Really, did you come up with that on your own? My thoughts are pretty much expressed there as Mark is my teacher but then some of us are capable of learning and others are not:

Teachability

An individuals teachability, or their ability to learn by way of being taught by someone else, is extremely dependent upon the open-mindedness or close-mindedness of the individual being taught. Low teachability derives from arrogance and rigid skepticism, but also from naivet� and gullibility. High teachability derives from a balance between healthy skepticism and an open-minded willingness to learn and change.

Go to the beginning of the lecture and you will find this. And yes I do take great notes, especially after studying that lecture many many many times. Of course I have listened to many others by him but this is the root of knowledge but then that may be a little hard for you to understand.

And by the way, do you have anything at all to add? I know that you do not have the ability to dispute any of the facts as you never do. And I know from your statement that you know little about Mark Passio so let me share a direct quote from him:



But then if you knew anything of Mark's work, he does not like copyrights and extends to all to use freely. But the real attribute is having the intelligence to be able to use what is learned in life, but then some will never learn anything outside that wonderous indoctrination.

So rant your little heart out, I could care less. It just lends to my objective anyway.

the point is there are MANY TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of happening in the world...

so the happenings one PICKS from ALL THE MEGA TRILLIONS OF HAPPENINGS, be the one's that ONLY prove what one self first WISHED TO PROVE.

hence, why quoting data from only SOME people, and not taking data from ALL THE PEOPLE, show the extreme bias...

data taken selectively to prove one's own methods and belief's are pure and sensible...

ALL DATA WOULD HAVE TO BE USED TO CREATE ANYTHING GOOD FOR "ALL".

using only "some data" out of ALL DATA be just talking a small part of what be available...

but when one is talking about anarchy, treason and revolution, small success is equivalent to TOTAL LOSS.

the same as quoting Jesus, as if one wishes to quote jesus as some authority for it's own actions, than one would need to take all words spoken...

as that which live by the sword die by the sword...

and turn the other cheek...

and love thy ENEMY as one self...

as of course, if one loved it's enemy, it would not SEE IT AS AN ADVERSARY, SO NOT CREATE MORE OF THE SAME COMPLAINTS IT HAS ABOUT IT'S PERCEIVED ADVERSARY.

Sir, the key is to gain knowledge and to infuse that knowledge in a process called critical thinking. Within that aspect, you are required to research in order to gain the information needed to gain that knowledge. Quotes are but paths that lead to the assimilation of that knowledge into thoughts and allows others to either follow or dispute.

But then, you disclaim all that. There is a definition for not wanting to go outside one's self to seek knowledge:

Solipsism

From the Latin adjective solus: "alone" and the Latin pronoun ipse: "self".

The ideology that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Solipsists contend that knowledge of anything outside of one's own mind is unsure, hence there is no such thing as objective truth, and nothing about the external world and it's workings can actually be known.

A perception they are god. Solipsist are mentally ill.

I prefer to progressively build a knowledge base by listening to many different percepts and then to use my intelligence to weigh and infuse that information into concise knowledge. I have no intent to proclaim to be god but to use that which was given me to move forward.

So to answer your question, I would state myself that is capable of thinking, otherwise it is just dictating. Myself that is searching for knowledge so as not to remain ignorant by ignoring it.

oh dear sir...

you are sadly mistaken in thinking my assessments are based on not taking in any data...

rather they are based on taking in ALL DATA AS RELEVANT, FROM ALL SOURCES AS VALID...

hence no opportunity of bias.

using but some data is the curse of knowledge, for one will but see what it wished to see, based upon what FEELINGS one wished to validate.

hence be led by it's emotions, which be the only thing that can tell lead one to believe some data more than other data...

and following such ways...

create sure and sudden failure in days like these all the more.

And what is the point? Is there one at all or just rantings?

And if you are going to try and quote Jesus, you should attempt to get it right, hence the benefit of quotes.



And of course, using them out of context would lead to many a false conclusion. For example, where does it state that one can be be an adversary? It doesn't. And the claim that it's all or none is just pure lunacy, that would deem that thought would not be possible.


