No one has demanded that you “confess” to changing the subject. We just wish you would actually participate in a reasonable manner in the thread that you chose to start.
Accusations that you have been damned for failing to “confess” are silly and not even factual. They are odd opinions held solely by you.
The topic has never been changed to “you personally.” That is simply one more example of your habit of misconstruing what has been posted.
No. When you spout nonsense couched in terms that use English words, but assigning them meanings that they do not actually convey among other speakers of English, you raise questions as to what you are (very unsuccessfully) trying to convey. You are not required to answer those question and no one in authority on this forum has indicated that you are required to answer. (Just the opposite, in fact.) However, when you insist on giving words meanings that do not correspond to the meanings anyone else understands them to convey, you invite challenges to your statements. You are free to refrain from responding and the other posters are free to draw conclusions from your persistent misuse of language and your refusal to explain the source(s) of your idiolect.
To the extent that you continue to post in a manner that no one else can understand, you are not engaged in a debate, but are simply posting random thoughts (poorly expressed), that wander through your mind. That is very much the nature of a blog, in which one casts one’s ideas out to the world without actually engaging others in genuine discussion.
And yet, you refuse to actually share ideas, masking whatever ideas you have behind words contorted away from their agreed upon meanings.
We have had multiple posters, in this thread, express their honest evaluation that your performance is unsatisfactory. That you persist in your Humpty Dumpty approach to discussion is not the fault of the other posters. Competitive ideas are welcome in this forum. Odd claims that rely on the misuse of language and the presentation of clear errors in regard to history, not so much.
So your position is that the Bill of Rights is part of the (good) Rule of Law, but Congress replaced that with the clause that the validity of the public debt “shall not be questioned” and now we have criminal rule?
I don’t want to misrepresent your position, but I think that you are placing the wrong meaning on the phrase “shall not be questioned.” Are you suggesting that this somehow means I am violating the Constitution if I say that such and such public expenditure is improper, unconstitutional, or wasn’t validly bargained for, thereby violating my freedom of speech?
That is not at all what that means, and it represents a misunderstanding of the law. I can cite for you if you would like, but before I waste keystrokes I want to make sure that is your position.
All that phrase means is that the United States government will honor its debts. If you invest in a Treasury bond, then it will be repaid. No law can be passed to dishonor or refuse payment on that bond. No rights are violated and it protects the credit of the United States. It is a non-controversial statement.
The Topic above is a focus upon me personally rather than people in general. Divided are those who focus attention on people personally on one side, and on the other side are those who work to avoid focus of attention on individual personal characters when discussing a Topic.
Divisions along Rules Published as Forum Rules (no personal attacks) versus personal attacks becoming the Topic because that is a choice made.
Those who effectively work to avoid personal attacks and character assassination.
Those who work to ignore the actual topic and change the topic from the topic, and change the topic to personal attacks and character assassination.
Examples:
“Please don’t.”
“Yikes, that post reads like a game of Milton Friedman Buzzword Bingo.”
“The posts of yours under discussion are riddled with jargon and short on clarity.”
“If you want to make this out to be libel, I suggest you seek legal counsel.”
“Are you a part of the “Freemen on the land” movement?”
“And if ye shall find the chulengo, ye mustn’t chinga the chulengo, for that is an abomination. However, if the chulengo giveth permission, but spitting twice in thy face, then ye may stroke the balls of the chulengo, if it be a man-child chulengo.”
“I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.”
“And then…the second man turned to the first and started telling him how Dick Cheney had kidnapped him and inserted top secret DNA strands into his anus.”
“Funding based on land mass is a stupid idea, and still results in funding coming from individual people.”
"I’m not making any accusations, but I’m not entirely convinced you are human. You sound like a robot attempting to write vaguely in the style and vocabulary of a typical GD poster, but without the form, structure or coherence. Is this what you’re going for?
“I’m not trying to flame you, man, because I still have hope that you’re just a misguided human who needs some help.”
