Conservative Political Forum

General Category => The Constitution => Topic started by: red_dirt on July 04, 2015, 01:07:11 PM

Title: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: red_dirt on July 04, 2015, 01:07:11 PM
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: zewazir on July 06, 2015, 10:02:50 PM
Thanks for the post.  But I would be willing to wager that a significant percentage of members here have most if not all of that document committed to memory.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Possum on August 07, 2015, 03:32:29 AM
Quote from: zewazir on July 06, 2015, 10:02:50 PM
Thanks for the post.  But I would be willing to wager that a significant percentage of members here have most if not all of that document committed to memory.
Still like reading it. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: red_dirt on July 04, 2015, 01:07:11 PM
-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The quoted above is the most important part.

All complaints on this board about government can be properly dealt with by the people using their right to alter or abolish (http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html).
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 09, 2016, 10:03:40 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 09:44:40 AM
The quoted above is the most important part.

All complaints on this board about government can be properly dealt with by the people using their right to alter or abolish (http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html).
Welcome to the forum.
We sit at the precipice...
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 10:43:38 AM
Quote from: Solar on July 09, 2016, 10:03:40 AM
Welcome to the forum.
We sit at the precipice...

Yes we do.  The one choice we really have is to use our exclusive right to define constitutional intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: supsalemgr on July 09, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 10:43:38 AM
Yes we do.  The one choice we really have is to use our exclusive right to define constitutional intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


Welcome to the forum.

The founders gave us the amendment process to make changes to the Constitution. For over 200 years that process has served us well. The challenge we face today is not that the Constitution, but the possibility of corrupt people changing or abolishing the whole content of the Constitution. The concept of separation of powers is sound as long as a single corrupt group does not control all three or one of the three allows corruption.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 11:32:55 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 09, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Welcome to the forum.

The founders gave us the amendment process to make changes to the Constitution. For over 200 years that process has served us well. The challenge we face today is not that the Constitution, but the possibility of corrupt people changing or abolishing the whole content of the Constitution. The concept of separation of powers is sound as long as a single corrupt group does not control all three or one of the three allows corruption.

Completely true.

But for the entire time it has been congress amending.  And then, only when the states threatened their prerogative of using 3/4 of them.  That threat was not even formal, just implied.

It is time to use the constitution to protect itself because the federal government infiltrated since 1871, and it's un holy cohorts are trying scuttle it.  Use of Article V's, 3/4 states with conventions in each is long overdue.

But the purpose of free speech is abridged, therefore states citizens must work on their own to spread definition of prime constitutional intent to lawfully invoke the 9th amendment.

Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: supsalemgr on July 09, 2016, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 11:32:55 AM
Completely true.

But for the entire time it has been congress amending.  And then, only when the states threatened their prerogative of using 3/4 of them.  That threat was not even formal, just implied.

It is time to use the constitution to protect itself because the federal government infiltrated since 1871, and it's un holy cohorts are trying scuttle it.  Use of Article V's, 3/4 states with conventions in each is long overdue.

But the purpose of free speech is abridged, therefore states citizens must work on their own to spread definition of prime constitutional intent to lawfully invoke the 9th amendment.

So are you suggesting a Constitutional convention? If so what should that convention do?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 11:44:57 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 09, 2016, 11:39:10 AM
So are you suggesting a Constitutional convention? If so what should that convention do?

Firstly, assure all amendments have constitutional intent as Article V requires.

If Article requires that, since only the people can define constitutional intent, the people have an unwritten right to prepare and assure states legislators are well directed by citizens while proposing and ratifying.

A phase of, "Preparatory Amendment" changes conditions enabling the education and unity of the public upon diverse constitutional intent.  After they has had opportunity to take effect, then the proposing of general amendment begins.

Technically it is not a "constitutional convention", it is a convention to propose amendments.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: supsalemgr on July 09, 2016, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 11:44:57 AM
Firstly, assure all amendments have constitutional intent as Article V requires.

If Article requires that, since only the people can define constitutional intent, the people have an unwritten right to prepare and assure states legislators are well directed by citizens while proposing and ratifying.

A phase of, "Preparatory Amendment" changes conditions enabling the education and unity of the public upon diverse constitutional intent.  After they has had opportunity to take effect, then the proposing of general amendment begins.

Technically it is not a "constitutional convention", it is a convention to propose amendments.

So, if I understand what you are saying. A convention should be convened by at least 3/4 of the states. Their first step would be to confirm the Constitution as it is, but declare some amendments might be needed? Then, they would proceed with any changes?

I have no problem with the convention since our congress has been totally ineffective doing anything, especially stopping Obama's total disregard for the Constitution.

Just out of curiosity, what changes would you propose?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 09, 2016, 01:18:11 PM
So, if I understand what you are saying. A convention should be convened by at least 3/4 of the states. Their first step would be to confirm the Constitution as it is, but declare some amendments might be needed? Then, they would proceed with any changes?

I have no problem with the convention since our congress has been totally ineffective doing anything, especially stopping Obama's total disregard for the Constitution.

Just out of curiosity, what changes would you propose?

Changes which tend to prepare state citizens to use their exclusive right to define constitutional intent through the 9th amendment.

The premise that the constitution needs some slight corrections to be a tool to defend itself.

"Preparatory Amendment" would logically be ending the abridging of the ULTIMATE PURPOSE of free speech, necessarily the same as a firearm.  Two other preparations are securing elections and reforming campaign finance. The ultimate purpose of free speech in a legal, constitutional sense is to enable the unity adequate to effectively "alter or abolish".  A revision of the First amendment something like thiIs draft here.

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 to 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.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: supsalemgr on July 10, 2016, 04:34:41 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 09, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
Changes which tend to prepare state citizens to use their exclusive right to define constitutional intent through the 9th amendment.

The premise that the constitution needs some slight corrections to be a tool to defend itself.

"Preparatory Amendment" would logically be ending the abridging of the ULTIMATE PURPOSE of free speech, necessarily the same as a firearm.  Two other preparations are securing elections and reforming campaign finance. The ultimate purpose of free speech in a legal, constitutional sense is to enable the unity adequate to effectively "alter or abolish".  A revision of the First amendment something like thiIs draft here.

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 to 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.


That is fine, but how would it improve what we currently have? A corrupt government would not be impacted by this.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 08:56:25 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 10, 2016, 04:34:41 AM
That is fine, but how would it improve what we currently have? A corrupt government would not be impacted by this.

The language of the revision of the 1st amendment empowers states citizens, in their states, as they have  controlled their states to see their states constitutions and laws amended to be congruent with intent, to share information about the destruction of unalienable rights with citizens of all states regarding that destruction and protection of those rights. 

Based on that information all states citizens may find unity adequate for lawful action over and to alter corrupt government or to alter or abolish and protect said rights in some way.

Citizens would have the right to serve a petition upon a state legislator signed by 200 other state citizens showing their understanding of the destruction of said rights and ways to protect them.  The legislator would be bound by law to file the petition with the state Supreme Court.  The state court bound by the same law must produce an order to the largest television broadcast network in the state to produce a documentary about the destruction of rights and protection of them.  That order would require broadcasting of said documentary in all states.

States have control over corporate licensure in states and the broadcast corporations corporate status would be lawfully revoked upon refusal to share said information in their states by agreement of states and amendment to creates laws supporting such action.

The petition would have 30 days to be challenged in court and the challenge would be decided by a jury of random citizens.

The information could not be otherwise generally available or promotable to successfully reach all citizens with funding greater than the average citizens disposable income for the state of filing.

The cost of the documentary and broadcast would be deducted from state/federal taxes.

This will set a standard of disclosure and engagement for difficult or controversial subjects that commercial news media must logically meet or loose credibility then ratings.

Based on this information, democratic, or other action can take place to stop the destruction or institute protection for unalienable rights.

Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: supsalemgr on July 10, 2016, 09:05:59 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 08:56:25 AM
The language of the revision of the 1st amendment empowers states citizens, in their states, as they have  controlled their states to see their states constitutions and laws amended to be congruent with intent, to share information about the destruction of unalienable rights with citizens of all states regarding that destruction and protection of those rights. 

Based on that information all states citizens will find unity adequate for action to alter or abolish or protect said rights in some way.