An entirely different meaning

go look it up...

i don't care about quoting exact...

total semantics of "right and wrong"...

the guys not alive anyhow, and if he were, i can assure you, he would understand completely the essence of my point...

just google "love thy enemy"...

anyhow...

one would be mistaken if they think Benjamin Franklin is some great knower of wisdom, more than any other involved in the creation of the US government, or any president since...

which is why you have not learned anything from them...

except you think them dishonorable...

in case you have not noticed, the CONSTITUTION BE WHAT CREATED THE MESS WE HAVE JUST NOW...

the constitution is/was better than some previous forms of government, but still flawed dramatically.

but one is still looking back 238 years for what it needs to know NOW???

one should have been learning from all sources as equal, none biased, taking in all data since then, assimilating it all into one final sum being continually added to each moment in time...

every conflict since the founding of the usa, is the fault of a flawed platform of governance called the US constitution...

every last war, every last conflict, every last unequal, every last bit of racism, every foul thing one see now, all do to poor insight of not defining as necessary to eliminate such pitfalls and create the desired outcome...

if i make an agreement with you, and it creates war and conflict, than my agreement was not good enough, if creating good for two was the purported goal...

one needs to re-examine all it self is founding it's principles on...

they bare principles that created EVERYTHING YOU SAY YOU DESPISE THAT EXIST NOW.

anywho...

you surely will not seek to prove how my words on the matter are correct, since you deem your self the wiser.

you think me misguided, i think you misguided...

we shall see who creates what each wishes.

i guess that will have to be the tell.

as it always is in life.

are you sure you have read the same Constitution everyone else has read?

hehehe...

perhaps i read it inspecting for how each or any word that was not defined well enough to include all possible definitions available to humankind, would pit people against people in the same country, creating infinity debates that could only create and end in strife and conflict, hence making it impossible in due time for any country to stay intact as one unified body.

we have actually not lasted any longer than most great civilized societies, the norm about 200-240 years...

so at 238 years of mileage on this ole vehicle the constitution, we are due for a complete overhaul and rebuild...

hehehe...

this time hopefully with no ambiguous notions that sound great on paper, but create everlasting conflict between people building until final implosion.

truly no different than a properly worded marriage contract...

if it were written properly, the success of the marriage it self would prove if the premise it self was expertly executed in written form...

the same as to say, poorly defined marriage contracts have created millions and millions of divorces and hurt feelings, not millions and millions of dumb people couldn't succeed in marriage...

the whole premise set forth about marriage from the beginning was an enslavement mentality, so it was flawed and guided people to try to "enslave" another human for it's own ownership...

the same as the constitution did...

it created slaves of inequality.

the premise of the words of any agreement be flawed, if they create anything besides the desired outcome...

the first root and founding basis of all human logic and linguistics as it were.

of course, we didn't know that back 238 years ago...

smiles

That seems very obvious, why be exact when generalities are so convenient and keeps one from ever being pinned down on taking a stand.

Right and wrong, it's all about morality. It's not right versus left. It's right versus wrong.

A deep understanding of morality, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior, lies at the very heart of natural law. What morality actually means is common sense. It is the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong that describes common sense.

Another way of saying this law would be to say that the presence of truth and morality in the lives of the people of any given society is inversely proportional to the presence of tyranny and slavery in that society. True freedom can never exist in a society that embraces "Moral Relativism" (the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily "create" or "decide" right and wrong for themselves).



Mistaken, only if one were to suffer from the understanding of morality, the disease of Moral Relativism. Those so inclined to ignore history is destined to repeat it.



The constitution created nothing outside a written trust for the benefit of the people. It is but pieces of parchment and incapable of creating a mess, that prospect is left to the unwashed masses that have forsaken morality for entitlements as a reflection of just how depraved Moral Relativism can get and sadly, it still hasn't reach bottom but it wont be long.

