Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 150

Thread: After 226 Years, The House Passes Rule To Count Applications For An Article V Convention

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by 56ktarget View Post
    With a balanced budget dogma, the United States would never have won WW2
    Not true.

    Lets say there is a constitutional convention and a balanced budget amendment passes.

    The constitution or amendments to it could be suspended during a declared war.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Wouldn't that violate the Constitution?

    Why not just pass a Balanced Budget law rather than going for an amendment? (they aren't really in favor of having to actually balance a budget- that would require making difficult choices which would upset voters) Calling for an amendment the know won't pass allows them ot claim to be for fiscal responsibility without actually being fiscally responsible.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-27-2015 at 06:08 PM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Perhaps you can show us better Constitutions than the one we have. What in your opinion would make it better and how likely would you judge the chances of those changes occurring?
    I thought I was pretty clear that I reject the notion that words on paper have any chance of fixing anything here.
    We have what we have in spite of and in direct contravention of the constitution you're referencing.
    I'm not asking what would make a better completely ignored set of words.
    I'm asking how it will be worse than what we have now, if we have a slightly differently worded completely ignored set of words.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I want an Article V convention, and I am not a dupe.
    I recognize the inherent "danger" of an A5 convention. I simply disregard it.

    As has been already stated, the constitution is already dead letter. No part of it is taken seriously by any of the three branches. The only time it is invoked is to claim a power, most often by torturing the definition of words or twisting meanings so that they are interpreted as something a polar opposite of what is actually written.

    The existence of this document just gives the REAL dupes something to aspire to. Something that they think they'll get some day, because damnit, it's written down and we should stick to it. Only nobody ever stuck to it. And they never will.

    So its entire purpose is actually to facilitate tyranny. Tyrants are doing as they please, the document is not stopping them - all the document is doing is stopping those who wish to live under those words from taking an active role in fixing this situation. The dupes still think that using the system will work. It won't.

    So my point is - $#@! it. Trash it. It is counterproductive, and the sooner it is officially recognized as dead letter, the sooner we can discuss real solutions.

    Staying where we are is NOT a real solution.
    "We have to do something" is the mindset that gave us Obamacare. Jettisoning the Constitution is a bad idea no matter how you try to spin it. We can enforce it through nullification rather than destroy it through Article V.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    "We have to do something" is the mindset that gave us Obamacare.
    You misunderstand me.
    I don't think we have to do something.
    I think that whether the A5 convention happens or not, we'll have tyranny.
    Further, that the A5 convention will make that tyranny more easily recognizable, since we will have not only the rule of that law, but the letter of it.
    In other words, the perception of how our government is supposed to work will finally align with the reality of how it works.
    This can only have a positive effect, since the current constitution's worshipers will realize their god is dead... and has been for centuries.
    They will need a new god, and will be willing to listen to reason on the matter.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    You misunderstand me.
    I don't think we have to do something.
    I think that whether the A5 convention happens or not, we'll have tyranny.
    Further, that the A5 convention will make that tyranny more easily recognizable, since we will have not only the rule of that law, but the letter of it.
    In other words, the perception of how our government is supposed to work will finally align with the reality of how it works.
    This can only have a positive effect, since the current constitution's worshipers will realize their god is dead... and has been for centuries.
    They will need a new god, and will be willing to listen to reason on the matter.
    It will make the tyranny more recognizable because it will be the letter of the law. They'll be able to legitimize all of their insane power grabs, and there won't even be a frame of reference to point to what rights you're supposed to have.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    1) Any proposals from an Article V Convention must be approved by 3/4 of states before they can be enacted. Good luck getting 3/4th of states to agree on anything.
    2) Scrapping the current Constitution and starting over would not necessarily lead to any improvements. It could be considerably worse.
    I'm making a good case for 3/4 accepting that free speech has a purpose, an agreement in its preliminary stages which is focused on prime constitutional intent.

    Your perceptions of America are formed by various media, so have the pessimistic bias the infiltrated gov wants the public to have.

    Thanks for be such an independent thinker.

    The current constitution would not be scrapped. Now you are conducting cognitive distortions of "all or nothing thinking".

    See the post about Levin.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5823130

    Your failure to engage using constitutional intent for unity puts his team in control.

