Comment: Helping simulate conversation.

(See in situ)

Helping simulate conversation.

One of the reasons I keep employing my invention, or discovery, of Simulating Conversation (by NOT reading through your responses before I respond) is the often case of catching myself "jumping to conclusions", so the process helps me focus attention on my own weaknesses.

"Josf, I probably would not have talked with you this long but you believe there is a God, even if you called that God, Truth. You believed God to be Creator of Life."

There is a shaky bridge built from my being to your being and the shared understanding is not deceit, to reach a benefit at the expense of an innocent victim, and the shared understanding is not threats of violence, to reach a benefit at the expense of an innocent victim, and the shared understanding is not violence employed upon some innocent victim so as to gain power from that victim as all the power is drained out of the target.

What does that leave, after all that stuff is left out, to make the bridge a more solid foundation?

"Romans says that we know there is God by creation."

How can anyone disbelieve? What evidence do they have to prove that there is no creator? Look around, what exists, how does the existence of creations, everywhere, prove that there is no creator. I don't get it, so we two share that foundation.

"There are self-proclaimed atheists here at the DP who seem to be more that disbelievers in God, but rather God haters, or haters of the concept of there being God."

Listen, and try to find words that confess the true motive, and if the obvious, repeated, true motive is a desire for hatred, then anything hated is as good as the next, who needs an excuse?

If, on the other hand, a person was sold a lie, a lie that says God tortures and murders people for fun and profit, because of your skin color, or because of where you were born, or because of the language you speak, or because of any lie whatsoever, then what do you think a reasonable person is going to do in that case?

Abject belief in falsehood without question?

Seriously, consider, a person found in a village somewhere, and a person sent to bring back Gold, or whatever power can be found, this person finds this native, and when the villager doesn't confess where the Gold is, that villager has parts cut off, still no confession, more parts, then the Crusader, or whatever costume is used to cover up the truth, says NEXT.

OK, so that Costumed Crusader finds a villager who finally knows what the Costumed Crusader wants, they go to where the Gold is, and a Preacher shows up to help the ones left alive, to help them know the meaning of God.

Is that a case of mixed messages or a test of faith for the preacher?

A villager says to the preacher: I think your God brings bad things, so no thanks.

Uphill battle?

"Fine, I know my boundaries and I will not speak that which they do not wish to hear, so there is not much to share in discussion. However, I still care about those people and am willing at any time to speak to them."

Me too, but a voice that may have been here is no longer here to hear? What happened to the OP?

"I will assume here you are speaking of the murderers getting what they want, not those being murdered who thought they were getting economic equality. From what I understand of things is that economic equality is promised and murder is given to get there. And then if you are not murdered, you get to that promised land of economic equality, but really it is economic slavery while those who made the promise rise above the slaves."

I think I told you about one group of religious people showing up at my door and the conversation concerning innocent people being victimized in Palestine by the people claiming to be Jewish and therefore claiming, I suppose, title, and occupation, of The Promised Land, where these "Settlers" are "Settling". My impression, and I may be wrong, was that the answer to my question was relish, a desire for, a wanting of, torture and murder of the natives who refused to get the hell out of The Promised Land.

I can admit that I may have been wrong, but I told those people my perspective on that point, not wanting anything to do with their God, if that is what that God brings.

Does that convict me, and does that seal my fate, and does God now wash his hands of me, for that error, if it is an error, or, and I'm asking the wrong person, so sure I have a prayer in mind now, does my actions constitute just another case of human failure?

I should have tried harder to heap coals upon their heads?

I'm not even Christian, so named, as far as I know, and as far as my history goes I am Catholic. I am an individual. I tried being someone else, and it didn't work.

Equality, enhanced interrogation techniques, quantitative easing, and my favorite, because it just rolls off the tongue: Extraordinary Rendition, are lies. A lie is a lie and if a power exists to expose it, external, or internal, the victim of the lie will want it exposed, and the willful employer of the lie will not, it seems to me.

Equality is a word, when it is employed as a lie, it is only a lie if it works to accomplish the goal in the mind of the liars.