“I mean it lacks incoherence or walls of text but you know how it goes.”
That is the first page.
Attempts to connect me to other people as if the topic is me personally, such as attempts to connect me to people labeled as Sovereign Citizens, or “misguided human” “Freemen on the Land,” or whatever: is clearly (unless your viewpoint ignores the clarity I see from my viewpoint) moving from Rule of Forum and moving to rule by changing the topic from the topic and changing the topic to me personally.
Damned if I point this out, and damned if I do not point this out, and so the Topic is designed to include this specific eventuality within the Topic boundaries.
Divisions along Rule of Law (Published forum rules) versus Criminal Rule (those who ignore the actual published forum rules) and now the subject can turn once again to my personal character as I choose to point this out, rather than the actual information pointed out, such as, again, efforts to connect me personally to other people, and efforts to characterize me personally as someone worthy of ridicule.
Moving from last page to first page:
"My money is on taxation equals slavery and the criminals are the ones who want to punish Josef for not paying taxes. I always comes down to taxes with the SovCits, "
“I think I’ve got it. Buried in that last screed was something about debt slavery.
So Josef doesn’t have to pay federal taxes because they didn’t exist under the Articles and the Constitution did not abolish slavery right from the start something something Profit!”
Stopping right there for the sake of clarity. Why not call the IRS and have my records checked since the topic has turned from the Topic to my personal life?
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule include those who refuse to hear, refuse to see, and refuse to speak about those who are criminals posing as the government.
A place and a time rich with this type of information that spells out Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule is American history at the time of the original federal founding.
“Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
If someone starts a topic about me, and my tax records, and the Topic also concerns people I am actually connected to, or people I was connected to at one time, and the topic started about me also includes any opinions concerning my mental health, or my lack of ability to write a coherent sentence in English, then I can volunteer to join in on that Topic to help anyone who cares to know about me personally.
The Topic about me can be Titled “The habits of Josf.”
An opening statement on the Topic Titled "The Habits of Josf,’ can be something along the lines of how wrong Josf is when Josf wrongly thinks that his personal dealings with the IRS are his personal dealings with the IRS.
Spouting nonsense is what Josf does, one of the habits of Josf, as this Josf character habitually spouts nonsense. That is the Topic. If I defend against the move from the Topic to me personally I am merely proving beyond a doubt that I am spouting nonsense.
If I point out that Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule includes those who follow Published Forum Rules are Divided from those who don’t, then that too is proof that Josf habitually spouts nonsense.
I stay within the Topic boundaries either way; but only from my personal viewpoint which proves to be a personal viewpoint that habitually spouts nonsense, and therefore my viewpoint is irrelevant for any purpose other than to prove that my personal viewpoint is unworthy.
An example of what someone claims to be “misuse of language” might help when the Topic turns from the Topic to me personally.
Someone, for example, can claim that I, me, and only me, misuse language when I use the word Federal to mean a voluntary association.
That is a problematic claim if that is the claim since my use of the word federal is offered by John Adams and my use of the word federal is offered by someone writing in defense of the correct use of the word federal.
Blaming me for the definition of the word federal, as if I alone made up the word, is problematic since John Adams offers the meaning of the word, in context, and then someone else confirms that meaning well enough in English, and that was done well before I was born, so claiming me, personally, as the one abusing language now, is a problem if the word “federal” is the example used now as proof that I abuse language now.
Divisions along Rule of Law (federal means voluntary association between states) versus Criminal Rule (national men abuse language).
Why do those national men (who were slave traders, and today very few people, with a Bill of Sale in hand, claim to own people) abuse language in that way?
Focus of attention upon negative qualities of me personally is a tactic. Focus of attention upon the voluntary nature of a federation, “the only true and strict sense of the word,” in English, defined by example, after example, before I was even born, can be a method of discussing the actual topic.