Citizens would have the right to serve a petition upon a state legislator signed by 200 other state citizens showing their understanding of the destruction of said rights and ways to protect them.  The legislator would be bound by law to file the petition with the state Supreme Court.  The state court bound by the same law must produce an order to the largest television broadcast network in the state to produce a documentary about the destruction of rights and protection of them.  That order would require broadcasting of said documentary in all states.

States have control over corporate licensure in states and the broadcast corporations corporate status would be lawfully revoked upon refusal to share said information in their states by agreement of states and amendment to creates laws supporting such action.

The petition would have 30 days to be challenged in court and the challenge would be decided by a jury of random citizens.

This will set a standard of disclosure and engagement for difficult or controversial subjects that commercial news media must logically meet or loose credibility then ratings.

Based on this information, democratic, or other action can take place to stop the destruction or institute protection for unalienable rights.

It all depends on the people implementing such. I believe we have now covered this thread. Time to go onto something else.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 10, 2016, 09:05:59 AM
It all depends on the people implementing such. I believe we have now covered this thread. Time to go onto something else.

What exists after the destruction of unalienable rights?

Those rights are facing widespread destruction across the nation.  The logical purpose of freedom of speech at this point is to focus upon agreement between states citizens that is adequate to create lawful constitutional unity upon action to alter or abolish.

These two inquiries are very simple and focused upon the needed action defining constitutional intent or use of the state citizens exclusive right to define such intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


Since media is complicit with government destructive to unalienable rights, state citizens must somehow take over the function of sharing the information which can create protection for unalienable rights IF they are to be protected.

Another thread specific to this action is needed.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: supsalemgr on July 10, 2016, 10:11:15 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
What exists after the destruction of unalienable rights?

Those rights are facing widespread destruction across the nation.  The logical purpose of freedom of speech at this point is to focus upon agreement between states citizens that is adequate to create lawful constitutional unity upon action to alter or abolish.

These two inquiries are very simple and focused upon the needed action defining constitutional intent or use of the state citizens exclusive right to define such intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


Since media is complicit with government destructive to unalienable rights, state citizens must somehow take over the function of sharing the information which can create protection for unalienable rights IF they are to be protected.

Another thread specific to this action is needed.

I am sorry, but at this point you are bordering on troll status. Your initial post has been thoroughly discussed and you will not turn it loose.
Title: DECLARATOR - A place to declare and support unalienable rights
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 11:16:21 AM
These 2 inquiry define the most prime constitutional intent and act to unify Americans around definition of constitutional intent which is their exclusive right under the 9th amendment.

By agreement upon rights, Americans retain them.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


Some very good questions about this agreement and the use of it are asked and answered here.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-constitution/the-declaration-of-independence-full-transcript/

Otherwise, this link is a page about strategy using this agreement in all American states to empower then use our right to alter or abolish (http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html).

Due to the fact that the PURPOSE of free speech is widely abridged, it is necessary for states citizens to take it upon themselves to share this agreement widely IF unalienable rights are to be protected from increasing destruction.  This extended to the preservation of the 1787 constitution as the law of the land.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falgoxy.com%2Flaw%2Fdeclarator.banner.jpg&hash=03d6d3f2308f9be463ff5395c483525ff4e1bcdf)   


Adjusted jpg size.
walks
Title: Re: DECLARATOR - A place to declare and support unalienable rights
Post by: supsalemgr on July 10, 2016, 11:39:23 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 11:16:21 AM
These 2 inquiry define the most prime constitutional intent and act to unify Americans around definition of constitutional intent which is their exclusive right under the 9th amendment.

By agreement upon rights, Americans retain them.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


Some very good questions about this agreement and the use of it are asked and answered here.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-constitution/the-declaration-of-independence-full-transcript/

Otherwise, this link is a page about strategy using this agreement in all American states to empower then use our right to alter or abolish (http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html).

Due to the fact that the PURPOSE of free speech is widely abridged, it is necessary for states citizens to take it upon themselves to share this agreement widely IF unalienable rights are to be protected from increasing destruction.  This extended to the preservation of the 1787 constitution as the law of the land.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falgoxy.com%2Flaw%2Fdeclarator.banner.jpg&hash=03d6d3f2308f9be463ff5395c483525ff4e1bcdf)   


Adjusted jpg size.
walks

Are you a one trick pony. Why start another thread on the same subject that has been covered? Keep it up and you will not be here long.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 10, 2016, 11:56:17 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
What exists after the destruction of unalienable rights?

Those rights are facing widespread destruction across the nation.  The logical purpose of freedom of speech at this point is to focus upon agreement between states citizens that is adequate to create lawful constitutional unity upon action to alter or abolish.

These two inquiries are very simple and focused upon the needed action defining constitutional intent or use of the state citizens exclusive right to define such intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


Since media is complicit with government destructive to unalienable rights, state citizens must somehow take over the function of sharing the information which can create protection for unalienable rights IF they are to be protected.

Another thread specific to this action is needed.
Here's the problem, you are empowering Govt by claiming we need another Initiative by the States to protect the Bill of Rights.
I'm sorry, that's fuckin nuts!
Why do we even have a B o A if you're cowering under the illusion that the Govt even has any say in what happens to it in the least?
Are you forgetting what it was designed to do?

Rights are inalienable, that is, until you hand them over. So knock it off, it's people like you that enable govt to negotiate away our rights.
Title: Re: DECLARATOR - A place to declare and support unalienable rights
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 06:02:23 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 10, 2016, 11:39:23 AM
Are you a one trick pony. Why start another thread on the same subject that has been covered? Keep it up and you will not be here long.

Answering a few questions is not "covered".

The new thread was created to make a place specific to agreement upon the most prime constitutional intent rather than simply posting in a thread related about the Declaration of Independence.

Looks like I'm getting set up to be banned for trying to initiate discussion upon constitutional intent.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 10, 2016, 11:56:17 AM
Here's the problem, you are empowering Govt by claiming we need another Initiative by the States to protect the Bill of Rights.
I'm sorry, that's fuckin nuts!
Why do we even have a B o A if you're cowering under the illusion that the Govt even has any say in what happens to it in the least?
Are you forgetting what it was designed to do?

Rights are inalienable, that is, until you hand them over. So knock it off, it's people like you that enable govt to negotiate away our rights.

Please show where I use the word "initiative".

Please show where I mention the "bill of rights".

Please show where I mention the government has "any say".

Quoted statements are needed.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 10, 2016, 08:50:15 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 06:05:02 PM
Please show where I use the word "initiative".

Please show where I mention the "bill of rights".

Please show where I mention the government has "any say".

Quoted statements are needed.

Your failure to convey a message is not my fault, and your claim that we need more Legislation of any kind is pure bull shit!

QuoteWhat exists after the destruction of unalienable rights?

Show me proof that this is occurring wide spread.

QuoteThose rights are facing widespread destruction across the nation.The logical purpose of freedom of speech at this point is to focus upon agreement between states citizens that is adequate to create lawful constitutional unity upon action to alter or abolish.

That statement makes absolutely no sense to anyone reading this, but I have no doubt it did to you at the time. Want to try again?

QuoteThese two inquiries are very simple and focused upon the needed action defining constitutional intent or use of the state citizens exclusive right to define such intent.

More verbose crap that makes no sense without context, a point you've failed from the start.

QuoteDo you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Jefferson thought it necessary.
Quote
Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
More poor and incomplete sentence structure. alter or abolish what?

Since media is complicit with government destructive to unalienable rights, state citizens must somehow take over the function of sharing the information which can create protection for unalienable rights IF they are to be protected.
Again, what's your point?
You really need a proofreader to check this crap.

QuoteAnother thread specific to this action is needed.

No we do not, what we need is for you to stop and focus before you even hit another key.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 10:27:36 PM
what's up with the verification questions?
:popcorn:
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 11:04:57 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 10:27:36 PM
what's up with the verification questions?
:popcorn:

You mean these?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


If so, the two inquiry are to determine if a poster unconditionally supports the 1787 constitution.

