• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Ultimate Purpose Of The Right To Free Speech - Re-established through the 9th AMD.

You say you’re new and you’re posting on a freedom of speech post.
But here on this forum you don’t have freedom of speech, you can’t call someone stupid, or other commonly used words during your debates, the moderator will give you a warning.
What ever happened to the old saying
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Our rights slowly eroding away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said MrShangles! The intent of these threads here are to create an understanding of the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech so Americans can unify to preserve the constitution.

That preservation will amount to using Article V, FIRSTLY using a method that we should call "Preparatory Amendment", because by no means is anyone prepared to assure that all amendments have constitutional intent as Article V requires. AND, the 9th amendment guarantees us rights retained, but not listed. So, with regard to the previous sentences, it is logical that Americans have retained the right to prepare for Article V to assure all amendments have constitutional intent. I consider the proposal to be hyper-constitutional and quite vital to an orderly "altering or abolishing" through Article V and amendment.

Preparation would consist of revision of the 1st Amendment in a way that would make it possible for a Citizen to share info critical to stopping the destruction of unalienable rights across the entire nation as quickly as possible. MSM has proven they will not, and we suffer dynamically from that. We don't even know how bad we are hurt yet. The second preparation would be to secure the vote across the states.

Both of these would require the states to amend their constitutions to be consistent with each other and the amended federal constitution.

BTW, ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech would include return of the usenet. Are you aware of what that was, how it worked and what it meant to us?
 
Damn right. My page is based on the fundaments of the framing documents.

Do you accept these definitions of our most prime rights and intents of the constitution?

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that Americans use the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech to enable our unity under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

The Constitution was created to protect the nation from governmental violation of inalienable, socially natural, rights - life, expression and self defense.
 
One needs historical perspective, to see why what should be simple, has been make overly complex. The American Revolution was a revolt against monarchy rule in favor of individual freedom. In monarchy rule, the entitled leaders, will form a big over reaching government, composed of relatives and cronies, who can and will create any law they want, to maintain control and power over the people.

This government model will even take away any public free speech, if this was felt to undermine any lawlessness leadership was creating through propaganda or force. Free speech, was originally felt to be needed to keep the crooks in check so individual could enjoy god give rights that are the same for all people.

On the other hand, freedom of speech and expression can cause some people to become insensitive to each other. If there were no constraints on free speech, in private and social life, one can made up lies, or publicly criticize someone based on their deepest secrets and insecurities. Or, some people would runs cons and scams and call that freedom of speech. There is a down side, to too much talking.

When the Constitution was written, the only people who could vote were men. These men were typically heads of households and tax payers. Slaves could not vote and women could not vote. The net affect was the voters, to whom the Constitution was geared, were a narrower demographics, who were considered mature enough to handle freedom of speech. Not everyone is up to the task.

To the founding fathers, the good side of freedom of speech; which was to keep power and corruption in check, outweighed the bad; gossip and scamming. Men could deal with con artists in other ways. But power has armies.

A good analogy in modern times, is a bunch a men in a sport locker room. They can be brutal to each other in terms of insults and humiliation. This is not for the overly thin skinned. Men often practice brutal free speech as a way to desensitize each other. This training allows free speech to be taken to the limit, when it is needed for good to stand up against crooks. The training allows one to take some good shots, in advance, so one will not fall in the day of adversity, when they need to stand.

This male locker room behavior, which is a type of freedom of speech training camp against irrational sensitivity, is not the type of behavior that most females are able to handle. If there is one female reporter in the locker room, freedom of speech has be to limited to protect the female. This female element was not part of the original equation, when the Constitution was written. Men and women have not changed over the centuries and the founding fathers knew this. The male only criteria allowed the bar to be set higher. Picture if the culture was like a locker room. We would all be tough and ready to stand up to treachery.

The problem with accommodation and lowering the bar for the sensitivity needs of women and children, is although social sensitivity will improve, the other side of freedom of speech will be impacted. This is connected to a lawyer and con artist strategy, where you can protect crooks and criminal activity under guise of sensitivity concerns for third parties. The watering down makes it too easier for the scammers, since women like the bad boys, and will accept their lies, because of what they feel.