It is not the constitution that is flawed, it is the illiteracy of the unwashed masses. As was so elegantly stated by the founders, they gave us a republic but it was up to the people to guard their own liberty. It is only an idiot that forsakes history and pretends that lessons of the past have no meaning. And it seems pretty obvious just where we stand here.



No argument with the base assumption here, the argument is in the assimilation of the information into an intelligent conclusion as not all is equal when measured in reality. That is where Moral Relativism comes into being. It is hard to apply the appropriate weight when there is no ability to separate right from wrong.



And this is where without hesitation that I can declare your logic totally flawed. You state it a flawed platform and I say where? Oh, I forgot, there is no necessity to be exact, just general.



Not really, the founding principles are very sound. The re-examination is where did they go? The question is where is the republic? I do not despise the principles of a republic, just the lack of those principles that exist now. Unfortunately, without understanding morals and liberty, little would be understood of how today is not what was created but the result of an immoral and slave based society.



Sir, I do not have to think, I know and misguided would not be the operative word. And to even think to try and "prove" a negative, that is the task for a fool and idiot so please feel free, I'll pass. As to document that you are incorrect, that I have been doing all along.

As for misguided, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding", in this case wanting to be exact instead of generalities. it is always in the eyes of the beholder to determine the validity of any knowledge. I provide the means of establishing a link to that knowledge so that any thinking beholder may either accept or reject that knowledge depending upon their analysis. I want to dictate to no one but to offer to all. I ask no one to believe anything I say, but to verify and accept on their own.

I think you're question is on much too high a level when "same" is instilled.

when we have a entire world running around DEMANDING their rights, and then when demands don't work, believing physical violence is mentally justified so then acting upon it...

which would not be justified within so acted out if it "rights" were not pumped into their heads as irrevocable...

then it is obvious words chosen to "protect freedom", actually did not do so, but rather created "entitlement", which STOLE FROM THE FREEDOM OF ALL, as it bred as correct THE ENTITLEMENT OF 1, and creates the belief in entitlement to grow in the mind until a monster has been created in human form...

No doubts entitlement for self was pumping through the head of all who imprisoned another as Ariel Castro did, beat another as the KKK loves, raped other as the many fraternities love...

the actual events of any society are the proof of what words create.

it is obvious such notions were first created, fostered, perpetuated into the conscious minds of humankind so than directing the actions committed, by the notion "rights" are inherent, so exist no matter what one self does...

freedom of all is not a "right".

freedom of and for all is an "agreement", entered into by one or some or all, whom wish to live in a place of freedom...

but then "freedom" would need to be defined...

freedom exist until the moment "mutual consent" has been violated and stolen from another.

and the fact that the words "mutual consent" was no where to be found in our founding documents, TOTALLY belie's the fact that these documents were drafted by people who did not give two cents about MUTUAL CONSENT...

they wanted to RULE OVER, and seem them self as more wise than the average individual, and so fit as overlords to enslave and shackle the "underlings"...

just as those whom still bow at their feet and swear allegiance think of them self...

and would do to the entire world if given the chance...

IT IS A TOTAL MISNOMER THAT SOMEHOW THESE FOUNDERS WERE AS BENEVOLENT CARERS OF HUMANITY...

AND SOMEHOW MORE CARING BEYOND ALL OTHERS...

total propaganda dosed out by these fuccks who wanted that to be believed, to ensure their lasting rule over all who believed it...

what they penned and instituted created a slow death of equality, creativity, freedom of mind, economic equality, an entire country of peoples divided and at war with each other...

of course, to divide the populous with ambiguous notions will always create a divided populous, so than ensure omnipotent rulers keep a job...

they were greedy, power hungry, monopolistic wannabe rulers who gathered together in an agreement to share ruling together...

just because mankind was not advanced enough mentally back then to recognize such, in no way means it was or is not so.