The lie didn't do it.

The gun didn't do it.

The government didn't do it.

Who did what, exactly, and if they lied, then either they can be exposed as a liar, or not, and if not, then does that make them a good liar?

If they are really good liars, who pays them so well, and why?

“From someone in the East, it may be odd for them to see US doing all the wrong things that they did, when in fact, we are not following the same exact script.”

Can you explain those words to me more?

I have read that many people in Russia have just gone through a very tough couple of centuries where Gangs of criminals with badges and Gangs of criminals without badges roamed their part of the Earth, and so they had to adapt. How bad do things have to get before hitting bottom?

So they look West, to America, and what do they see?

Right now, this afternoon, my wife and I ate the one meal I have had today, and we ate in style at a restaurant in Barstow. There at one large table were about 10 mixed members of Authorities wearing guns, with Police, and Highway Patrol, and Sheriff badges on their uniforms, and my wife was thinking it might not be safe.

My wife has one brother who spent almost his whole life in prison and the crimes he committed are numerous, he died already, and my wife has another brother, who in my opinion has a good heart, who has also lived in prison for many years, and my wife is not at all afraid of getting right in the face of her little brother and telling him what he is doing wrong when he is doing something wrong.


Right now there is a "Cop" who is in the News, "spotted in Barstow", where this "Cop" told on another "Cop" and the Gang of Cops Ganged up on this Cop who broke the Golden Cop Rule (told tell on each other), so this Cop is now seeking revenge, killing Cops, with guns, and killing family members of Cops, women, teenagers, for effect - I suppose.

Coming to a theater near you.

So the guys, and gals, in Russia, having fully 2 centuries of this under their bridge, looking West, saying, hmmmmmmm, that sounds familiar.

How familiar?

Would you like to know?

I would.

"I don’t understand those words either. What person is told that God is behind all the torture and mass murder visited upon them?"

Total ignorance combined with a refusal to learn, or a very good question? Lenin and the Gang knew which things to leave out of the propaganda, and which things to inject into it. So what kind of official bedtime stories were told in any home, or school, in Russia in any case? I don't know. I was not there, but I can guess, and guesses are too often false in my case.

How about Russian Television?

You are either with us, or you are a terrorist?

Any lie will do, but some are better than others, to fit the occasion?

When you say these words:
“When I'm told that God is evicting the natives who have lived on a piece of Real Estate, and crushing them if they don't obey without question, then I'm going to question that God too.”

Are you talking about now, in the Middle East?

As explained above, the case of religious people knocking on my door, and despite anyone else in the house thinking otherwise, I want to know what they have to say, and I have questions. A specific case in point, concerning an appearance of (I perceived) relish, at the thought of evicting the natives, torturing and murdering them, if they resist eviction, despite the fact that their ancestors occupied that land for centuries, or thousands of years, and so, yes, that is what I am saying, that exactly, that supposed God appears to be Evil incarnate to me. I can be wrong, I can even admit it.

"There are Christians in China and in Russia. Believers…Believers that have to worship and meet in secret. How do you know when you think you are hearing an average Russian or Chinese citizen’s voice that you are not hearing that of a covert operation to subvert the United States to be more communist than we are?"

I am as suspicious, if not more, than anyone I know, including you, so are you now preaching to the choir, so to speak; but if I don't ask, and if I don't listen, there is no way I can know.

I don't have your safe place, so I ask people. I can also ask God, or Jesus, but so far they don't actually talk back, and so far as I know, they are not writing words on any forums.

"What are the criminals doing now? They are taking a bankrupt country and breaking over the back of social programs and it is not going to work and people are going to get upset about it. I think that is why Ron Paul’s message of Liberty and Responsibility is needed. To give another hope other than one in a government with empty promises."

How about a different angle on this subject? During the first Ron Paul Liberty Campaign, which was in direct opposition to the Legal Crime National Election Psycho, I found the following web page and I watched it in real time. The web page started out with few votes and it grew to the vote count that remains to be what it was when it was current. Please look at it, and please look up Russia, China, and any other country on the list, and then please tell me what you think that information means, if that information is accurate by some measure?