Looks like solar is trying to bait me after not being accountable to support his first assertions with facts.  One sided accountability is not worth investing while one sided exposure of fraudulent intent is.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 11:39:55 PM
(1)  Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


To support my affirmation of the above two questions, I quote Thomas Jefferson, "When . . . it becomes necessary . . . to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . . they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Unity requires agreement between two or more persons. In the due course of a Republic, such unity in speech requires a majority of a smaller group of persons to unite behind one speaking voice. And, it follows that, a majority of the duly elected speaking voices must unite into one speaking voice. That one voice speaks the idea to which We the People choose to civilly abide. In a Republic, the elected people create the law under which We the People voluntarily acquiesce.

As opposed to having an oppressive democracy in which 51% rule over the 49%.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 11:43:38 PM
It appears to me that Mr. Solar and Mr. Superb Sales Manager are cornfused. Wonder from where they became learned.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 11:45:15 PM
And where is Red Dirt? He started this discussion.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 11:54:34 PM
Free speech can also be used to condone. Typically however, silence condones, speech objects. When everybody in the room is content, the room is silent. When an individual becomes desirous of an alternative state of condition, speech usually occurs.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 11, 2016, 05:29:58 AM
Quote from: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 10:27:36 PM
what's up with the verification questions?
:popcorn:
Just enable cookies and refresh your browser, as in kill it and restart it, should make it stop.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 11, 2016, 06:21:58 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 10, 2016, 11:04:57 PM
You mean these?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?
This was already answered, but I'd like to see where Jefferson included it in the Constitution.
It was an obvious component of the Declaration, for without it, there was no cause for rebellion.
Do you think we've reached the conditions Jefferson laid out to the British at the time of it's creation?
Is that the entire point of your argument, revolution? I said we're on the precipice, but have yet to tip to the point that a coup can be validated, nor does this forum back such behavior as anarchy, instead we believe in the rule of law and believe we are making serious change in stealing the GOP from the leftists.

QuoteDo you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
There you go again with this "alter or abolish" crap. Alter or abolish What? the Constitution, the govt, the Bill of Rights, the two party system? Finish the damned question.

QuoteIf so, the two inquiry are to determine if a poster unconditionally supports the 1787 constitution.

You see, this is the bad grammar I was talking about, you give no actual qualifier, and your choice of the wrong words, or rather lack thereof to clarify your point, which leaves your audience trying to decipher what you were seeking in an answer.

QuoteLooks like solar is trying to bait me after not being accountable to support his first assertions with facts.  One sided accountability is not worth investing while one sided exposure of fraudulent intent is.

No, I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to get you to be more concise in your line of questioning as well as give conclusion.
So far all you've done is play find Waldo in ideas, a game for kids, though I get it, you're young and recently in the last decade discovered Libertarianism because of your disdain for the process and a need for simplification in the process.

When dealing in law, one cannot be vague, one cannot be sloppy, and especially important one must speak clear and plain English.
If you want this discussion to continue, I suggest you simplify you points and clarify your goal.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 11, 2016, 06:24:22 AM
Quote from: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 11:43:38 PM
It appears to me that Mr. Solar and Mr. Superb Sales Manager are cornfused. Wonder from where they became learned.
Obviously ChrisABrown needed help, so he called out his buddy from another forum.
We've all seen it, so cut the bull shit, the last thing welcome on this forum are trolls.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 11, 2016, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 10, 2016, 10:11:15 AM
I am sorry, but at this point you are bordering on troll status. Your initial post has been thoroughly discussed and you will not turn it loose.
That's exactly what he is, a one note Charlie, a myopic fool with one goal in mind, though he has yet to reveal the point behind his innocuous senseless line of questions.
Check this out, found where he's been to several forums making a fool of himself and all opening with the same stupid question.

Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Does Freedom Of Speech Have An Ultimate Purpose? - RoR: Forum
rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/2047.shtml
21 posts - ‎7 authors
... rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. ... What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity? ... and self-generated action -- which means: the freedom to take all the actions ..... INTENT of purpose of free speech to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish.
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The Ultimate Purpose Of Free Speech - legal & biological ...
forums.philosophyforums.com › Philosophy of Politics and Law
Dec 13, 2015 - Ultimate biological or natural law purposes of free speech are to assure information .... Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding ... of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary DOJ Closes Lois Lerner Investigation Without Charges - Tea Party ...
www.teapartynation.com/.../doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-c...
Oct 23, 2015 - 13 posts - ‎2 authors
Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents ... of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? .... The ultimate purpose of free speech is I nly made obvious by my inquiry.
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Alter or Abolish and Control of the States-How The Masters Of The ...
www.ronpaulforums.com › Forums › Think Tank › U.S. Constitution
Jul 8, 2015 - 30 posts - ‎9 authors
Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary petition: DECLARATOR
www.thepetitionsite.com/566/244/796/declarator/
Jul 1, 2016 - ... need to use their Ninth Amendment rights in order to effectively alter or abolish. ... agree and accept then DECLARE it is constitutional intent that the ... that the ultimate purpose of free speech be to enable the unity adequate ...
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution - Algoxy.com
algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html
Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? No unity has been possible with ...
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Jeffersonian vs Lincolnian America - LDS Freedom Forum
www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41572
Feb 29, 2016 - Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? Top ...
Nullification - Constitutional Amendment - Page 4   Feb 29, 2016
Are you a "citizen" or a "people" of the USA? - Page 2   Feb 19, 2016
The Constitution Correctly Understood   Feb 14, 2016
Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights ...   Feb 14, 2016
More results from www.ldsfreedomforum.com
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Do Only Firearms Have An Ulimate Purpose, Or Does Free Speech ...
www.politicalforum.com › ... › General Political Chat › Opinion POLLS
Mar 29, 2016 - 10 posts - ‎3 authors
Does free speech have that ultimate purpose applied to us collectively to enable our unity ... Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Do Any Here Agree It 's Time To Use The 9th ...   10 posts   May 25, 2016
The Fawning of a Declared Sociopath - Page 2 (politics ...   6 posts   May 4, 2016
Meaning Of Trump Campaign Triangular Lapel Pin ...   10 posts   Mar 29, 2016
HISTORICAL!-U.S. House finally adopts rule to count ...   10 posts   Feb 13, 2015
More results from www.politicalforum.com
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
conservativepoliticalforum.com › ... › The Constitution
Jul 4, 2015 - 12 posts - ‎6 authors
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, .... Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding ... ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? .... The ultimate purpose of free speech in a legal, constitutional sense is to ...
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 11, 2016, 03:33:40 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 11:39:55 PM
(1)  Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


To support my affirmation of the above two questions, I quote Thomas Jefferson, "When . . . it becomes necessary . . . to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . . they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Unity requires agreement between two or more persons. In the due course of a Republic, such unity in speech requires a majority of a smaller group of persons to unite behind one speaking voice. And, it follows that, a majority of the duly elected speaking voices must unite into one speaking voice. That one voice speaks the idea to which We the People choose to civilly abide. In a Republic, the elected people create the law under which We the People voluntarily acquiesce.

As opposed to having an oppressive democracy in which 51% rule over the 49%.

Affirmed!  Excellent.

I might clarify the representatives elected in a republic make law congruent with the principles of the republic, as opposed to an oppressive democracy where voter might be mislead by tyrants and end up voting against their best interests.

The beauty of our republic is that is basis is natural law of the highest social
order meaning agreement upon it is simple, human common sense.  That, greatly extends the potential for agreement and unity amongst the people.

The first inquiry anchors the second inquiry within the intent behind article V of the constitution and enables that intent with connection to the First Amendment.

So why am I not permitted to have a thread specifically for doing that?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: tac on July 11, 2016, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on July 10, 2016, 11:39:55 PM
(1)  Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


To support my affirmation of the above two questions, I quote Thomas Jefferson, "When . . . it becomes necessary . . . to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . . they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Unity requires agreement between two or more persons. In the due course of a Republic, such unity in speech requires a majority of a smaller group of persons to unite behind one speaking voice. And, it follows that, a majority of the duly elected speaking voices must unite into one speaking voice. That one voice speaks the idea to which We the People choose to civilly abide. In a Republic, the elected people create the law under which We the People voluntarily acquiesce.

As opposed to having an oppressive democracy in which 51% rule over the 49%.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

Nice copy/paste theft.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 12, 2016, 12:13:10 AM
Quote from: Solar on July 11, 2016, 07:18:43 AM
That's exactly what he is, a one note Charlie, a myopic fool with one goal in mind, though he has yet to reveal the point behind his innocuous senseless line of questions.
Check this out, found where he's been to several forums making a fool of himself and all opening with the same stupid question.

Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Does Freedom Of Speech Have An Ultimate Purpose? - RoR: Forum
rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/2047.shtml
21 posts - ‎7 authors
... rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. ... What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity? ... and self-generated action -- which means: the freedom to take all the actions ..... INTENT of purpose of free speech to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish.
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The Ultimate Purpose Of Free Speech - legal & biological ...
forums.philosophyforums.com › Philosophy of Politics and Law
Dec 13, 2015 - Ultimate biological or natural law purposes of free speech are to assure information .... Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding ... of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary DOJ Closes Lois Lerner Investigation Without Charges - Tea Party ...
www.teapartynation.com/.../doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-c...
Oct 23, 2015 - 13 posts - ‎2 authors
Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents ... of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? .... The ultimate purpose of free speech is I nly made obvious by my inquiry.
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Alter or Abolish and Control of the States-How The Masters Of The ...
www.ronpaulforums.com › Forums › Think Tank › U.S. Constitution
Jul 8, 2015 - 30 posts - ‎9 authors
Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary petition: DECLARATOR
www.thepetitionsite.com/566/244/796/declarator/
Jul 1, 2016 - ... need to use their Ninth Amendment rights in order to effectively alter or abolish. ... agree and accept then DECLARE it is constitutional intent that the ... that the ultimate purpose of free speech be to enable the unity adequate ...
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution - Algoxy.com
algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html
Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? No unity has been possible with ...
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Jeffersonian vs Lincolnian America - LDS Freedom Forum
www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41572
Feb 29, 2016 - Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? Top ...
Nullification - Constitutional Amendment - Page 4   Feb 29, 2016
Are you a "citizen" or a "people" of the USA? - Page 2   Feb 19, 2016
The Constitution Correctly Understood   Feb 14, 2016
Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights ...   Feb 14, 2016
More results from www.ldsfreedomforum.com
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Do Only Firearms Have An Ulimate Purpose, Or Does Free Speech ...
www.politicalforum.com › ... › General Political Chat › Opinion POLLS
Mar 29, 2016 - 10 posts - ‎3 authors
Does free speech have that ultimate purpose applied to us collectively to enable our unity ... Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Do Any Here Agree It 's Time To Use The 9th ...   10 posts   May 25, 2016
The Fawning of a Declared Sociopath - Page 2 (politics ...   6 posts   May 4, 2016
Meaning Of Trump Campaign Triangular Lapel Pin ...   10 posts   Mar 29, 2016
HISTORICAL!-U.S. House finally adopts rule to count ...   10 posts   Feb 13, 2015
More results from www.politicalforum.com
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
conservativepoliticalforum.com › ... › The Constitution
Jul 4, 2015 - 12 posts - ‎6 authors
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, .... Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding ... ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? .... The ultimate purpose of free speech in a legal, constitutional sense is to ...


Hmm, it's just like you've been busted as part of a network of covert agents.  This link is from a the forum that dumped their users, posts and forum software about a week ago.

www.teapartynation.com/.../doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-c...

Efforts to use that link result in this error code.

QuoteError 403

We're sorry, but we could not fulfill your request for /.../doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-c on this server.

You do not have permission to access this server.

Your technical support key is: 6129-841c-96c0-bd29

You can use this key to fix this problem yourself.

If you are unable to fix the problem yourself, please contact judson at teapartynation.com and be sure to provide the technical support key shown above.

I am at this forum because teapartynation.com/ effectively closed.  I immediately searched and found conservativepoliticalforum.com.  Whereupon I registered here maybe 3 days ago.

Meaning that the text posted/pasted by solar consisting of  incoherent scraps of my posts elsewhere BEFORE I registered here.

Quote from: Solar on July 11, 2016, 07:18:43 AMOct 23, 2015 - 13 posts - ‎2 authors
Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents ... of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? .... The ultimate purpose of free speech is I nly made obvious by my inquiry.

Was copied from a forum which only existed before I joined this forum where solar is posting.  At this time, it's  been gone for over a week, and I've only been here for days. 

Solar would say it learned of me through this forum.  But has posted text copied from a forum that disappeared BEFORE I registered here.

Clearly, this could be said to resemble a network of covert agents working to foul Americans ability to understand how to use the constitution to defend itself.  They have copied up my posing from various forums and are trying to use it here to marginalize what I'm doing.  Misrepresentation.

Notice most of the links to forums, except for ldsfreedomforum, go to forums not posts in threads.  At lds there was a clear grouping of covert agents operating to make unaccountability appear normal and acceptable by ignoring it.  Gee, just like solar here .  Wow, what a coincidence!

If the links went to actual posts in threads, the lurkers might see me making logical, lawful victory after victory too often to be constructive towards an agents agenda; so there are none of those links and just scraps of posts where limited specifics of my strategy for constitutional defense are presented.

So very interesting in its resemblance to these factual expose of cognitive infiltration or operations of covert agents.  In this case it appears they have shot themselves in the foot.


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

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf)

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95K0ZV20130621?irpc=932 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95K0ZV20130621?irpc=932)
For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 12, 2016, 07:03:09 AM
Quote from: tac on July 11, 2016, 07:06:12 PM
http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

Nice copy/paste theft.
Yeah, I found that too, and when used in context with is supporting previous text to his copy and paste, his question finally makes sense, but his goal was not to make sense, rather disruption.

I went through each and every one of those links I posted and he repeated the very same pattern as he did here, ask a question, but give no reason behind asking and see what sticks to the wall then claim they don't support the Constitution.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 12, 2016, 07:18:49 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 12, 2016, 12:13:10 AM

Hmm, it's just like you've been busted as part of a network of covert agents.  This link is from a the forum that dumped their users, posts and forum software about a week ago.

www.teapartynation.com/.../doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-c...

Efforts to use that link result in this error code.

I am at this forum because teapartynation.com/ effectively closed.  I immediately searched and found conservativepoliticalforum.com.  Whereupon I registered here maybe 3 days ago.

Meaning that the text posted/pasted by solar consisting of  incoherent scraps of my posts elsewhere BEFORE I registered here.

Was copied from a forum which only existed before I joined this forum where solar is posting.  At this time, it's  been gone for over a week, and I've only been here for days. 
All excuses! I went through ever one of those sites, read your posts and saw the repeated pattern where you asked:
"Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?"
Which had absolutely nothing to do with the actual quote you copied out of context.

QuoteSolar would say it learned of me through this forum.  But has posted text copied from a forum that disappeared BEFORE I registered here.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
OMG a delusional conspiracy freak.

QuoteClearly, this could be said to resemble a network of covert agents working to foul Americans ability to understand how to use the constitution to defend itself.  They have copied up my posing from various forums and are trying to use it here to marginalize what I'm doing.  Misrepresentation.
More nonsense. You come to a Conservative TEA forum where the majority of members are more than twice your age and 100 times your wisdom, and start posting nonsensical gibberish, and to top it off, use extremely poor grammar, yet expect to be taken seriously?
I merely searched out "free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish" And google returned the first page full of your quotes, and no, not one of those sites were closed to anyone but yourself.
Yes, you were quietly banned, but you didn't know it because when you tried to log in, the message returned simply said "user does not exist"
Point is, the admins had enough of your BS and booted you.

QuoteNotice most of the links to forums, except for ldsfreedomforum, go to forums not posts in threads.  At lds there was a clear grouping of covert agents operating to make unaccountability appear normal and acceptable by ignoring it.  Gee, just like solar here .  Wow, what a coincidence!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

QuoteIf the links went to actual posts in threads, the lurkers might see me making logical, lawful victory after victory too often to be constructive towards an agents agenda; so there are none of those links and just scraps of posts where limited specifics of my strategy for constitutional defense are presented.
They did!!!

QuoteSo very interesting in its resemblance to these factual expose of cognitive infiltration or operations of covert agents.  In this case it appears they have shot themselves in the foot.
WTF? ? ? ?  :lol:

Quote
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ (http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/)

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf)

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95K0ZV20130621?irpc=932 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95K0ZV20130621?irpc=932)
For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance.

Which has what to do with your "free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish"?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: supsalemgr on July 12, 2016, 07:29:56 AM
Quote from: Solar on July 12, 2016, 07:18:49 AM
All excuses! I went through ever one of those sites, read your posts and saw the repeated pattern where you asked:
"Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?"
Which had absolutely nothing to do with the actual quote you copied out of context.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
OMG a delusional conspiracy freak.
More nonsense. You come to a Conservative TEA forum where the majority of members are more than twice your age and 100 times your wisdom, and start posting nonsensical gibberish, and to top it off, use extremely poor grammar, yet expect to be taken seriously?
I merely searched out "free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish" And google returned the first page full of your quotes, and no, not one of those sites were closed to anyone but yourself.
Yes, you were quietly banned, but you didn't know it because when you tried to log in, the message returned simply said "user does not exist"
Point is, the admins had enough of your BS and booted you.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
They did!!!
WTF? ? ? ?  :lol:

Which has what to do with your "free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish"?

Have we had enough of him?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: tac on July 12, 2016, 07:56:47 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 12, 2016, 07:29:56 AM
Have we had enough of him?

I have.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 12, 2016, 12:19:06 PM
Why do you attack the person?
Ask real questions, rather than attack. Though you do ask simple questions, it appears to me that if you get an answer inconsistent with your own thought pattern, then you simply the person who answered. Shame follows such conduct.

Not all may have your level of grammar. Albert Einstein, typically, did not bother with proper spelling. Being fluent with more than one language seems like a fair excuse to overlook poor grammar. Youth may be another conditional excuse.

But you three, Solar, TAC, and the sales guy miss the mark on the questions of "alter" and "abolish."

The Constitution says, " In order to make a more perfect union."
The Declaration says, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

Hummm. How far from that unity have we come? Science continually attempts to limit nature through models and equations. People's speech continually softens under Political Correctness. And this forum only includes six voices.

And here, now, you threaten to ostracize a speaker. Shame on you guys.

Discuss the nature of the question. Analyse the proposed 1st amendment. It just talk.

Your having enough is a strong sign of weakness on your parts.
If you wish, stay in your safe space (forum) to the exclusion of all strange or different ideas and massage your hurt, matching, Bobbsey Twin mentalities.

Or, do as I suggest, rise to the occasion with vibrant, passionate, and sincere engagement.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 12, 2016, 12:24:33 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 12, 2016, 07:29:56 AM
Have we had enough of him?
Nah, I'll let him expose his true intentions.
Imagine, he actually thinks I'm part of some vast conspiracy, a conspiracy where we used telepathy to lure him here, just so I could spring on him his posts from other forums. :blink:   :lol: :lol: :lol:
I swear, I laughed for two hours after reading that crap.  :lol:
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 12, 2016, 12:26:12 PM
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 to 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.


So People, analyse this!
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 12, 2016, 03:29:35 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on July 12, 2016, 12:26:12 PM
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 to 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.


So People, analyse this!
Did you have a point?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 07:34:15 AM
Quote from: Solar on July 12, 2016, 03:29:35 PM
Did you have a point?

It seems the final point is that you do not care for the point that the intent of our constitution is to provide law that protects our unalienable rights.  And that the people are the ones that rightfully define the intent of the constitution.

But there is the analysis of the draft revision of the 1st amendment.

Clearly, all speech is free.  The draft revision defines what kind of speech is enabled for the unity of the people.  The character and nature of that speech as the people may best know it in safety and happiness.  And it couples that with defense of the constitution with the peoples assembly and parallels that with the ultimate purpose of the press.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 13, 2016, 08:22:27 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 07:34:15 AM
It seems the final point is that you do not care for the point that the intent of our constitution is to provide law that protects our unalienable rights.  And that the people are the ones that rightfully define the intent of the constitution.
And I'm certain you can point to something I said as evidence to your ludicrous claim?
It's not a request, it's downright a demand you back that nonsense up.

QuoteBut there is the analysis of the draft revision of the 1st amendment.
Let me be blunt, dumb ass! The Bill of Rights does not need amending!!!

QuoteClearly, all speech is free.  The draft revision defines what kind of speech is enabled for the unity of the people.  The character and nature of that speech as the people may best know it in safety and happiness.  And it couples that with defense of the constitution with the peoples assembly and parallels that with the ultimate purpose of the press.

Clearly you're a fool, the Bill of Rights is the protector of the Constitution from the evils of govt and people like you wanting to revise its meaning, it was a barrier between, as well as binds on govt from interfering with said Rights of the people.
Yet here you are enabling govt an opening to define what free speech means?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: tac on July 13, 2016, 08:43:28 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 07:34:15 AM
But there is the analysis of the draft revision of the 1st amendment.

Clearly, all speech is free.  The draft revision defines what kind of speech is enabled for the unity of the people.

You claim speech is free, then you go on to define what kind of speech is free. Sounds like communism.


Quote
The character and nature of that speech as the people may best know it in safety and happiness. 

Ah the Utopian dream which can never be achieved.


Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 08:44:32 AM
Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2016, 08:22:27 AM
And I'm certain you can point to something I said as evidence to your ludicrous claim?
It's not a request, it's downright a demand you back that nonsense up.
Let me be blunt, dumb ass! The Bill of Rights does not need amending!!!

Hmm, it appears you are so flustered about exposure that you cannot identify exactly what you think is a "ludicrous claim".  Certainly, that the purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish is not "ludicrous".  So it must be the facts of Reply #35 on: July 12, 2016, 12:13:10 AM which you are trying to deny.

The teapartynation had completely removed their old forum and ALL of my posts before I registered here.  But somehow you copied and pasted some of it into your post, Reply #32 on: July 11, 2016, 07:18:43 AM.

Logically meaning that you, or someone you work with was coping up my posts at teapartynation BEFORE I even registered here.

Exposure of covert operations has got to be very embarrassing and destructive to the intent of treason.

Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 13, 2016, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 08:44:32 AM
Hmm, it appears you are so flustered about exposure that you cannot identify exactly what you think is a "ludicrous claim".  Certainly, that the purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish is not "ludicrous".  So it must be the facts of Reply #35 on: July 12, 2016, 12:13:10 AM which you are trying to deny.
Cut the BS and post my actual words troll!

QuoteThe teapartynation had completely removed their old forum and ALL of my posts before I registered here.  But somehow you copied and pasted some of it into your post, Reply #32 on: July 11, 2016, 07:18:43 AM.

Logically meaning that you, or someone you work with was coping up my posts at teapartynation BEFORE I even registered here.

Exposure of covert operations has got to be very embarrassing and destructive to the intent of treason.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dude, no one here has never even heard of your LIB-ertarian ass till you joined here and started spewing nonsense, which was a red flag that led me to search one of your quotes.
Besides, how would I know that you were going to show up here?  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"alter or abolish", do a search for yourself.
God you Trumpanzees are fuckin Crazy Stupid!!!
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: walkstall on July 13, 2016, 09:14:33 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 08:44:32 AM

Logically meaning that you, or someone you work with was coping up my posts at teapartynation BEFORE I even registered here.
.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smartlinks.org%2FMouseLaugh.gif&hash=285ff062aeb85b470bd70df9da54bc8161692184)
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 10:16:55 AM
Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2016, 09:05:42 AM
Cut the BS and post my actual words troll!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dude, no one here has never even heard of your LIB-ertarian ass till you joined here and started spewing nonsense, which was a red flag that led me to search one of your quotes.
Besides, how would I know that you were going to show up here?  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"alter or abolish", do a search for yourself.
God you Trumpanzees are fuckin Crazy Stupid!!!

Hmm, how is that I can be accountable and you cannot?

Quote from: Solar on July 11, 2016, 07:18:43 AM
Closes Lois Lerner Investigation Without Charges - Tea Party ...
www.teapartynation.com/.../doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-c...
Oct 23, 2015 - 13 posts - ‎2 authors
Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents ... of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? .... The ultimate purpose of free speech is I nly made obvious by my inquiry.

Gee, I guess my accusations and evidence show a consistency with your behaviors.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: tac on July 13, 2016, 08:43:28 AM
You claim speech is free, then you go on to define what kind of speech is free. Sounds like communism.

Reading skills are important.  Having the integrity TO read is even more important.

All speech is free.  The draft revision of the 1st amendment describes what kind of speech is enabled, empowered, supported by the public interests of the constitution.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: supsalemgr on July 13, 2016, 01:59:14 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 10:19:11 AM
Reading skills are important.  Having the integrity TO read is even more important.