What, for example, is an example of a federal union, if someone were to ask John Adams as John Adams took his place in the American federal Congress as the American federal Congress discussed, debated, the writing and publishing of the first American document (statute) known as a Declaration of Independence?
That would be a topic point of discussion, but that would not be the Josf is an unworthy character topic.
Volume I page 57, 58 (73,74 in pdf copy):
Rather than the unworthiness of Josf’s character as the Topic, the Topic can be the voluntary nature of a federation as explained in the words of John Adams while John Adams was an American federal Congressman debating, and discussing, the publishing of a Declaration of Independence.
Changing from a discussion on that part of the topic (John Adam’s explanation of the voluntary nature of a federal association) to the unworthy character of Josf as Josf failed already to discuss that part of the topic, without actually showing where a failure by the unworthy character of Josf occurred, is a Division along Rule of law versus Criminal Rule.
Accusations of unworthiness (of Josf = off topic) while affording the accused a means by which the accused can defend against said accusation in cases where the accusation is demonstrably false.
Accusations of unworthiness (of Josf = off topic) without actually showing said unworthiness.
An example might be offered. One possible example is the meaning of the word federal in the context offered by John Adams during the discussion, and during the debate, when the first American federal Congress worked on the first official Declaration of Independence.
Do the words explain a voluntary association or not?
If the answer is yes, yes the words of John Adams clearly show that the meaning of the word federal is in line with the meaning of the term voluntary association, then that is not a move from the topic to me personally.
If the answer is no, then how can someone arrive at that point of view when John Adams is quoted as John Adams offers the words “acquiescence only” when John Adams spoke the words “our connection had been federal only”?
Those who are voluntarily associated can, on their say so, un-associate. Even if the topic discussion leads to Division concerning “federal means voluntary” on one side, and “federal does not mean voluntary on the other side”, even if that is the discussion now in this topic, that too is a mirror, clearly, as to what happened in the first example in America when people were Divided as Tories, or Loyalists on the involuntary side, and Regulators, Patriots, and Revolutionary people forming a voluntary federation on the other side.
Those on the “federal means voluntary” side offer information concerning the means by which people in States (that are federated) can voluntarily leave the federation, which is known as secession. That happens without me becoming the topic of discussion as my personal character is publicly drug through the mud.
The topic concerns a very specific misuse of language having nothing to do with me personally, and that is clearly stated in English by someone who is not me.
My personal character is now claimed as someone who relies upon “the misuse of language,” in yet again another attack upon me personally.
If there is an error, such as the dating error, then those errors are easily identified and corrected.
Where is language being misused by me?
How about an example of language being misused so as to exemplify the meaning of the misuse of languge?
Such as the following example:
That is at the core of the topic. Those words are not my personal abuse of language. If someone wants to change the topic from the topic to me personally, that can be done, sure, and where then is an example of me personally abusing language?
How about a new topic: Josf (not the “Federalist Party” members) abuses language; here are examples proving that fact.
Josf, this isn’t the 1700’s, and we really don’t care to join your club and use your particular interpretations of Mr. Adams archaic definitions of words. This is the year 2015, and if you wish to converse with us, it would be nice if you would use a dictionary that was published within the last twenty years or so, o.k.?
By the way, the random capitalization of words is rather distracting, and since you have shown no interest in telling us why you do this, it would be peachy keen if you would either tell us the reason, or cut it out.
No. It is not a focus on you, personally. It is a response to comments you have made. That is a sidebar discussion, not a change in focus.
Similarly, your long catalog of comments that you claim were attacks on you were merely observations about your (often confusing) posts.
Comments linking you to other people or movements are not attacks. They have been efforts by posters to try to provide a context in which to figure out what you are trying to say, since your actual statements are rarely clear.
The topic has not changed. This was simply one more effort to place your nearly incoherent posts in context. And attempting to discover and publish anything about your actual identity, much less taking that information to the IRS would be a violation of board rules.