    Thanks a lot Mr. Independent thinker.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-27-2015 at 09:31 PM.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    It will make the tyranny more recognizable because it will be the letter of the law. They'll be able to legitimize all of their insane power grabs, and there won't even be a frame of reference to point to what rights you're supposed to have.
    fisharmor's point is still valid. Another way to look at combines his perspective with yours when examining what ALEC Is up to.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5823130

    If we are not ready to control states when the time comes, get prepared for another level of bad when the constitution is amended by corporations in control of states.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-27-2015 at 09:37 PM.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    You misunderstand me.
    I don't think we have to do something.
    I think that whether the A5 convention happens or not, we'll have tyranny.
    Further, that the A5 convention will make that tyranny more easily recognizable, since we will have not only the rule of that law, but the letter of it.
    In other words, the perception of how our government is supposed to work will finally align with the reality of how it works.
    This can only have a positive effect, since the current constitution's worshipers will realize their god is dead... and has been for centuries.
    They will need a new god, and will be willing to listen to reason on the matter.
    I think my plan works with your realistic perspective. If covert infiltrators allow themselves to be conditioned by covert infiltrations manipulating them into being fearful of article V, then ALEC may get their way at a convention. I'm working to be pre-emptive of that. But the unity aspect works for other contingencies as well, or "listen to reason on the matter".
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-27-2015 at 09:54 PM.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    "We have to do something" is the mindset that gave us Obamacare. Jettisoning the Constitution is a bad idea no matter how you try to spin it. We can enforce it through nullification rather than destroy it through Article V.
    As I've pointed out, ALEC May be getting ready to destroy it through Article V.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5823130

    What Im proposing makes us ready to defend it from their manipulations of states. If we do nothing they will have their way with it.

    Any form of unity based in constitutional intent, particularly that free speech has a purpose and it is widely abridged. Just the fact that ALEC motivated states are trying for a convention while the purpose of free speech HAS NEVER fully existed, indicates ALEC is trying to take advantage because the public who has been intentionally kept in the dark about how to oppose illicit corporate power and manipulation cannot participate in assuring all amendments must have constitutional intent.

    That one thing could help state legislators who are watching out for the peoples interest by providing an edge reason for stopping inappropriate amendment.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-27-2015 at 10:28 PM.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    If we are not ready to control states when the time comes, get prepared for another level of bad when the constitution is amended by corporations in control of states.
    If the steam picks up for an Article V convention, we should be working to get states to rescind their support and participation not to attempt to control it.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I thought I was pretty clear that I reject the notion that words on paper have any chance of fixing anything here.
    We have what we have in spite of and in direct contravention of the constitution you're referencing.
    I'm not asking what would make a better completely ignored set of words.
    I'm asking how it will be worse than what we have now, if we have a slightly differently worded completely ignored set of words.
    I pretty sure that a con-con will result in the 2nd amendment being removed or re-written, and that will result in gun confiscation or war, or both to some degree.

    The only thing that keeps any of our "so called representatives" focused on some 2nd amendments rights (partially) is that god damned piece of paper, in it's current state.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    I pretty sure that a con-con will result in the 2nd amendment being removed or re-written, and that will result in gun confiscation or war, or both to some degree.

    The only thing that keeps any of our "so called representatives" focused on some 2nd amendments rights (partially) is that god damned piece of paper,
    in it's current state.
    Overtly, yes. We both know that they subvert the spirit and letter of the piece of parchment routinely, though. "Soft" tyranny is only a bit better than the "hard" variety because it's comfortable enough that it doesn't cause mass uprisings.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    If the steam picks up for an Article V convention, we should be working to get states to rescind their support and participation not to attempt to control it.
    Yea, if it's ALEC and COS ramming proposals through states not facilitating public input.

    And the fact that free speech has a purpose widely abridged preventing the people from participating is a damn good reason to rescind support, and disassociate from the effort.

    This agreement upon prime constitutional intent is very powerful and dynamically useful.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    I pretty sure that a con-con will result in the 2nd amendment being removed or re-written, and that will result in gun confiscation or war, or both to some degree.

    The only thing that keeps any of our "so called representatives" focused on some 2nd amendments rights (partially) is that god damned piece of paper, in it's current state.
    If ALEC is pushing proposals through state legislations, you are probably right.

