Who are "they"? Why does your existence depend on whether or not "they" agree with you? Why can't you have a meaningful existence, regardless of what anyone else believes?
Please quote constitution "intent" from the constitution. You are just giving your own interpretation Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Everyone, everyone. Because everyone's existence depends on everyone else's, and everyone else doesn't care about anyone else's existence. And this causes a paradox, no one person can be meaningful because no one person can contribute their own abilities deviated from everyone else.
My existence is very meaningful, and what I work for is also very meaningful. Who are you addressing that you agree with? Which people? What loop? BTW, do agree and accept that freedom of speech has the ultimate root purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood? Restated, or guessing at that, because what you've posted lacks context; you've said you are addressing and agreeing with society. And you are going to evade stating if you agree with and accept the ultimate root purpose of free speech. Okay, and your username indicates you consider yourself a "spirit of light". Are you going to be accountable with context and explain yourself. I mean it absolutely is needed if you are going to have credibility in this discussion.
I think it should be self explanatory, I agree with all the things you have said. The realistic factor is evident in this thread. and that's why I think the way I do.
I've asked for a specific answer to a specific question not whether or not you agree with everything in the thread. Accountability is everything when it come to credibility.
Although I am tired of explaining this constant. At this time specifically, I'm not in the state of mind to express anything right now.
A minor pretense of agreement by yuri, or colt for that matter do not constitute agreement. At least colt has a degree of accountability but appears to have been conditioned by cognitive infiltration to accept group pretense over logic. Neither he nor Penelope have been accountable for explainng how the founding documents limit governments ability to make laws blocking the empowerment the people to use free speech to unify in the protection of their unalienable right of life, IF the right to free speech is not it. Time will tell.
We have a covert group working together to block understanding of it, to attempt to confuse its meaning, to foul the viewers cognition of it.
Kind of like yuri, return fire, Penelope and vicious trying to assert with their repeated confusions, as a self validating group with misrepresentations and distortions; that free speech DOES NOT have the purpose of assuring the unalienable right of life AND IS there to protect the peoples need for unity derived from sharing and understanding threats against their lives, and strategy to protect them.
So I essentially agree with 95% of what's said right here. But then when you start down this track, you totally lose me. The rash accusations and insults start. It's really not your message that turns people off. It's the delivery. You haven't asked for my advice, so I won't lecture, but I think you'd do better spending more time talking about what I've quoted first (ChristopherABrown, on 26 Sept 2014 - 5:17 PM, said, than what I quoted second (ChristopherABrown, on 26 Sept 2014 - 10:49 PM, said).
Defense of conditions that nurture life require unity. If people were capable of that here they would be participating positively in exchange for that purpose. There is interference from insincere, unaccountable people against unity, there is interference with my warnings of danger and reason for unity. I will oppose that directly until positive support for unity appears. I've done as you suggest in the past numerous times, and the confusion created by 40 years of media prevents direct social acceptance of universal values. The interference here blocks it completely.
This, holy shit. Most people here are liberal, anti-government and pro-environment but when you start calling people cognitive infiltrators and say you're exposing people for a greater purpose and agenda, it doesn't bode well. It's similar to how the Israeli defenders here have only caused large scale contempt. Most people would be willing to listen if you would step down from the soap box and simply enter discussion. One thing stands, you're not going to bring unity to GC, let alone the internet.
Rather than 'interference' and blocking, I said the exact same thing with my sources. Ya know, if you actually watched the video I posted about the KGB/CIA's Ideological subversion, the Frankfurt School's cultural marxism and critical theory you might realize we're on the same page (outside cognitive infiltrators, absolutes and your obsession with air and water). You might also learn a thing or two. It goes back to what we were saying about delivery, we can debate any underlying purpose in the First Amendment, the environment, ideological subversion (what I think you mean when you use cognitive infiltrators as a misnomer), unity or any of that if you express some moderation. Its when you mesh them all together with a vocal agenda trying to incite the community that we take a step back and think "this guy is nuts".