Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: why should we expext the Rs to be sane on anything?

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 10, 2012, 4:23 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


21 Comments

21 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Dad, the cognitive distortions really do not work for genuine communication. Get over to the thread about Article V and comment on "Preparatory Amendment".

Sure, labelling, generalizations, minimizations work to emphasize a point, and often they are true. However, when an effort to conduct politics, in this case partisan politics, consists almost completely of distortions, no critical thinking can be done which is comprehensive.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Where, in law or the constitution is "Preparatory Amendment"?
Dont tell me what you think it is -
cite the SOURCE

[-] 2 points by shooz (26681) 1 year ago

He said duh!!!!!

.................................:)

One of his issues, is his statement itself is full of cognitive distortions.

I guess that's why the next word out of his fingers was ....duh.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

The intent of distortion determines its value. Use of words is often imprecise thus distorted.

When distortions are used to prevent understanding or evade, they are a problem and destructive towards human cooperation.

When words, distorted or not, are used to promote and increase understanding, they are serving the intended purpose.

When I explain in detail using the constitution itself how Article V is absolutely safe with Preparatory Amendment and I get the kind of response I've gotten, its an effort to evade the understanding people need to compel lawful government.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26681) 1 year ago

So you're a lawyer?

Or do you just pretend to be one on the innernet?

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Attempting to generalize in ad hominium posturing doesn't change the fact you are exhibiting contempt for a citizen that knows the law of the land. This is something not only acceptable, but even good.

Clearly, you don't like that.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26681) 1 year ago

Not at all.

Why do you attack me?

Just trying to understand why you speak in labyrinths. instead of plain English.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

I escaped the dumbing down with an extreme education in what propels human behaviors.

Lumping my expression of my understanding of the law of the land with "lawyers" is an attack. My words are a defense.

Lawyers have miscarried the constitution in all fashions when it comes to constitutional defense. There are probably only a dozen or so in the US that have ever seriously broke ranks, and they are ALL trained and supposedly pro constitutional.

Apparently you are doing this to defend dads position, while he will not or can not.

dad refuses to examine the effect of preparatory amendment although it makes Article V safe, defends the constitution and promises to be a method of meeting all of the very human demands made by OWS.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26681) 1 year ago

Nope.

I'm just trying to get you to communicate like a human being.

One of my favorite lawyers, that "broke ranks" is JFK Jr. and he can speak well without resorting to the kinds confused contusions you do.

Nor is what he says "dumbed down". He also responds well to question.

You just don't answer them. That's why it's hard for me to trust what you say.

Now would you like to please, give an honest, understandable answer to your feelings about what I have called the "FLAKESnews effect"?

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Our constitution is about human values.

shooz wrote: "I'm just trying to get you to communicate like a human being."

And dad refuses to comment on what preparatory amendment will do for Article V. So are you.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26681) 1 year ago

Sorry. You're just another poster that can't or won't answer questions.

Perhaps you are not programed to do so.

Too bad. I was starting to respect you.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

That's what a cognitive infiltrator would say when asked to clarify an intentionally mal phrased question. Gimme context infiltrator.

Here is your bogus Q

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-think-the-page-at-link-below-is-the-most-importa/#comment-892067

Your cognitive distortion of generalization and labeling is noted.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26681) 1 year ago

And what is the $30 term for your absolute refusal to answer a single question in a clear manner?

PS: That was after asking you for an answer to the question multiple times, so I wholeheartedly reject your attempt at $30 insult.....

Will you answer the original question now, or will you pretend to have forgotten it?

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

I just explained it and you refuse to acknowledge. OMG pretending you can't see your cognitive failure.

Is anyone noticing this?

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

shooz obfuscated: Nope. They see your inability to explain yourself. Along with an inability to answer questions about your alleged plan, in clear concise language. Isn't that called obfuscation?

I did my best to make sense of your question by logically associating it with what I was presenting, to rephrase your question about the presentation. Every post you've made since then on this subject is OBFUSCATION. Infiltrator busted with evidence linked here. http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-think-the-page-at-link-below-is-the-most-importa/#comment-892344 http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-think-the-page-at-link-below-is-the-most-importa/#comment-892325

[-] 2 points by shooz (26681) 1 year ago

Nope.

They see your inability to explain yourself.

Along with an inability to answer questions about your alleged plan, in clear concise language.

Isn't that called obfuscation?

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Duh, its a concept of how to use LAW and its very constitutional.

I would suggest that you consider preparations for important things as a very normal, common concept.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

d u h = dung under head

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

This evasion makes you appear very unconstitutional, and I guess that's okay with you.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Parachutes are the only answer. The bold amongst us are now learning to paraglide.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

How can you make the comment about the Republicans not being sane when insanity played a big role by the vast majority of people of this country by voting Obama back in and expecting different results.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

People insanity - voting in Obama for a second term, expecting different results when the same people who were in charge of the House and Senate prior to the election are the same people who are in charge of the House and Senate after the election

And you are expecting different results? Another example of just how stupid most people are - no wonder we have 47% of the population on welfare - they don't know what "rational thinking" means and favor "emotional thinking.