    ALEC does not want to be accountable to constitutional intent, so any proponent of any proposal can be the rightful target of official inquiry regarding the involvement of the public to show its regard for the matter of constitutional intent.

    Since the purpose of free speech is widely abridged, the only way the public can be involved is through proponents of amendments to seek out the public and register their opinions.

    As stated, the purpose of free speech is a lawfully valuable tool when it comes to any issue related to the constitution.

    This would be even truer if the 2nd amendment was facing revision. Because Americans never had a chance to use the 1st to defend the 2nd.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-28-2015 at 01:18 AM.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    The only thing that keeps any of our "so called representatives" focused on some 2nd amendments rights (partially) is that god damned piece of paper, in it's current state.
    You mean like how Mittens gets dressed up in a flannel shirt and carries a 12g around a marsh for an afternoon, in order to show how pro-gun he is?
    With a handful of exceptions, this is the depth of support the R team brings to the table. They publicly acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment is clearly about duck hunting, and vow to duck hunters that their time-honored tradition will be sacrosanct under their leadership.

    But come on, think about what that's saying:

    1) The only thing preventing anyone from taking your guns today is people who put together a photo shoot around election time. Just let that sink in a bit... not one of them is on record actually supporting RTKBA.... they put together photo shoots.

    2) They therefore obviously think very little of gun owners - rightly so, because these photo-op shenanigans by and large work every election. They aren't nailed to the floor by the constitution - they're casting an illusion on the masses.

    3) They're clearly not pro-gun in the way Ron Paul or Larry Pratt is. The number of legislators with a philosophical connection to the right to bear arms is miniscule. They are not pro-gun at all, really - they're just not as vocally anti-gun as their practical identical twins on the other side of the aisle.

    4) Therefore the only thing keeping gun rights in tact in this country is anything but the constitution. I mean, that's a given - no legislator will ever come out against NFA '34. Come to think of it, I've never heard anyone publicly oppose GCA '68 nor FOPA '86... nor even background checks. These are all clear, unambiguous arrogations of power regarding firearms, if we're reading the 2nd Amendment faithfully, are they not? How many of our legislators are on record decrying them as clearly unconstitutional?
    Is Ron Paul even on record saying this?
    Who else?

    No, I submit to you the only thing keeping RTKBA intact here is the fact that the likes of John Boehner realizes that he can't make Feinstein-style quotes like "If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

    If you think for a second that Lindsey Graham would hesitate in the slightest from doing and saying the same thing if he was in a position to get something out of it, I really don't know what to say. The only reason the likes of our "pro-2nd amendment" legislators won't vote for this or say these things is because they know they would be out on their asses in the next election cycle at the earliest.

    The constitution doesn't mean $#@! to these people. This is the game - betray things you say you believe in if you think you stand a good chance of getting something you want even more. John McCain is willing to sell anything to get more brown people killed - who can you point to that will give something up to get gun controls abolished?
    More to my point - why does anyone think this is a good way to govern ourselves? Are we taking crazy pills? Why do I need to put more than one post in this thread saying this - any system founded on compromising your ideals means you end up losing ground, our current system is exactly this, so our current system is designed from the ground up to abolish freedom.

    Lastly, go back and review the events of April 12, 2014 at the Bundy Ranch. Those are your gun confiscators: chicken $#@!s who can get stared down. Once the illusion of legitimacy is peeled back, and people become emboldened to take what is rightfully theirs, and the illegitimate realize that they might actually clock out early that day, political opinions get changed real quick.

    In short, what you see as an objectively worse situation, I still see as progress.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Are you trying to say our soldiers that think they are defending us and our constitution dying over in the ME are cowards?

    Are you trying to say that their families would rather see them maimed and dead than speak up with common sense to claim the purpose of free speech as our right. Better shut off the TV brother.

    No way. Deceived, yes, but not cowards. Manipulated yes, but not cowards.
    What a nice big strawman you built. Nobody said anything about the soldiers now did they.
    The wisdom of Swordy:

    On bringing the troops home
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever.

    It won't take very long to get them home but it won't be overnight either but Iraq says they can't stay and they are coming home just like Trump said.

