The Declaration of Independence -- full transcript

Started by red_dirt, July 04, 2015, 01:07:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Solar

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?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

ChrisABrown

#62
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?




Adjusted jpg size.
walks

ChrisABrown

#63
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.

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

ChrisABrown

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.

Possum

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.

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

ChrisABrown

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?


Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

ChrisABrown

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>

Solar

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?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

ChrisABrown

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?

walkstall

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?


  Use the quote function or I will start delete your posts if not used.  Your choice!! 

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."