All speech is free.  The draft revision of the 1st amendment describes what kind of speech is enabled, empowered, supported by the public interests of the constitution.

Get a life and find another subject if you are capable. You have beat this to death.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: tac on July 13, 2016, 03:01:13 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 10:19:11 AM
Reading skills are important.  Having the integrity TO read is even more important.

All speech is free.  The draft revision of the 1st amendment describes what kind of speech is enabled, empowered, supported by the public interests of the constitution.

Actually speech isn't free. Free speech in this or any other country is a gift from those that have served in our Armed Forces. Especially those that gave their lives so that you can come here and act like a self righteous idiot.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: walkstall on July 13, 2016, 03:13:41 PM
Quote from: tac on July 13, 2016, 03:01:13 PM
Actually speech isn't free. Free speech in this or any other country is a gift from those that have served in our Armed Forces. Especially those that gave their lives so that you can come here and act like a self righteous idiot.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F11mvce1u204yohuqc313738f.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F07%2FMary-McHugh.jpg&hash=e5cbf9c328027b1437f632b8c01a2bd10081b6a3)
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 13, 2016, 08:14:04 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 10:16:55 AM
Hmm, how is that I can be accountable and you cannot?

Gee, I guess my accusations and evidence show a consistency with your behaviors.
Don't flatter yourself son. You were nothing to me before you entered this great forum, and still nothing at the moment, and even less when you leave.
Whatever gave you the idea, that some Millennial posting nonsense on the web is any more important than some kid in Maine or Oregon with an opinion? Someone I've never heard of either...
Seriously, why are your posts more important than mine, do you have a website, do you reach thousands daily, do people actually return the next day to see what you wrote?
What makes you think I would be interested enough to seek you out, what makes you so special?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 13, 2016, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 13, 2016, 01:59:14 PM
Get a life and find another subject if you are capable. You have beat this to death.
Do you believe this guy? He actually thinks I somehow magically lured his young ignorant ass here, to a forum of Conservative thinking adults.
Yeah, just what we want, more snot nosed Trumpanzees. :lol:
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: walkstall on July 13, 2016, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2016, 08:16:32 PM
Do you believe this guy? He actually thinks I somehow magically lured his young ignorant ass here, to a forum of Conservative thinking adults.
Yeah, just what we want, more snot nosed Trumpanzees. :lol:


ChrisABrown I love myself, let me count the ways.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 13, 2016, 10:14:00 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2016, 08:22:27 AM
Yet here you are enabling govt an opening to define what free speech means?

Finally, Mr. Solar, you have asked a real question.
Does that suggested change in the 1st Amendment narrow the definition of free speech? Or does it expand the definition?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Jonathan on July 13, 2016, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2016, 08:22:27 AM
the Bill of Rights is the protector of the Constitution

How did the Bill of Rights stop the 16th Amendment?

Don't you think we should "alter" or "abolish" the 16th Amendment?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 14, 2016, 05:55:52 AM
Quote from: Jonathan on July 13, 2016, 10:14:00 PM
Finally, Mr. Solar, you have asked a real question.
Does that suggested change in the 1st Amendment narrow the definition of free speech? Or does it expand the definition?
You're a fool if you think messing with the Bill of Rights in anyway is beneficial to anyone other than govt.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Essentially what you are doing is exactly what the govt does when erecting so called "Free Speech" zones. You are empowering govt to diminish the overall scope of the BoR.
There is nothing in the verbiage that requires defining, as if one form of speech carries a higher priority over another, which it does not, all speech is important, so much so, the Founders, men who had lived under tyranny, where simply speaking out against, could get you life in prison, or worse.
It's why the simplicity of the Documents were so important, so as to be clear that even a fool like you could see and understand it's strength.

What you're promoting is akin to special Rights for special groups, in doing so, lessens to power of related groups.
What happened to you kids, that you have been so brainwashed into believing destroying our Founding Documents is considered freeing?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 14, 2016, 06:05:48 AM
Quote from: Jonathan on July 13, 2016, 10:17:31 PM
How did the Bill of Rights stop the 16th Amendment?

Don't you think we should "alter" or "abolish" the 16th Amendment?
Perfect example as to what happens when people like you want to alter our Founding Documents, like a  cancer, once it has a place top root, it's only a matter of time before the meaning is lost altogether.
Sure, there's a lot to undue, but sadly, these changes forever affected our culture and to simply abolish them without changing the culture they support will do nothing but cement the damage forever.

For instance, the gold standard, unless we first return to an anchor for our currency, the 16th is irrelevant.
You kids never think through to the consequences of your actions.
Pick your battles. Getting govt to live within it's means should be your top priority overall.

Lose the emotional attachment to your quest, apply critical thinking and make the changes necessary to hamstring Congress and it's out of control spending.
But the emotion is blinding you to what is actually possible.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 14, 2016, 03:02:30 PM
Quote from: tac on July 13, 2016, 03:01:13 PM
Actually speech isn't free. Free speech in this or any other country is a gift from those that have served in our Armed Forces. Especially those that gave their lives so that you can come here and act like a self righteous idiot.

Free speech is a natural law that creates a civil society.  When tyrants quash that, then soldiers have to fight to retain it.

Free speech has a purpose, and many soldiers have died without knowing what that purpose is, that, is what leads to its easy abridging.  The purpose is to prevent the violence and maintain civil society with the force of law as expressed by the tyranny of the masses, when they are educated enough to know how to do it.

But speaking of soldiers dying, which flag are they fighting and dying for?

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi64.tinypic.com%2F2d19zsz.jpg&hash=b184b9bda35139330492b18d452002f595258c42)


Adjusted jpg size.
walks
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 14, 2016, 03:06:49 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2016, 05:55:52 AM
There is nothing in the verbiage that requires defining, as if one form of speech carries a higher priority over another, which it does not, all speech is important, so much so, the Founders, men who had lived under tyranny, where simply speaking out against, could get you life in prison, or worse.

So is free speech promoting treason more important than free speech which defends the constitution?

I would say that they are important for different purposes.

One for criminal prosecution of those who oppose citizens who seek constitutional unity for constitutional defense. 

The other is important for the defense of the constitution.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 14, 2016, 04:07:48 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 14, 2016, 03:06:49 PM
So is free speech promoting treason more important than free speech which defends the constitution?

I would say that they are important for different purposes.

One for criminal prosecution of those who oppose citizens who seek constitutional unity for constitutional defense. 

The other is important for the defense of the constitution.
Depending on what side you're on. Our current Marxist in Chief would consider much of what is said on this forum, hate speech.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 14, 2016, 11:28:42 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2016, 04:07:48 PM
Depending on what side you're on. Our current Marxist in Chief would consider much of what is said on this forum, hate speech.

It's quite clear to me because I am demonstrably on the side of the intent of the 1787 constitution and defense of those intents.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Possum on July 30, 2016, 05:50:41 AM
Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2016, 09:05:42 AM
Cut the BS and post my actual words troll!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dude, no one here has never even heard of your LIB-ertarian ass till you joined here and started spewing nonsense, which was a red flag that led me to search one of your quotes.
Besides, how would I know that you were going to show up here?  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"alter or abolish", do a search for yourself.
God you Trumpanzees are fuckin Crazy Stupid!!!
I believe what we are witnessing here from those two trolls are the result of what generations of inbreeding can accomplish. If the dumb asses have something to say they need to grow a pair and say it.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 30, 2016, 06:39:39 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 14, 2016, 11:28:42 PM
It's quite clear to me because I am demonstrably on the side of the intent of the 1787 constitution and defense of those intents.
Somehow I missed this post.
No, it's more than clear you have zero understanding of our Bill of Rights! This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, rather preserving the individual's right to speak for or against the Federal Govt.
You morons bastardize everything that doesn't fit your warped LIB-ertarian views.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 30, 2016, 06:45:34 AM
Quote from: s3779m on July 30, 2016, 05:50:41 AM
I believe what we are witnessing here from those two trolls are the result of what generations of inbreeding can accomplish. If the dumb asses have something to say they need to grow a pair and say it.
Arggghhh. It really is frustrating, because you can't fix stupid no matter what you say.
Just think, if we took welfare back to 1963 levels and laws, we could eliminate most of these idiots. Think about it, their parents have come to depend on it and were taught to believe they were somehow entitled, so these kids grow up thinking they can't survive without govt dictating every aspect of their lives.
And as an added benefit, govt gets a loyal subject enabling it's every move.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on July 30, 2016, 05:27:47 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2016, 06:39:39 AM
Somehow I missed this post.
No, it's more than clear you have zero understanding of our Bill of Rights! This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, rather preserving the individual's right to speak for or against the Federal Govt.
You morons bastardize everything that doesn't fit your warped LIB-ertarian views.