"But now I am thinking of the involuntary word…so are you saying involuntary capitalism? i.e., fascism? That is what happened in Spain. The Fascists saved Spain from the Communists…at least that is what I got out of the Griffin Spain clip."

Any lie will work, if it works, if it does not work, then it is powerless, so which lies work, which lies don't, and that is the world you don't know, and that is OK. But if you want to know, then you can't seriously refuse to listen to the facts, and where are you going to get the facts?

When the criminals say here is your Capitalism, is it a gift, and is it the same capitalism as you understand it to be, or is it remotely possible that it will be a counterfeit version?

Fascism, you say, is not nice, but many people were sold that lie, and they believed it, what did they get for their trouble?

Dresden remodeled? Poster boys and girls of torture and mass murder for fun and profit?

Do you have any reservations about claiming that Americans are busy employing capitalism here in good ole' U.S.A.? We use fraud as money, so, what does that mean? We heap almost all the power we can produce onto the best liars so that they can lie even better: is that capitalism?

Torture is legal here, and so is mass murder. Is that capitalism?

"Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
Someone unable to recognize how those words are false, and false on purpose is a danger to Liberty.
Then, I am a danger to Liberty, because I do not understand why those words are false. What is false about those words?

False Socialism is almost identical to False Capitalism and if you can find a different way, you, find a different way to get the victims to allow you to make fraud, child molestation (if you and your buddies do it), extortion, rape, theft, slavery, torture, lots of torture, serial killing, mass murder, war, ohhhhh the war, you, if you can figure out how to make the victims believe that all that is OK, by some other way, a competitive way, then you can add to the list of ways.

How many ways?


Ok that is one.


Now there are two?

No, it is the same thing, it may use different slogans, but what is actually being done?

Threats of violence
Violence upon the targeted victims

Those are words, not the actual dynamic events playing out the same way each time, the same way each time, the same way each time, but the costumes, and the scripts, change some.

The fundamental principles (or lack thereof) are the same - each time.

"Why do you say validity to exist. Doesn’t everyone have validity to exist?"

A liar will say yes, everyone has a validity to exist, but what does the lie intend to do? The liar is covering something up, or why lie, so what is being covered up?

Lies are designed to remove the power required to exist. Is that a true statement, or am I making up stories here?

"Obama has weather underground connections. We have been Sovietized. And we do not even know it. Obama is not the head capitalist. I see him as a socialist."

I see a criminal. Which is a more accurate viewpoint? What is the point? If my viewpoint is more accurate, and your viewpoint less accurate, then which viewpoint holds the person accountable for the willful actions done by the person and which is less able to respond in an accountable way?

If I say criminal then it is that individual criminal who is responsible for what that individual criminal does; so I call the criminal a criminal. If I say legal criminal then all those people who "believe" in the right of those crimes done by that criminal, all those aiding and abetting that criminal, following those criminal orders without question, are inclusive into a list of criminals connected in that way. Legal Criminals have investors.

If you say socialist, then, I guess, help me out here, I'm supposed to blame Hugo Chavez for the crimes done by Americans who fund what the criminal Obama does?

Is that the point of using the word socialist, so as to gather all those socialists under one tent, and then what, offer cool-aid?

This isn't that tough, is it? Which is more accurate, tell me, and then I can use the more accurate term, and consider explaining why the more accurate term is more accurate in your own words as I have done competitively.

Legal criminal intends to identify, and hold accountable, the criminal who makes their crimes legal.

Socialist can mean just about anything, including a family member, who is a collectivist, and someone who works harder for the good of the family, not his, or her, own profits, if that is how I employ that word.

How can I employ the word criminal in such a way as to make it look less criminal?

Call a criminal a socialist?

If that works, for you, then why can't you see how it works to call a criminal a capitalist as well?

If I call a criminal a legal criminal, it is not an intention to dress up the criminal in a costume, it is an intent to identify the fact that the criminal has dressed himself up in a false costume.