And here is the crux of the problem. Your insistence that the government is “criminal” was challenged on the first page of this thread. You have responded with meaningless walls of text that have persuaded no one of your odd definition of “criminal” (misuse of words). (Your definition of “federal” is also simply an odd interpretation that you have assigned to various selected quotations that you have failed to persuade anyone to accept.)
It should be noted that you have been asked on more than one occasion to explain what our current response should be if we accepted your odd definitions and declared that the current government was, in some idiosyncratic way, “criminal.” You have not provided any coherent answer to that question.
If someone starts a topic on you and your tax records on this site, they will be shut down. That is not an appropriate topic for this message board. Speculating as to whether your odd, rambling, and not very coherent presentation is inspired by one or more of the various “Sovereignty” groups is not an actual investigation into your personal life, but an effort to provide context for your odd use of language.
I will make no assertion that there have been no negative comments about your posts or your posting style. There clearly have been. Those comments, however, are a response to your insistence on posting in a style as obscure as possible and generally reflect frustration with your insistence on generally refusing to answer direct questions with direct answers.
For example, in Post #21, you were asked a direct question regarding the intention of this thread. You responded first with a declaration that you were not selling anything, (although the question had implied no such thing), then implied that that had been the intent of the question. So, very early on, you were making your person the focus of the discussion while “attacking” (to use your terminology) another poster with implications of his motives.
You then went on to quote various authors making vague assertions about their personal views of the constitutional convention while refusing to actually answer the direct question asked.
Your continued use of the phrases “Rule of Law” and “Criminal Rule” are nothing but jargon for some sort of philosophy, the objections to which you have merely dismissed without providing a satisfactory response.
That is not our problem. That was your choice to obscure the discussion behind a wall of text and jargon.
Again, I am not selling anything, I am not on a fishing expedition, and I am not trying to win anyone over to my side, the idea of debate from my side is what it is, not what it is not, and if no one shares my idea of debate, then they do not.
Debate is a contest of ideas and anyone caring to see a better (higher quality and lower cost idea) can, anyone caring not to can not, there is no intention on my part to “win anyone over to my side,” as the information offered is self-evident as far as I can concerned, and those who see it, do, and those who don’t, do not.
The question (which was offered indirectly because there was an effort to misdirect the the focus of attention onto someone who is presumed, falsely, to be someone on a fishing expedition: “…i’ll bite…”) was answered directly. The alleged “direct” question (which was not direct) was answered directly.
The question (which was not direct):
Human Action
“Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?”
The answer offered:
If every writer in this Topic fails to understand the meaning of the word fraud, then those people constitute a Division along Rule of law versus Criminal Rule.
Those who understand the meaning of fraud.
Those who do not understand the meaning of fraud.
If every writer in this Topic fails to understand how criminal’s rule their victims, such as criminals ruling their victims with fraud, then those people constitute a Division along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
Those who understand how criminals rule their victims through such crimes as fraud.
Those who do not understand how criminals rule their victims through such crimes as fraud.
The direct answer to the indirect question is offered by a speaker who speaks English well enough, a speaker who is not me, so claims of failing to speak coherent English directed at me personally (when the direct answer to the indirect question is offered in the testimony of someone else, not me): there is an obvious further Division along Rule of law versus Criminal Rule.
Those who understand a direct answer offered in response to an indirect question offered in testimony from someone at the scene of the fraud in progress.
Those who do not understand, where those who do not understand respond with personal attacks concerning the personal character of the OP who quoted the direct answer to the indirect question.
Of course there are many other possible Divisions within Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
Rule of Law:
Those who understand the meaning of fraud, and they understand also the methods by which victims are effectively defended against fraud.
Those who understand the meaning of fraud, and they do not understand how victims can be effectively defended from frauds.
Criminal Rule:
Those who clearly understand the meaning of fraud because they perpetrate fraud routinely.