For example, all men are blamed for the plight of women. This is not even rational, since it can't be proven to be real. This may be true of some men, but not all men have had anything to do with this. The scam artist and crooks in public offices will push this irrationality, knowing they can't be placed in check, by a lowered bar of freedom of speech. They have learned to make this rational observation appear to be insensitive to women. Too many women will accept the lie, from the bad boy.

There is a whole range of such lawyer scams based on crooks hiding under the mask of sensitivity. The watered down constraints on freedom of speech, acts like the ties, that holds up the mask up for the thief. All voters need to man-up, so the con artists have checks and balances.

It makes no sense to start with the highest and then go down hill from there. That is the way back to monarchy.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution was created to protect the nation from governmental violation of inalienable, socially natural, rights - life, expression and self defense.

Uh oh, evasion. We get down to fundaments.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
 
To the founding fathers, the good side of freedom of speech; which was to keep power and corruption in check,

I certainly agree that simplification of ideal is vital and that all Citizens need to vote.

But restating things using different labels doesn't help. Did you happen to read the thread and find the description of the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy?

The bottom line is that only a unified people can defend rights and freedoms from tyrants so simplicity that tends to enable that is what is needed. Obviously old definitions of the constitutions intent are lacking if the situation has deteriorated.

For those reasons, Americans must look to free speech serving the PURPOSE of enabling the needed unity.

Do you accept these definitions of the most prime intents of the framing documents?

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
 
Last edited:
Uh oh, evasion. We get down to fundaments.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?

Speech and religion, metaphysical expression, are part of the socially natural right to expression.

I'm not sure where yours and my understanding of natural rights and the purpose of the Constitution differ.
 
Speech and religion, metaphysical expression, are part of the socially natural right to expression.

I'm not sure where yours and my understanding of natural rights and the purpose of the Constitution differ.

The Declaration of Independence provides the intent of the constitution defining a natural right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable right. And the constitution turns that into law with Article V having an orderly method through the states.
 
Speech and religion, metaphysical expression, are part of the socially natural right to expression.

I'm not sure where yours and my understanding of natural rights and the purpose of the Constitution differ.

The Declaration of Independence provides the intent of the constitution defining a natural right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable right. And the constitution turns that into law with Article V having an orderly method through the states.
 
The Constitution was created to protect the nation from governmental violation of inalienable, socially natural, rights - life, expression and self defense.

That is not an acceptance of these definitions of the most prime constitutional intents.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that Americans use the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech to enable our unity under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
 
No you did not. And I quoted it last post. Answer now please.

Please explain what the framers intended to serve the purpose of creating the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech.

Cordy, you are not being accountable and showing that you support an agreement that state Citizens can use to defend and enforce the constitution.

What great sacrifice do you suffer from agreeing and accepting that the framers intended for free speech to serve the purpose of enabling the unity to effectively alter or abolish? What keeps you from simply accepting that free speech as our natural law has that purpose, and it is ultimate, because without your unalienable rights, you do not exist.
 
ChrisABrown said:
Answer now please.

Please explain what the framers intended to serve the purpose of creating the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech.

Oops my mistake. I meant the 2nd Amendment, but you got it.

But otherwise you are totally wrong because you have not explained how Americans are to defend the constitution. That is what matters.

Please explain what the framers intended to serve the purpose of creating the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech.

What reason do you have vissy for not answering? Where is your accountability?

What great sacrifice do you suffer from agreeing and accepting that the framers intended for free speech to serve the purpose of enabling the unity to effectively alter or abolish? What keeps you from simply accepting that free speech as our natural law has that purpose, and it is ultimate, because without your unalienable rights, you do not exist.
 
Hmm, poster here cannot accept definition of constitutional intent that defends and enforces the constitution, but pretends to understand it. While also not coming up with a way for the people to unify effectively in defense or enforcement of the constitution. Will not accept these definitions which do enable such defense and enforcement.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Critical thinking anyone?* Does the term cognitive infiltration mean anything?

The 9A has nothing whatsoever to do with purposes of enumerated rights. Purposes are not even remotely required in order for a right to be protected. Most of the Bill of Rights mentions no purpose at all.