He that demands "rights" little understand what a right would entail and in actually has no rights. And then of course violence would entail, as rights are not understood and then becomes a demand. But the worse part is that this lack of knowledge is so perverse that those that refuse knowledge, the ignorant, somehow believe that thing are what they are not nor ever will be. Irrevocable would be one of those facts, there are no irrevocable rights just inalienable. They may not be taken but any idiot may consent to revoke any right they desire and most do.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin



"It is above all in the present democratic age that the true friends of liberty and human grandeur must remain constantly vigilant and ready to prevent the social power from lightly sacrificing the particular rights of a few individuals to the general execution of its designs. In such times there is no citizen so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed, and there are no individual rights so unimportant that they can be sacrificed to arbitrariness with impunity."
― Alexis de Tocqueville

There are nor ever have been any words to "protect freedom" as words are but vibrations of very short duration or writings upon parchment or paper. They are endowed with no properties that can even protect themselves, must less anything else.

And those words written upon those four pieces of parchment are the most powerful words ever collected on a document, even more powerful than the words of Jefferson to the king of England declaring war. Those words were never meant to "protect" anything. They were just one of the most powerful doctrines of how free men could establish and ordain a trust to enable their common interest for prosperity for all. But as with any doctrine, it has no physical power outside an idea. The only physical power lies not within the diligence of the people, but in their morality.

Notions were never required to be forced into the conscious minds of mankind, for if that mind were conscious it would have natural understanding. It is only the bending of morals that has caused man to think of itself first, not in what it could accomplish but what it could receive. It is not hard for one without morals to volunteer to surrender rights for a benefit and then impose mob rule to surrender the rights of others to keep that benefit, again the lack of morals.



Sure it is, that would be an illusion to foster the idea of slavery. So just who gets to determine, who is free and who not? How is some master and others not?

Is it that some are born as kings because of some supposedly divine right? And the next guy born a slave because his parent were moral individuals?

That is just a purely evil and insane statement.



Under this concept, freedom can never be defined. Freedom was defined very adequately by the creator without saying a word. It is based on equality and morality. Freedom is me having a stick and the right to beat the heck out of anyone attempting to take it. They have the right not to be beaten should they not attempt to take my stick. And to believe anything else would be coercion, not freedom.



No, that is the law of contracts. Freedom is the ability to unlimited contract. Moral man enters contracts in an honorable manner. To be in dishonor is a fraud upon the contract to be dealt with in a civil manner either in a court in front of peers or a field of honor, a dual, as with Hamilton.



And what is the point of this? And just what does "mutual consent have to do with the constitution? Do you know what the constitution is?

The constitution is what it is, a trust, nothing other. There is mutual consent, a offer to govern and an acceptance to be governed. It has a designated beneficiary, the people. The states ratified the trust, not the people and agreed to be bound to act as the agent to inure the rights of the people, it has nothing to do with the people unless you're stupid enough to reside in that 10 mile square area where they can do anything.



There is no rule over except to that that consent to be "subject" to rule, the servants and slaves. It is not that there is no freedom in this country, it is but so few that do not consent to be that slave. It is the few that deny the benefit. Within this country there are three levels: 1) the people (so few of these), 2) the government (way too many of these) and 3) the citizens (all the rest), better know as the great unwashed masses.

Within this system, there are two problems: 1) the elitist that has ownership of the mass of the government and actually the shadow government; 2) the masses that have been so dumbed down to little understand anything unless some authority tells them they should.

"Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."
- Alexis de Tocqueville



And sir, do not blame the shortcomings on the founders, they understood fully what they were doing. They establish the most perfect government ever devised by mankind and knew it would serve their generation very well and it did. They also warned future generations that to receive the same benefit would require diligence but likewise knew the fallacies of men and what would happen. They warned many times but many like you want to deny history and cry when the results manifest itself.

They knew that without diligence the republic would degenerate into a democracy and democracies never end well. And now we have ignored history and are destined to repeat it. And that destiny in this age will not bode well for mankind.

But to those that are the people, all is well and freedom is wonderful and will remain so until that bright flash in the sky. And in the infamous words of Einstein: "I don't know what WWIII will be fought with but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.

hehehe...

i shall do as i see fit, and you shall do as you see fit.

i shall see as i sea fit, and you shall see as you see fit.

and i shall blame it on the founding fathers.

smiles.