I stand to defend the constitution using itself, Article V, AND assure that all amendments have constitutional intent.  It does not get better than that.

But you do not support it.  If you did, you you would agree with an accept these two prime intents.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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

Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on July 30, 2016, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 30, 2016, 05:27:47 PM
I stand to defend the constitution using itself, Article V, AND assure that all amendments have constitutional intent.  It does not get better than that.

But you do not support it.  If you did, you you would agree with an accept these two prime intents.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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

Cut the crap Troll! That BS is getting real old.
This was not about the Constitution, rather your bull shit claim that we need to fix the First Amendment to protect it, as follows.

Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 14, 2016, 03:06:49 PM
So is free speech promoting treason more important than free speech which defends the constitution?

I would say that they are important for different purposes.

One for criminal prosecution of those who oppose citizens who seek constitutional unity for constitutional defense. 

The other is important for the defense of the constitution.
What you fail to realize oh scholarly genius of our Founding Documents, is the Bill of Rights was not in anyway designed to protect the damn Constitution, it was designed to stop govt from interfering with individuals Rights. An addendum to the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on August 09, 2016, 09:41:58 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2016, 06:05:23 PM
Cut the crap Troll! That BS is getting real old.
This was not about the Constitution, rather your bull shit claim that we need to fix the First Amendment to protect it, as follows.

What you fail to realize oh scholarly genius of our Founding Documents, is the Bill of Rights was not in anyway designed to protect the damn Constitution, it was designed to stop govt from interfering with individuals Rights. An addendum to the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution.

<I>If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?</I>
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on August 10, 2016, 04:59:52 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on August 09, 2016, 09:41:58 PM
<I>If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?</I>
You still have not answered the question as to why you want to further define the First Amendment.
Here you claim Freedom of Speech be defined further in the Constitution, while ignoring the fact that the Bill of Rights defined it as any form of speech shall not be interfered with in anyway.
The Bill of Rights is a protector of the constitution, it strictly prohibits the govt from interfering with inalienable Rights, but somehow this all eluded you during 5th grade history class.
I will say it one last time. Defining the Bill of Rights is an admittance that govt has power over the people's rights, that we get our Rights from govt. WE DO NOT!
The Bill of Rights explicitly states that the people retain said Rights, that not only is govt not allowed to interfere with said Rights, that it is strictly prohibited from passing any law defining it or interfering with the bill of Rights.

Yet here you are, trying to do exactly what the framers warned about, further defining our rights, essentially a tool of govt in that you are doing the work of govt by eroding said Rights.

Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 07:34:15 AM
It seems the final point is that you do not care for the point that the intent of our constitution is to provide law that protects our unalienable rights.  And that the people are the ones that rightfully define the intent of the constitution.

But there is the analysis of the draft revision of the 1st amendment.

Clearly, all speech is free.  The draft revision defines what kind of speech is enabled for the unity of the people.  The character and nature of that speech as the people may best know it in safety and happiness.  And it couples that with defense of the constitution with the peoples assembly and parallels that with the ultimate purpose of the press.

Just how thick are you?
So one last time! Our Founders believed we should abolish a tyrannical govt, which would include the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights does not need defining further, in that it was designed to keep govt from interfering with inalienable Rights, so if anything, it should be placed before the new Constitution is enacted.
The problem with definitions, is it leaves room for further definition and its final demise.
What you are proposing is further definition of the First, diluting its original intent which has served us well since its inception.

Here's the problem, and maybe you can finally see the flaw in your thinking." The draft revision defines what kind of speech is enabled for the unity of the people". By doing so, also defines what speech does not define unity.
See how that works?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on August 14, 2016, 01:02:18 PM
Your posting is so screwed up it's not productive to even quote.

The draft revision of the first defines which speech the government must support.  All speech is still free.

Your neglect to answering this question below, allows your incompetence to continue.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: walkstall on August 14, 2016, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on August 14, 2016, 01:02:18 PM
Your posting is so screwed up it's not productive to even quote.

The draft revision of the first defines which speech the government must support.  All speech is still free.

Your neglect to answering this question below, allows your incompetence to continue.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?


(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft270%2FEV1L1%2F114_bsflag.gif&hash=5a059a2d445aacde252953f628267aab09f2d8f3)  Use the quote function or I will start delete your posts if not used.  Your choice!! 

Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on August 14, 2016, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on August 14, 2016, 01:02:18 PM
Your posting is so screwed up it's not productive to even quote.

The draft revision of the first defines which speech the government must support.  All speech is still free.

Your neglect to answering this question below, allows your incompetence to continue.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?
I am assuming you are talking to me? So regardless, you will use the quote function, understand?

OK,Let me be blunt, You ARE A Fuckin Moron and a Traitor to our Founding Principles, Documents!

First off, you don't understand the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, which states clearly, that it is a barrier against govt having any say over Ten listed Inalienable Rights. Speech being the first!!!

But what do you want to do? You actually advocate allowing govt power over speech by opening the door a crack allowing it to usurp power over something is was specifically forbidden from having.

Hey, but why stop there, eh moron?
Lets allow them the ability to define the 2nd, shall we?

Let's say....? Defining laws that enhance a person's Right to self defense within the home?
Wouldn't that be really neat? Finally we get the govt to acknowledge that having the Right to defend one's home is an inalienable Right?

Are you starting to see fault in your misplaced "good intentions"? Am I getting through here yet, are you seeing the danger in allowing govt interference in Rights they were barred from interfering with in the first place?
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on August 14, 2016, 02:24:08 PM
Quote from: walkstall on August 14, 2016, 01:12:05 PM

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft270%2FEV1L1%2F114_bsflag.gif&hash=5a059a2d445aacde252953f628267aab09f2d8f3)  Use the quote function or I will start delete your posts if not used.  Your choice!!
Sounds like a Trumpanzee. It's my fault that he can't use the quote function?
Yeah, his stupidity is always someone else's fault. :lol:
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: walkstall on August 14, 2016, 02:45:18 PM
Quote from: Solar on August 14, 2016, 02:24:08 PM
Sounds like a Trumpanzee. It's my fault that he can't use the quote function?
Yeah, his stupidity is always someone else's fault. :lol:

IF he is going to get on the computer and post on an adult board and try and run with the big dogs.  He need to learn board posting etiquette.  He has a choice!! 
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on August 22, 2016, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 14, 2016, 02:20:22 PM
I am assuming you are talking to me? So regardless, you will use the quote function, understand?

First off, you don't understand the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, which states clearly, that it is a barrier against govt having any say over Ten listed Inalienable Rights. Speech being the first!!!

But what do you want to do? You actually advocate allowing govt power over speech by opening the door a crack allowing it to usurp power over something is was specifically forbidden from having.

The quote function works for me, but you really are not worth quoting because you misrepresent what is being shared with you.

I suggest citizens have the right to share with all other citizens across the nation any information they have regarding the destruction of unalienable right by government or anyone else.  And as far as the the 2nd amendment, it should be untouched and I have not mentioned it.  That is your deceptive efforts at manipulation there.

You have too little integrity towards the intent of our founding documents to attempt restating any thing I post. 

Pages back you showed you are a member of a network stalking me and my efforts to see states citizens use their right to protect their rights and enforce the law.  You posted text here copied and pasted text from a forum that was disappeared when I joined here.

You have negative credibility as an American supportive of the intents of our framing documents.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on August 22, 2016, 11:07:17 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on August 22, 2016, 08:45:12 AM
The quote function works for me, but you really are not worth quoting because you misrepresent what is being shared with you.

I suggest citizens have the right to share with all other citizens across the nation any information they have regarding the destruction of unalienable right by government or anyone else.  And as far as the the 2nd amendment, it should be untouched and I have not mentioned it.  That is your deceptive efforts at manipulation there.