    On fighting corruption:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Trump had to donate the "right way" and hang out with the "right people" in order to do business in NYC and Hollyweird and in order to investigate and expose them.
    Fascism Defined

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Lastly, go back and review the events of April 12, 2014 at the Bundy Ranch.

    Those are your gun confiscators: chicken $#@!s who can get stared down.

    Once the illusion of legitimacy is peeled back, and people become emboldened to take what is rightfully theirs, and the illegitimate realize that they might actually clock out early that day, political opinions get changed real quick.
    Annnnd, have some rep.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I thought I was pretty clear that I reject the notion that words on paper have any chance of fixing anything here.
    Your rejection is well founded, but perhaps not complete in how and who the words changed effect.

    The people are the problem. This forum is proving it. Americans have no clue of what constitutional intent is, and seem to be unable to even discuss it.

    Therefore the words of the draft revision I have written could easily be used by some people, to influence and change the thinking of others, BECAUSE the words were adopted as an amendment to the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights. Meaning the words are verified by "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". In this case people that understand and define constitutional intent consistent with natural law.

    Draft: REV. Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

    "forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" are elements that tend to create or make unity possible. That will change a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    We have what we have in spite of and in direct contravention of the constitution you're referencing.
    You have left out the illicit influence of the infiltrated government after 1871. That's leaving out a great deal of corruptive effort upon the peoples thinking and capacity for unity.

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I'm not asking what would make a better completely ignored set of words.
    I'm not sorry I provided it, because there are Americans that will pay attention and use the words.

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I'm asking how it will be worse than what we have now, if we have a slightly differently worded completely ignored set of words.
    That point is valid. However is ALEC ends up hijacking a convention, it could get worse.

  24. #50
    Strawman post

    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    What a nice big strawman you built. Nobody said anything about the soldiers now did they.
    A strawman is not defined by mention of facts, it is defined by the ease of dismissing what is presented as fact but then shown as invalid.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Annnnd, have some rep.
    I'm not convinced that entire thing was not theatre. Secret government has lots of branches, and none can see the roots feeding them.

  26. #52
    Instead of trying to convince us that this is worthwhile, why aren't you out convincing Boobus that they have these rights that you speak of and they know nothing about? If the public was already smart enough to know that, we wouldn't need a convention anyway.

  27. #53

    Power Point Presentation Script For The Countermand Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Are you implying that they are "fighting for our freedoms"?
    They think they are. Deceived and manipulated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    They are enforcing the dictates of the state, and would enforce against us, in a heartbeat.
    You left out what the state is, INFILTRATED at the civil war, the act of 1871 marks the transition. There is an element of all or nothing thinking there, as if ALL of them would turn their guns on Americans. I think not.

    The infiltrated government would like an army like that and has been working towards it, but it has not succeeded yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Families? Possibly not. Friends and neighbors? By all means. "Support the Troops" means sending them off to get maimed and killed.
    You are trying to use cognitive distortions of over generalization and all or nothing thinking and emotional reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    We're looking at a different set of people I guess.
    No, same set, but without the cognitive distortions in my optimistic view. By revising the 1st amendment, and assuring unity can be enabled by education, re education, there is an official guide to what free speech is for. By its proper use justice can be created, With that, a great deal you would never believe possible can happen. All good.

    Your view proves, "We can't get there from here".

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Instead of trying to convince us that this is worthwhile, why aren't you out convincing Boobus that they have these rights that you speak of and they know nothing about? If the public was already smart enough to know that, we wouldn't need a convention anyway.
    Catch 22.

    I'm looking for Americans that care about the future of the American people, have brains and simple social courage to make an agreement which has mass potentials for impact.

    I'm, also here because the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Dept. failed to appear on subpoena. Collusion with the county counsel who interfered with the appearance of the witness by compelling them to lie in their letter.



    A declaration from the person who called me from the jail to inform me of the arrest and booking records subpoenaed. The declaration proves the subpoenaed records were in the counties possession 1 year before being subpoenaed.



    If the sheriffs dept. had lawfully appeared with the records, I would be a millionaire today. There would have been at least 2 feature films, a 1/2 dozen books and 2 musical albums. A treatment direct to the unconscious mind would have been developed by 2000, the secret government would not have been able to pull off 9/11, because what is unconscious is better than secret, so it wouldn't have happened.