The above is cognitively implying that rights have no purpose. Their purposes are defined by common knowledge! Tyrants love the notion that rights have no purpose so can then be logically disregarded, and if anybody will accept that argument, tyrants will be delighted.


~~~Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ~~~


Below Vissy changes the term that I use, "right of life" to "right to life," which is a term used by anti abortion activists. This is done to try and associate defense of our rights with a controversy in quagmire of marginalization.

"right to life,"

The agent is "repackaging" my position.

freedom of expression in order to allow the violent overthrow of the existing government.

Vissy was asked to show where I advocate "violent overthrow", but could not show that because it was never written.

"Repackaging" is the term for this in the industry of cognitive infiltration, which includes the absurd implication that rights do not have purpose, OR, discarding that it it is completely up to the people to define their purposes, which is not to be denied or disparaged. Vissy does it again.

freedom of expression? It doesn't need a purpose.

Stated as if it doesn't have one, or does not have an ultimate purpose.

Are you suggesting that the Framers intended for Americans to actually overthrow the government,

Alter or abolish are not "overthrow", they are corrective and orderly as laid out in Article V.* Vissy tries to prevent any change at all through any means except the political system which is dynamically hijacked. Tyrants love it!

As to Article V, you do understand that it does not legitimize the full rejection of the Constitution?

And what is presented is exactly what Article V is about, states proposing amendments, then ratifying them, not congress. The constitution accommodates that event.

EXCERPT OF ARTICLE V
in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof

What I advocate, and the framers do also, when congress will not call a convention is this clause, "or by conventions in three fourths thereof". The states simply act without congress, and this is logical if the constitution is to stand because congress has been in violation and the congress for over 100 years regarding the calling of a convention.

So expecting any accountability at all from an agent is kind of silly, but a real and sincere American would at least answer this.

What great sacrifice do you suffer from agreeing and accepting that the framers intended for free speech to serve the purpose of enabling the unity to effectively alter or abolish? What keeps you from simply accepting that free speech as our natural law has that purpose, and it is ultimate, because without your unalienable rights, you do not exist.
 
Last edited:
The DOI came in 1776, next major action was the Articles of Confederation and then our present constitution. And we recognize this as good progress in our history. The spirit of liberty and justice helped us get to having a government of the people, where everything the government did was open to public scrutiny.
 
The DOI came in 1776, next major action was the Articles of Confederation and then our present constitution. And we recognize this as good progress in our history. The spirit of liberty and justice helped us get to having a government of the people, where everything the government did was open to public scrutiny.

Yes, open to public scrutiny. A trait we must preserve.

What history does not record, is that the rights presented in the DOI, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are actually only 30% of a much larger, inclusive and profound doctrine called the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech".

The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is or was, an actual, practiced philosophical doctrine by the Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy, specifically the Seneca. The "meaning" is derived from an understanding that can come from the practice of free speech. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


The Tories were probably paying people in the society, peers of the framers, to oppose the full doctrine because it would tend to make the people too strong with their independence and the country more difficult, or impossible to take over secretly.

As it was, Lincolns efforts to use Article V to stop the war was defeated by the press who was paid off by the banking/armorer cartel that financed the union army, to NOT print his speeches so population centers of cities, controlling state legislations, did not know of his plan.
 
I'm new here, so I certainly can't speak for the forum... but for speaking for myself, I haven't really commented on this thread because I haven't really figured out exactly what you're trying to say.

Hmm, and you pretend to not understand definition of the most prime constitutional intent as well.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

And then Cordy can't answer this simple question.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?

And Cordy won't even explain why.

What great sacrifice do you suffer from agreeing and accepting that the framers intended for free speech to serve the purpose of enabling the unity to effectively alter or abolish? What keeps you from simply accepting that free speech as our natural law has the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity

Members and mods should consider this a demonstration of what cognitive infiltration looks like. Pretending to not understand, misrepresenting, selectivity and unaccountability are clear indicators. A normal sincere person will not go this far with out done accountability.

And it's not like covert groups of agents infiltrating is not documented.

Obama confidant?s spine-chilling proposal - Salon.com

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

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

British spy agency taps cables, shares with NSA: Guardian | Reuters "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."


And, the Koch bros also have recruiting and training programs for this as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom