I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[norwegen]

Tell me, Einstein, where I attempted to rewrite history.

Here dummy!

Although to suspect the Federalists of deliberately plotting may seem a stretch when so bluntly presented, the fact is, the designing politicians who called themselves Federalists did not create a government that preserved the confederacy. They were nationalists whom the actual federalists - the Antifederalists - believed were planting "the seeds and scions of slavery and despotism."*

Now read my last post to you, IDIOT! You should have read and understood it before making yourself look so bloody lost and confused again! If you still don't understand it, get someone to read and explain it to you!

You didn't answer my question. Again, where did I rewrite history?

Already asked and answered worm boy. Do your own reading and thinking! Now wiggle on you way...shooo!

Tell me again, please.

What is wrong about that bit of history I posted?

Yup, you're being intentionally obtuse! You question was answered before you even asked it, but you just don't like that so you want to transform into a fucking gadfly. Live with it dummy and quit trying to take multiple bites from the apple you keep trying to "worm" your way into for another specious speculation and further attempts at sharp shooting. Now just piss off!

This doesn't answer the question, either.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Save one major problem: there can be no 'civil war' with only one side. And your ilk won't bleed. Its always someone *else* that has to fight, to bleed, to die, to sacrifice.

But never them personally.

Which is why there is no Civil War. But plenty of arm chair generals 'declaring' how they can see no other way than a war that they won't ever fight in.

It's a matter of tolerance. How much will the peasants tolerate in exchange for creature comforts. One person alone can do little, but you Marxist thugs are pushing the limits of tolerance of far more than a single person.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


We get to 10 million one at a time

I'm sure the number is close, but the cost is high.

 

[Skylar]

[

Save one major problem: there can be no 'civil war' with only one side. And your ilk won't bleed. Its always someone *else* that has to fight, to bleed, to die, to sacrifice.

But never them personally.

Which is why there is no Civil War. But plenty of arm chair generals 'declaring' how they can see no other way than a war that they won't ever fight in.

It's a matter of tolerance. How much with the peasants tolerate in exchange for creature comforts. One person alone can do little, but you Marxist thugs are pushing the limits of tolerance of far more than a single person.

Your ilk won't fight, bleed or sacrifice for your 'Civil War'. Negating any 'tolerance' arguments. The Chickenshit Conundrum unravels your entire argument....as there can't be a war when there is only one side fighting.

And you won't fight.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The authority lies with the People. Not an indivudla person.

You forgot to tell the despot with the pen and the phone.

The issue is that you Marxists have perverted the system so that all authority rests with 9 unelected dictators, who's word is the ONLY law in the nation.

We have an open crook who is dedicated to appointing new dictators who will end civil rights, particularly the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.

When the dictatorship of the Judiciary does this, the tolerance of the ruled populace changes significantly.

Arguing that an individual person has the authority to 'declare' that the laws no longer apply to them is a Sovereign Citizen argument that has *never* been our system of laws.

You'd literally have to reimagine our nation's history to believe such nonsense.

Kaz is making a point, and a good one. My reaction was he needs 10 million behind him for it to have meaning.

What you fail to grasp is that he might well have them.

 

[G.T.]

The authority lies with the People. Not an indivudla person.

You forgot to tell the despot with the pen and the phone.

The issue is that you Marxists have perverted the system so that all authority rests with 9 unelected dictators, who's word is the ONLY law in the nation.

We have an open crook who is dedicated to appointing new dictators who will end civil rights, particularly the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.

When the dictatorship of the Judiciary does this, the tolerance of the ruled populace changes significantly.

Arguing that an individual person has the authority to 'declare' that the laws no longer apply to them is a Sovereign Citizen argument that has *never* been our system of laws.

You'd literally have to reimagine our nation's history to believe such nonsense.

Kaz is making a point, and a good one. My reaction was he needs 10 million behind him for it to have meaning.

What you fail to grasp is that he might well have them.

What you fail to grasp is that its a fantasy and anyone educated from pre through k (lol!!) at minimal could explain to you why this thinking is both loony and retarded....but....youre. Old.

And



old people.....can get stuck in their ways

 

[Skylar]

The authority lies with the People. Not an indivudla person.

You forgot to tell the despot with the pen and the phone.

The issue is that you Marxists have perverted the system so that all authority rests with 9 unelected dictators, who's word is the ONLY law in the nation.

We have an open crook who is dedicated to appointing new dictators who will end civil rights, particularly the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.

When the dictatorship of the Judiciary does this, the tolerance of the ruled populace changes significantly.

Arguing that an individual person has the authority to 'declare' that the laws no longer apply to them is a Sovereign Citizen argument that has *never* been our system of laws.

You'd literally have to reimagine our nation's history to believe such nonsense.

Kaz is making a point, and a good one. My reaction was he needs 10 million behind him for it to have meaning.

No, Kaz is offering us a piece of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish that changes nothing about how the law or the people's authority is applied to him.

What you fail to grasp is that he might well have them.

What you fail to understand....is that he doesn't. There is no secret army waiting to wage war. As your ilk isn't willing to bleed. And to win a war you have to be willing to sacrifice.

You don't have the numbers to impose your view politically. You don't have the numbers to impose your views through war. And you don't have the will to bleed to fight that war.

The Chickenshit Conundrum unravels your entire argument. As you have no path to victory. But vague threats of 'Civil War' on a message board while waiting for the pizza rolls to finish cooking in the microwave?

Oh, you guys have that shit down to a science.

 

[kaz]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

Get 10 million to join you, and we have a civil war.

At this point, I see no other outcome.

Save one major problem: there can be no 'civil war' with only one side. And your ilk won't bleed. Its always someone *else* that has to fight, to bleed, to die, to sacrifice.

But never them personally.

Which is why there is no Civil War. But plenty of arm chair generals 'declaring' how they can see no other way than a war that they won't ever fight in.

What the fuck are you talking about? Who asked for anyone to do anything for us? Where do you come up with this stupid shit?

Did you call for Civil War? No?

Then why do you think I'm addressing you? I'm replying to someone else entirely. Someone who is babbling about Civil War.

Do try and keep up.

Again ... in blue ...

 

[kaz]

I dont think youre on the same earth as me.

Revoking consent requires an act when its 'consent to act' youre revoking in the 1st place. Otherwise your revocation is literally fucking minutia.

ROFL! So you believe you have consented to purchase insurance even though you have done nothing? Really?

I realize you want to obscure the meaning of "consent" because you want us to believe that we have consented to all the outrages douche bags like you have imposed on us in the last few decades.

Dweeb thinks that it doesn't matter if a woman consents to being raped or not. It was just sex, what difference does it make if she consented or not?

I think it makes a whole fucking hell of a lot of difference

If you dont consent to sex, you are being raped and have redress: The Law. Calling the Police, i.e. an action.

Pressing charges, ie. an action.

Revoking consent didnt prevent her rape, or else she wasnt raped.

But she took that revocation, and ACTED.

Its something you might need a diagram to understand, but you likely still wouldnt

And what do you do when it's the government raping you and you go to the government?

Leave...or get enough to agree with you to change the government. If you cannot get others to agree with you, again you could leave if it so intolerable to you.

Why would I leave? If you can't live in the same country with me, bye bye

 

[Skylar]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

Get 10 million to join you, and we have a civil war.

At this point, I see no other outcome.

Save one major problem: there can be no 'civil war' with only one side. And your ilk won't bleed. Its always someone *else* that has to fight, to bleed, to die, to sacrifice.

But never them personally.

Which is why there is no Civil War. But plenty of arm chair generals 'declaring' how they can see no other way than a war that they won't ever fight in.

What the fuck are you talking about? Who asked for anyone to do anything for us? Where do you come up with this stupid shit?

Did you call for Civil War? No?

Then why do you think I'm addressing you? I'm replying to someone else entirely. Someone who is babbling about Civil War.

Do try and keep up.

Again ... in blue ...

And who is to fight in your civil war then?

Not you. Not Uncen. Who then?

 

[kaz]

And I said they don't have my consent. I didn't say you're not still a willing slave even though government routinely violates it's mandate from We The People

And I'm saying that your 'personal consent to be governed' is legally irrelevant. As the authority to enact, enforce and adjudicate law isn't imbued in you. But in us. The People. We exercise it collectively, not individually.

Making your 'withdraw of consent' is legally meaningless gibberjabber. You might as well boldly declare 'Purple Hippo Sandwich Wednesday" for as much legal significance as your declaration has.

As your relationship to the law, the government and The People is pristinely unchanged.

So just to be clear. Your posting standard is you only post that which is legally meaningful? Seriously? I haven't observed that from you

I'm saying that your statement is legally meaningless gibberjabber that changes absolutely nothing about your relationship with the law, the courts, the government, or the People.

And you can quote me. Its one whole sentence. Your awkward paraphrase was 4. Just quote me next time to save us both time.

So just to be clear. Your posting standard is you only post that which is legally meaningful? Seriously? I haven't observed that from you

To be clear, I'm saying exactly what I said:

I'm saying that your statement is legally meaningless gibberjabber that changes absolutely nothing about your relationship with the law, the courts, the government, or the People.

There's no need to paraphrase. Just quote me. As you certainly can't even disagree with me. We both know I'm right.

To be clear, I'm saying exactly what I said:

You said my statement is legally meaningless. So that's your standard? You don't post anything that isn't legally meaningful? I call bull to that, you do all the time.

Here's another stupid standard in there. I'm wrong that government has usurped it's power because government doesn't agree with me.

You're staying in the shallow end ...

 

[kaz]

Thats not an argument.

I understand you thought that this thread was going to feel all empowering and gooey, but it's toddler-brained. It's a literally meanigless whine and you still havent demonstrated its merit.

All you do is name call, deflect, name call, deflect, pretend people dont know....."something," deflect....


Its because you are unable to demonstrate how your "revoking consent" means fuck all - to: reality.

You're an eight year old

Thats not an argument, its your emotional deflection.

Not to worry!~ The thread had no merit from jump. I didnt THINK youd be able to demonstrate.

High fives

you're an eight year old

Another emotional deflection.


Kaz, tell everyone what happens when the sparrow doesnt do what ya like....


Oh you revoke consent.


Ok, kaz. tell us what revoking your consent entails.....protest? avoid taxes? not following the law? moving?


Oh ...... NOTHING?!?!?!?



Fly away unscathed, sparrow, these revokers wont do jack shit, apparently.

This is just another variation on all the whining about PA laws, while taking no action to get them repealed.

Yes, that's it, my OP is about PA laws. Other than that I'm good. Wow, what an empty headed twat ...

 

[kaz]

[


We get to 10 million one at a time

I'm sure the number is close, but the cost is high.

I think 10 million is not enough

 

[Skylar]

And I'm saying that your 'personal consent to be governed' is legally irrelevant. As the authority to enact, enforce and adjudicate law isn't imbued in you. But in us. The People. We exercise it collectively, not individually.

Making your 'withdraw of consent' is legally meaningless gibberjabber. You might as well boldly declare 'Purple Hippo Sandwich Wednesday" for as much legal significance as your declaration has.

As your relationship to the law, the government and The People is pristinely unchanged.

So just to be clear. Your posting standard is you only post that which is legally meaningful? Seriously? I haven't observed that from you

I'm saying that your statement is legally meaningless gibberjabber that changes absolutely nothing about your relationship with the law, the courts, the government, or the People.

And you can quote me. Its one whole sentence. Your awkward paraphrase was 4. Just quote me next time to save us both time.