You say that Obama is dressed up in a socialists costume?

So, who cares? Not me, the guy is a criminal. His Blue costume will turn back to Red soon enough, depending upon which audience is targeted for deception.

The point is, at least my point is, to point out that the costume is false.

Your point, apparently, is to point out how the costume is true - or am I beginning to fail even more miserably at understanding your incapacity to define the word socialism precisely.

What is socialism precisely? Maybe we ought to work some on that definition, so as to arrive at the goal of avoiding further repetitions of the same confusions.

Is socialism, the story you are going to stick to, equal to, or exactly the same as collectivism?

If so, then what is collectivism?

If collectivism is exactly the same things done by every criminal who makes their crimes legal, and you are going to stick to that story, without variation, without adding or subtracting, then that is crime made legal, not collectivism.

What is collectivism?

You tell me. I can't discover what you think collectivism is, and why not?

"When someone denies God they are in darkness. Jesus said these words:
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

What is the definition of misunderstanding? If someone misunderstands what you mean by God, and so that person does not believe in something that is based upon a misunderstanding, then what is that person guilty of doing, in your eyes?

For all you know, because of the misunderstanding, the belief that the person has is practically identical to yours, but the misunderstanding hides that fact. Is that possible, or as a matter of fact, is it not possible, and if so, why?

"When someone denies God they are in darkness."

So, someone, somewhere, may calm themselves down, listen carefully, and focus their attention upon the unknown, and be receptive to any external power that will help the person love other people.

Do you do that?

What do you actually do, without the words, what do you actually do, where you are better than someone else, in any way imaginable, or in any way in fact?

I don't have to be a part of the judgment, at all, leave me out, and so you do this, and other people do that, and then judgment day arrives, and forget about me. What constitutes, exactly, unforgivable actions?

Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

That means something. You once told me, if I remember right, that there were no magic words. So what is meant by "against me"?

If someone is told a pack of lies that causes that person to believe that God is Evil, or that there is no such thing as God, then they repeat those words, those magic words, and as a matter of fact, according to you, what happens?

"When someone denies God they are in darkness. Jesus said these words:
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

If they are denying a lie, because they have been told that God is a lie, then they are a caught up in a lie, believing in a lie. That is not necessarily denying God, is it?

If they are told a lie that says God is evil, and they then take it upon themselves to not believe that lie, so they say that the evil God does not exist, then they are not necessarily denying God, are they?

If God does not need to say, in any way, you, you there, I am here, so what do you think about that, and that person says, no, no, forget about it God, I'm not buying it, OK, what does that have to do with you or me?

Me, I want to know, how that went down, in that person's own words.

You do what?

"What is wrong with that?"

One of Rand Paul's reports at the Liberty Convention concerned a person fleeing the East to end up in an American prison for buying a piece of land and then cleaning it up. He fled Legal Crime to arrive in American to be victim to Legal Criminals hiding behind Federal Environmental Protection Agency Badges.

"private ownership of capital"

What is private? What is public?

If we do not work that out, I can't answer your question.

"What is wrong with that?"

Capitalism is a pricing method. The dictionary parrots an arrangement of words that say nothing, or words that can mean one thing one minute, and words that can mean something else the next minute, depending upon who you ask.

What, in your words, happens when someone employs capitalism as you know it to be, so as to nail down what it is, instead of pointing at something hiding out in the darkness?

If you ask a vital question, can you expect to OWN the accurate answer without earning it?

"I disagree somewhat, our form of government respected the bill of rights."

That is patently false. The Whiskey Rebellion is one case that proves the statement, in English, to be false. The Alien and Sedition Acts further prove the case.

What is "our form of government"?

How did that thing respect anything?

I can imagine what you mean, but if the idea is to know what you mean, then guessing is, in my experience, counterproductive when the intent is to know what you mean.

"I disagree somewhat, our form of government respected the bill of rights."

How did "our form of government" handle the Indian Problem? How did "our form of government" handle the legal slave problem that was made legal with "our form of government"?

"Other countries have bill of rights but their governments did not respect the rule of law but are rather a law unto themselves…which our government is quickly becoming.."

