogent and coherent thread. It is nothing but confusing infiltration.
But hey--thanks for playing. And don't forget to take your Prolixin.
Last edited by acptulsa; 03-07-2014 at 05:28 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us