You have too little integrity towards the intent of our founding documents to attempt restating any thing I post. 

Pages back you showed you are a member of a network stalking me and my efforts to see states citizens use their right to protect their rights and enforce the law.  You posted text here copied and pasted text from a forum that was disappeared when I joined here.

You have negative credibility as an American supportive of the intents of our framing documents.
Cut the bull shit kid! Address what I posted, I have no interest in your hairbrained conspiracy theories.
You post at this forum because I allow it, I did not lure your dumb ass here, you infected this forum on your own accord, and as the owner, I'll boot your dumb young ass in the speed of a fly's fart.

Now, answer my post, or say good bye. Do I make myself clear?

You came in claiming you want govt to parse the First Amendment, giving special attention to speech that promotes tranquility, while claiming speech that incites anger should somehow be quelled.
You claim
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 14, 2016, 11:28:42 PM
It's quite clear to me because I am demonstrably on the side of the intent of the 1787 constitution and defense of those intents.

No you are not, because you see varying degrees to speech, where the Framers understood quite clearly dissent was the most important speech of all, but knew it was a part of all speech which is exactly why they didn't define it in anyway.
Yet you claim:
Quote from: ChrisABrown on July 13, 2016, 10:19:11 AM

All speech is free.  The draft revision of the 1st amendment describes what kind of speech is enabled, empowered, supported by the public interests of the constitution.

So answer my post, and while you're at it, post your so called "Draft Revision"
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Possum on August 22, 2016, 12:55:35 PM
Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2016, 11:07:17 AM
Cut the bull shit kid! Address what I posted, I have no interest in your hairbrained conspiracy theories.
You post at this forum because I allow it, I did not lure your dumb ass here, you infected this forum on your own accord, and as the owner, I'll boot your dumb young ass in the speed of a fly's fart.

Now, answer my post, or say good bye. Do I make myself clear?

You came in claiming you want govt to parse the First Amendment, giving special attention to speech that promotes tranquility, while claiming speech that incites anger should somehow be quelled.
You claim
No you are not, because you see varying degrees to speech, where the Framers understood quite clearly dissent was the most important speech of all, but knew it was a part of all speech which is exactly why they didn't define it in anyway.
Yet you claim:
So answer my post, and while you're at it, post your so called "Draft Revision"
Another one who thinks the Declaration of Independence, bill of rights, and the Constitution is subject to change as a new flavor of the month comes out. This thinking is pure liberalism and yet most claim they are conservative. Just more proof that the liberals would trash the bill of rights if given half a chance.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on August 22, 2016, 01:38:45 PM
Quote from: s3779m on August 22, 2016, 12:55:35 PM
Another one who thinks the Declaration of Independence, bill of rights, and the Constitution is subject to change as a new flavor of the month comes out. This thinking is pure liberalism and yet most claim they are conservative. Just more proof that the liberals would trash the bill of rights if given half a chance.
Bingo!!!
He actually sees govt as a force of good. Our Founders knew better, which is why we have three separate branches of govt and a Bill of Rights keeping them all at bay, and then we have mental midgets like this idiot lib that thinks he can improve on the First, by relinquishing it's power to the very entity it was designed to keep chained in a room.
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: ChrisABrown on September 23, 2016, 11:59:48 AM
Hah hah haha, OMG, what infantile incompetent posting related to our unalienable rights and protecting them.

Total unaccountability!

Not one word about how to inform all state citizens of the destruction of unalienable rights.  Seems a nest of agents dedicated to destruction of the 1787 constitution.  I mean that bit of copying up my posts from teapartynation.com before it closed as a forum, then posting it here, where I joined AFTER teapartynation.com ought to make it clear just what a nest of agents this place is.  The quoted in red did not exist online when I joined this forum.

As soo as I did not get a clear answer to these inquiries, I knew the place was a dud, then it turns out the agent is a mod?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


------
Quote from: Solar on July 11, 2016, 07:18:43 AM
That's exactly what he is, a one note Charlie, a myopic fool with one goal in mind, though he has yet to reveal the point behind his innocuous senseless line of questions.
Check this out, found where he's been to several forums making a fool of himself and all opening with the same stupid question.

Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Does Freedom Of Speech Have An Ultimate Purpose? - RoR: Forum
rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/2047.shtml
21 posts - ‎7 authors
... rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. ... What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity? ... and self-generated action -- which means: the freedom to take all the actions ..... INTENT of purpose of free speech to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish.
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The Ultimate Purpose Of Free Speech - legal & biological ...
forums.philosophyforums.com › Philosophy of Politics and Law
Dec 13, 2015 - Ultimate biological or natural law purposes of free speech are to assure information .... Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding ... of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary DOJ Closes Lois Lerner Investigation Without Charges - Tea Party ...
www.teapartynation.com/.../doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-c...
Oct 23, 2015 - 13 posts - ‎2 authors
Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents ... of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? .... The ultimate purpose of free speech is I nly made obvious by my inquiry.

Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Alter or Abolish and Control of the States-How The Masters Of The ...
www.ronpaulforums.com › Forums › Think Tank › U.S. Constitution
Jul 8, 2015 - 30 posts - ‎9 authors
Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary petition: DECLARATOR
www.thepetitionsite.com/566/244/796/declarator/
Jul 1, 2016 - ... need to use their Ninth Amendment rights in order to effectively alter or abolish. ... agree and accept then DECLARE it is constitutional intent that the ... that the ultimate purpose of free speech be to enable the unity adequate ...
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution - Algoxy.com
algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html
Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? No unity has been possible with ...
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Jeffersonian vs Lincolnian America - LDS Freedom Forum
www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41572
Feb 29, 2016 - Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? Top ...
Nullification - Constitutional Amendment - Page 4   Feb 29, 2016
Are you a "citizen" or a "people" of the USA? - Page 2   Feb 19, 2016
The Constitution Correctly Understood   Feb 14, 2016
Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights ...   Feb 14, 2016
More results from www.ldsfreedomforum.com
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Do Only Firearms Have An Ulimate Purpose, Or Does Free Speech ...
www.politicalforum.com › ... › General Political Chat › Opinion POLLS
Mar 29, 2016 - 10 posts - ‎3 authors
Does free speech have that ultimate purpose applied to us collectively to enable our unity ... Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Do Any Here Agree It 's Time To Use The 9th ...   10 posts   May 25, 2016
The Fawning of a Declared Sociopath - Page 2 (politics ...   6 posts   May 4, 2016
Meaning Of Trump Campaign Triangular Lapel Pin ...   10 posts   Mar 29, 2016
HISTORICAL!-U.S. House finally adopts rule to count ...   10 posts   Feb 13, 2015
More results from www.politicalforum.com
Rating temporarily unavailable.  We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
conservativepoliticalforum.com › ... › The Constitution
Jul 4, 2015 - 12 posts - ‎6 authors
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, .... Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding ... ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? .... The ultimate purpose of free speech in a legal, constitutional sense is to ...
Title: Re: The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript
Post by: Solar on September 24, 2016, 08:45:46 AM
Quote from: ChrisABrown on September 23, 2016, 11:59:48 AM
Hah hah haha, OMG, what infantile incompetent posting related to our unalienable rights and protecting them.

Total unaccountability!

Not one word about how to inform all state citizens of the destruction of unalienable rights.  Seems a nest of agents dedicated to destruction of the 1787 constitution.  I mean that bit of copying up my posts from teapartynation.com before it closed as a forum, then posting it here, where I joined AFTER teapartynation.com ought to make it clear just what a nest of agents this place is.  The quoted in red did not exist online when I joined this forum.

As soo as I did not get a clear answer to these inquiries, I knew the place was a dud, then it turns out the agent is a mod?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


------
You are one brain damaged dumb shit!
Do as I did, and search for "Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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

That's how I found you earlier posts, and yes you dip shit, they are still out there regardless of whether the forum is gone or not, the posts are still alive and well.
Hell, for all I know the forum may still be active, they just booted your worthless ass for being such an idiot.

Oh look, the forum is still up and running, so it looks like you were banned.
http://www.teapartynation.com/forums/

Guess what dumb ass, I'm doing the same as they did and kicking your dumb ass to the curb!