Those who perpetrate fraud routinely while they have convinced themselves that fraud is not fraud, rather fraud is just normal for them, it is their way of communicating naturally.
And, since no one accused you of trying to sell anything, this whole paragraph is silly.
::: shrug :::
We have had posters, here, for whom it was “self-evident” that the moon landings were a hoax or that the WTC/Pentagon attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government. To me, it is “self-evident” that such posters were kooks with little grasp of reality.
Your posts do not quite fall into the same category, but your persistent argument by obfuscation does nothing to persuade me that your position has any basis in reality.
Direct question (which has been asked before):
Even if your odd beliefs are true, what should be done to address them?
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. At first glance, these 2 concepts do not appear to be on the same scale, so talk of the line between the two isn’t coherent. Criminal behavior is defined by a code of law, which varies from place to place. Rule of Law is a characteristic of forms of government.
We can clarify by substituting in a commonly understood term: say we consider, “Divisions along Rule of Law vs. Kleptocracy”. A necessary condition of kleptocracy is that those on top amass great wealth in connection to their control of government. An implication is that this sort of thing is done via corruption, though I suppose it could be consistent with local legal codes. I’d say the relevant defining traits of kleptocracy involve a) lack of transparency and b) lack of external oversight, though c) corruption is typically involved.
How any of this ties into the Articles of Confederation and the constitutional convention of 1786 is unclear to me.
I suspect that what the OP is driving at is the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate governance. I might derive a biblical foundation for that, to wit, “Love God and His creation, love thy neighbor as thyself, but try not to be a sanctimonious prick about all that.” Freedom of religion props the last clause. The goals in the preamble of the US constitution of insuring domestic Tranquility, promoting the general Welfare, and securing “…the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, aid the preceding.
In the effort to redirect the focus of attention back onto the Topic instead of misdirection from the Topic to my personal character, the following is offered in Debate on the Topic of Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
The indirect question was asked:
Human Action
“Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?”
Divisions along Rule of Law (Forum rules) versus Criminal Rule is exemplified when an individual misdirects focus from the subject matter of the Topic, and the subject matter is directed toward an imaginary fisherman who is a Man of Straw: the imaginary fisherman only exists in the imagination of the creator of this imaginary fisherman. The imaginary fisherman is fishing for imaginary fish, and then an imaginary fish claims that an imaginary fish is on an imaginary hook, biting down on the bait, and finding that the imaginary food is a trap, as the hook sinks into the mouth of the fish.
Those who initiate such forms of a Man of Straw argument are on one side, and on the other side are those who recognize them for what they are, and those who initiate those types of Man of Straw arguments are accurately identified as individuals who initiate a turn of attention away from the subject matter of the topic, and the change of attention initiated by the individual is a change toward focus of attention upon an individual, who is, in this case, falsely claimed to be someone setting hooked bait out so as to trick someone into biting on the hooked bait.
That is sometimes called marketing. That is often used in marketing terms. An advertisement is often created so as to hook potential customers into buying something for sale.
Some people know that the above is factual.
Some people do not know that the above is factual.
Getting past the misdirection away from the topic where I am being falsely characterized as someone setting bait with a hook, so as to get someone else to bite on the hooked bait, getting past that to the actual Topic question is next.
Human Action
“Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?”
Question in red, and answer in blue:
The red colored words may constitute a direct question (after the misdirection concerning a fishing expedition/sales pitch comment) which can be understood as “what were the reasons, or motives, of the criminals as they perpetrated the fraud that they perpetrated,” and if that was the intent of the question (not so direct under closer inspection), then that is the answer provided by the witness who witnessed the crime as it was happening in time and place. Why did the criminals choose to be criminals, or what where their motives? Why were they criminals instead of good people who are not criminals?