Blame on whomever, it doesn't change the facts, it is but a perception:

"I've come to realize that the biggest problem anywhere in the world is that people's perceptions of reality are compulsively filtered through the screening mesh of what they want, and do not want, to be true." - Travis Walton

"And as ye enter into the house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10: 12-16)

smiles...

if you feel your old world opinions taken from old world places shall lead the future back to the past, one would be mistaken, or if you think you will change my perspective to fit old world failing perspectives, one would be mistaken.

but type away all ye wish.

Sir, you seem to be way too full of yourself. Why would you think I would be trying to change any aspect of your perspective? In fact I think I have gone out of my way in explaining why that would be impossible. You really should pay closer attention.

You also are under a false impression that I am writing to you and that could not be farther from the truth, but then we have already determined and you have readily admitted that truth is perspective, not objective.

What you object to is really not objectionable, it is inert and of little consequence. You desire to kill what is without what will be. You are attempting to treat symptoms while feeding the disease.

So why would I waste my time trying to accomplish the impossible? To imply in any mode or fashion that this is about or even addressed to you is a delusion on your part.

I have my reason and purpose for writing and it is not you.

it seems one could accurately speak all the same about you in return...

smiles

and ah, lets not forget, you used and replied to my post...

hehehe...

but hey, it is delusion to think one was responding to my post...

hehehe...

funny how it all works for ya...

coolio...

power to the allnewman!

may your wisdom guide earth to her new shores of prosperity and wealth for all.

3 cheers for allnewman!

3 cheers for allnewman!

3 cheers for allnewman!

ditto's to THE POWER!

how can any believe that the leading countries of the world shall go backwards to laws and ways inclusive for each individual country...

have not world leaders been cooperating together for many years already...

did not one hear at least the last 5 presidents declare a new order and new world order was needed and shall be...

these are people the peoples elected...

that is truly what all systems being implemented now are all about...

and what is wrong with all countries working together for the good of all...

the notions argued will be shortsighted if this is not understood...

it's been publicly spoken by residing powers many times over, so it's not like it has been kept some secret to those that have ear's to hear...

there is truly no getting around it.

it would be far better to begin voicing what a global rule could be or should be, if one wishes to have any of it's own voice actually recognized as intelligent in the matters at hand...

did not Bush Sr declare a new world order would be..

and Clinton...

and Bush Jr...

and Obama, stating just a few weeks ago we are not "quite" ready for a new and more fair system...

should not leaders be thinking ahead...

both parties already know a global rule is imminent and necessary...

at this point it only be a matter of how sanitary the transition to such will be...

why not stop the maniacal and voice approval of a world order and see how such be needed, necessary, and good, instead of lamenting tears over wishing for the past.

and become proactive instead of archaic...

does one think it shall pit it self against all the global powers that have already agreed upon what a terrorist is, and win?

those who are "constitutionalist"...

patriots...

if one has not already achieved global wealth status, the say of one self in days ahead will be as a buzzing fly in a jar carried by a giant that can throw down the jar at will and kill all the flies...

so be for real...

demands and arrogance and accusations at this point are simply sabotage of one's own family and peoples...

as if some feel they shall out do and out smart the collective powers of the worlds total powers with it self, and those still not up to speed...

huh...

no one is any longer pitting them self against any one "government", but rather against the coalition of global powers that control all things that move and happen in the entire world...

it certainly seems many feel we are still in the early days of america, before the world was divided up and world powers established...

we are not there and never will be again.

what happened then has absolutely NO BEARING on now...

the world then held unconquered territories...

had 1 billion people...

was not instantly connected via technology...

the world has already been divided up.

now it's just about who shall rule the world...

to think one self will somehow evade a new world order, is like one believing it can outrun a cop car as in the days of old...

it be sheer delusional fantasy...

why not apply influence for what shall exist for the world, to create a better tomorrow for all, not against and for ancient outdated history...

how would create more good.