The Constitution was founded by Nationalists, Monarchs, Central Bankers, who made it legal to own slaves, which was part of what became known as The Dirty Compromise, that was 1788, upon ratification, so is that what is meant by "quickly becoming.."

Masters could cut off parts of slaves. Masters could rape slaves, use them to make more slaves, for fun and profit. I think that is called torture, someone can say that I'm being Liberal with the facts. You there, that baby is mine, I want a new watch, so off to the store I go, and by the way, I'll be back early to make more things to sell.


Dirty Compromise.


How quickly, exactly, was "our form of government" "quickly becoming" "a law unto themselves"?

"Right now I am pretty tired and I feel like I am talking in circles and not making sense."

If you really want to understand how your mind can work, it helps, in my opinion, to stress test it. Your honest, open, generous, offerings are a gift to me - in my opinion - a gift from God.

You may find it to be problematic at times.

I am as honest and open, as far as I can tell, but not as much as I prefer; I appreciate the help.


"However what is the preoccupation with socialism?"

I will repeat the answer that I keep repeating hoping that this time the answer will be recognized as the accurate answer.

Roughly half of the population of the planet is being polarized to destroy the other half, so it may be a good idea to figure out how to build a bridge in the effort to avoid those events that will be known as World War III.

"Australia is a socialist country from what I understand. Is their style voluntary?"

You mean Legal Crime when you use the word "socialist" and I don't, so I'm at a loss here, throwing up my hands, and if you can define, in your own words, what is socialism/collectivism, then I can bring my hands down. I'm all up in arms at this point.

"However, insurance is no longer voluntary."

Then it is not insurance.

"And I hear I can’t even get my money anymore unless I show some kind of hardship."

I told you how I got "my" 401K money. It is in the book.

It isn't money. It is a crime called fraud in progress. We here in America are so far down the road where slavery is legal, believing lies, that what can be expected in our future?

When is the bottom hit, and when can we gather up what is left and start in the right direction - as a country?

We are individuals.

End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home

1 is ending now. 2 will change drastically from bad to worse. 3 will be realized as the Troops will be collecting World War III debt.

Why wait?

"So I would say involuntary collectivism is a problem."

I'd know what you mean if you could tell me. My arms are up.

"And somehow things that start as voluntary seem to turn involuntary…by design?"

If you are speaking about "our form of government" then you are speaking about slavery made legal at the start in 1788.

Has the start pistol to try something other than slavery made legal gone off, and no one heard it?

Were the good guys painted up with false costumes by the bad guys in false costumes, so no one knows up from down, or Federalists from Anti-Federalists, let alone friend of liberty from legal criminal?

If that is what you are claiming is "Collectivism", then it is legal crime, confessions of legal crime, by the legal criminals, so why use their costume word instead of the accurate word?

What is the purpose of calling crimes made legal by a neutral word such as "collectivism"?

Collectivism can be demonstrated by capitalism as capitalists sell stock shares and then the capitalist selling stock shares collects the collections of shares into a Central Planning Planned Economy Fund, and then that collectivist, collecting those funds into that Central Bank of Collectivist Collectivized, Collection, of the many collecting their individual powers into one Collection of Power, to then have that Collection of Collectivized, Collectivist, Collections, Collected for some reason.

That is capitalism?

Corporate Stock Shares?

Can collectivism be voluntary?

Can collectivism (Legal Crime) be voluntary?


Can collectivism (voluntary capitalism exemplified with stock shares) be voluntary?


Can voluntarism exist without individualism?

There are no individuals living on the Sun, or Mars, or the moon.

Can voluntarism exist on the Sun?

No, it is too hot.

Mars, perhaps, but there is a lot of work yet to be done.

The moon? Ask someone who went there, I didn't go there.

"I probably need to read science of society. I’m not sure that I finished it."

If it is difficult to read, stop, please. When I read it there was no putting it down.

You have serious responsibilities that only you can do as well as can be done by anyone. Thanks for your help, it is precious in my careful estimate.