If, on the other hand the question concerns “why” is the crime of fraud a crime in fact, then common sense may help, and again the answer is in blue:
Frauds cannot “openly and avowedly” accomplish the ruin of a voluntary association (federal union) of defenders, the criminals must “covertly” (fraudulently) do so, since the “marks” or the victims who are being hooked (monarchy) by the bait (false federalism) would not bite into the bait (false federalism) if they new (monarchy) was the hook that would sink in once they bite on the bait.
Those who understand that the above is true and accurate.
Those who do not understand that the above is true and accurate.
One of many people in group 1 is named Luther Martin. Luther Martin was at the crime scene.
Additional words were offered after the mischaracterization concerning someone biting on something, and after one question was answered directly, there is yet another possible direct question:
Human Action
“Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?”
Rule of law at that time was a voluntary federation as explained well enough by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, whereby those who are connected in a federal way are connected for their mutual defense, voluntarily, and when one member of the federal union perpetrates a fraud upon the other members, the nature of federation is ended because a crime scene replaces the former voluntary union.
At the time the State governments were independent competitors where each defensive union supplied a different version of defense to many potential shoppers who are shopping for defensive services. Slaves, refugees, patriots, regulators, revolutionary war fighters, and veterans, can find sanctuary from criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law; and there were 13 competitors offering competitive versions of Rule of Law.
That was explained here:
Those are many words.
The following is fewer words:
The question was offered (after the “bite” comment):
Human Action
“Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?”
They (the criminals) “whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations” opposed the existing federal union that was based upon mutual defense of Liberty done in a federal (voluntary) manner. A witness at the crime seen testified as to them “acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished,” which is called fraud. The crime was fraud, the crime scene was also called The Dirty Compromise.
Rule of Law = mutual defense associations called States, each with competitive forms of Rule of Law, federated, into one voluntary mutual defense association, under the Articles of Confederation.
Opposition = Those “whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations” and those who were caught red handed “covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.”
The turn from the Topic to me personally is accurately identified as such, and the questions were answered.
Before I read this thread, I understood that it was possible to create a misleading argument by using a core term in an unconventional manner. It’s also possible to create a valid argument with an unconventional definition, provided you acknowledge what you are doing up front.
What I didn’t have exposure to was the laddering of unconventional definitions. Here we can see unconventional definitions of criminal (which usually involves the breaking of a system of applicable law), monarchy (which usually involves mandates of hereditary rule) and federal (which usually refers to multi-level governance). Throw in some tendentious claims about the political foundations of the Articles of Confederation and you get an argument from which I selected the following:
I would not characterize this rhetorical structure as particularly persuasive to most people. But perhaps it doesn’t have to be. Not sure.
I think what’s going on here is a variety of argument via association. Some words have positive associations, others negative. This appears to be an exercise in loading up the negative ones on your adversaries and the positive ones with your agenda. The sometimes scholar Newt Gingrich discussed a more sophisticated version of this in his memorandum, “Language: A Key Aspect of Control”. I suspect that Gingrich was more conscious of the underlying technique or process than certain other practitioners.
Agreed. This mountain of text simply amounts to: Things I believe are positive=the Rule of Law. Things I believe are negative=Criminal Rule.
If one disagrees with something, then a quote is cherry picked from a founding father to show that the Rule of Law is a good thing, therefore my position is right. Similarly, if one agrees with something, then another cherry picked quote shows that criminal rule is bad and therefore the position is incorrect.
It is simple question begging. I wish the OP would argue the points he is trying to make instead of repeating the same things ad nauseum.
How about this: since we cannot understand what the argument is, what then would be the result? Describe modern life under the “Rule of Law.” Are income taxes legal? Is secession legal? Is central banking legal? If it isn’t, what replaces it? Can a person be punished for operating a car on the public highways without a valid state issued license? What powers (if any) would the national government have?
The fixation on all-caps pops up in other areas too, such as the arguments that your birth certificate is really a stock certificate for a secret account held in your name by the federal government, which you can access if you know the right codes, including using your name in regular punctuation, instead of in all-caps as is commonly used on birth certificates.