    Needless to say, the purpose of free speech would have been manifested by my economic ability to create unity by sharing its purpose and the nation would be in a completely different, far better place.

    What happened instead was they failed to appear, the prejudiced complicit judge would not find them in contempt as requested. Then continued deprivations of justice through 9 lawsuits basically proved boobus is more influenced by social influence than by facts, law, or common sense, because I informed boobus at each juncture of the deprivations of right and obstruction of justice the courts, county and press were doing. Boobus here at the forum is more influenced by the social environment and conditioning of memes to make a simple agreement that is common sense regarding the purpose of free speech. Boobus is eating $#@! because of it.

    The question is; "Will these facts mean anything to you or will you simply continue to party with boobus?"
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-28-2015 at 01:28 PM.

  29. #55
    If the sheriffs dept. had lawfully appeared with the records, I would be a millionaire today. There would have been at least 2 feature films, a 1/2 dozen books and 2 musical albums. A treatment direct to the unconscious mind would have been developed by 2000, the secret government would not have been able to pull off 9/11, because what is unconscious is better than secret, so it wouldn't have happened.
    That's pretty funny! All because you wanted some arrest records from the 1800's seventeen years ago.

  30. #56



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    That's pretty funny! All because you wanted some arrest records from the 1800's seventeen years ago.
    You are attempting a cognitive distortion of "minimizing". I needed those records and by law was due them or an appearance of the subpoenaed custodian of records explaining under oath why the records were not available.

    It is a logical fact that laws protect lives.

    Covert infiltrating manipulating agents would attempt that kind of distortion in this case.

    Yes, the records would have verified my story/history and treatment direct to the unconscious mind as exceedingly potent for mental health care.
    My verified past would sell books, would get film deals. The arrest and booking records and what they prove add weight and reason for book sales and or film as well as original music.

    In all we are talking exposure, publicity which shares the potential for unconscious control of humans, which is really how we all operate naturally, but exposing the potentials for illicit government secrecy and massive conspiracy. That really threatens exposure of conspiracy, stopping conspiracy.

    The arrest and booking records would have provided proof to psychology that working with the human unconscious directly was possible, viable and effective. Which then immediately would have turned into clinical trial upon drug addicts and alcoholics. It would then be adapted to phobias, depression, OCD and BPD. After that schizophrenia. Probably 30% can be all but cured.

    Yea dude, America got ripped off when my rights were violated. Not just me.

    My rights are your rights. We share our rights.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-28-2015 at 11:06 PM.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by 56ktarget View Post
    With a balanced budget dogma, the United States would never have won WW2, .....................
    The world would be a far better place had not the American version of fascism- FDR's democrats baited Japan into war.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Do you know what "labeling" is? It is a cognitive distortion which is designed to pre-empt understanding.

    Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

    If not, consider you are mentally and emotionally disabled from understanding your first constitutional right.
    If unity adequate to alter or abolish over-reaching government existed, then we wouldn't be here.

    There is barely unity adequate to agree on a single date to raise money.

    And yet you have the audacity to call others disabled?
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    If unity adequate to alter or abolish over-reaching government existed, then we wouldn't be here.

    There is barely unity adequate to agree on a single date to raise money.

    And yet you have the audacity to call others disabled?
    You must not have been reading.

    The purpose of free speech IS to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish. That purpose has been abidged since about one generation or a little more after the revolutionary war.

    The 1st amendment is deficient which left the door open for economic power of the press and partisan politics to slowly divide Americans and then disable them perceptually from understanding the division as well as constitutional intent, such as the purpose of free speech.

    Adding to this, history has been strategically misrepresented over and over.

    You can prove you are not disabled from working with other Americans to form unity by posting now, your agreement and acceptance of the definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech as being to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights.

    Or maybe you think the framers didn't really intend for us to be able to alter or abolish.

    Or maybe you can define another feasible way to create the needed unity.

    It's up to you. Show your stuff.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-29-2015 at 01:43 AM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. House Passes Girls Count Act (National ID cards)
    By Lindsey in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2015, 04:52 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-24-2012, 07:13 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-29-2012, 06:38 AM
  4. House passes Patriot Act rule, clears way for passage
    By sailingaway in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 09:49 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-12-2010, 08:13 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
  •