So just to be clear. Your posting standard is you only post that which is legally meaningful? Seriously? I haven't observed that from you

To be clear, I'm saying exactly what I said:

I'm saying that your statement is legally meaningless gibberjabber that changes absolutely nothing about your relationship with the law, the courts, the government, or the People.

There's no need to paraphrase. Just quote me. As you certainly can't even disagree with me. We both know I'm right.

To be clear, I'm saying exactly what I said:

You said my statement is legally meaningless. So that's your standard? You don't post anything that isn't legally meaningful? I call bull to that, you do all the time.

Here's another stupid standard in there. I'm wrong that government has usurped it's power because government doesn't agree with me.

You're staying in the shallow end ...

So you acknowledge that your entire 'declaration' is legally meaningless, changing nothing about your relationship with the law, the courts, the government or the People?

 

[kaz]

You're an eight year old

Thats not an argument, its your emotional deflection.

Not to worry!~ The thread had no merit from jump. I didnt THINK youd be able to demonstrate.

High fives

you're an eight year old

Another emotional deflection.


Kaz, tell everyone what happens when the sparrow doesnt do what ya like....


Oh you revoke consent.


Ok, kaz. tell us what revoking your consent entails.....protest? avoid taxes? not following the law? moving?


Oh ...... NOTHING?!?!?!?



Fly away unscathed, sparrow, these revokers wont do jack shit, apparently.

Thanks! I was just wondering what an eight year old would think of the conversation

An eight year old would think making this thread was a good idea.

I'm sure you would know, so I stipulate to your assertion

 

[bodecea]

ROFL! So you believe you have consented to purchase insurance even though you have done nothing? Really?

I realize you want to obscure the meaning of "consent" because you want us to believe that we have consented to all the outrages douche bags like you have imposed on us in the last few decades.

Dweeb thinks that it doesn't matter if a woman consents to being raped or not. It was just sex, what difference does it make if she consented or not?

I think it makes a whole fucking hell of a lot of difference

If you dont consent to sex, you are being raped and have redress: The Law. Calling the Police, i.e. an action.

Pressing charges, ie. an action.

Revoking consent didnt prevent her rape, or else she wasnt raped.

But she took that revocation, and ACTED.

Its something you might need a diagram to understand, but you likely still wouldnt

And what do you do when it's the government raping you and you go to the government?

Leave...or get enough to agree with you to change the government. If you cannot get others to agree with you, again you could leave if it so intolerable to you.

Why would I leave? If you can't live in the same country with me, bye bye

Funny how it's all about you now.

 

[kaz]

So just to be clear. Your posting standard is you only post that which is legally meaningful? Seriously? I haven't observed that from you

I'm saying that your statement is legally meaningless gibberjabber that changes absolutely nothing about your relationship with the law, the courts, the government, or the People.

And you can quote me. Its one whole sentence. Your awkward paraphrase was 4. Just quote me next time to save us both time.

So just to be clear. Your posting standard is you only post that which is legally meaningful? Seriously? I haven't observed that from you

To be clear, I'm saying exactly what I said:

I'm saying that your statement is legally meaningless gibberjabber that changes absolutely nothing about your relationship with the law, the courts, the government, or the People.

There's no need to paraphrase. Just quote me. As you certainly can't even disagree with me. We both know I'm right.

To be clear, I'm saying exactly what I said:

You said my statement is legally meaningless. So that's your standard? You don't post anything that isn't legally meaningful? I call bull to that, you do all the time.

Here's another stupid standard in there. I'm wrong that government has usurped it's power because government doesn't agree with me.

You're staying in the shallow end ...

So you acknowledge that your entire 'declaration' is legally meaningless, changing nothing about your relationship with the law, the courts, the government or the People?

At this point, yes. BTW, I said that in my OP. It was pretty clever of you to dig it out of me like that

 

[kaz]

Dweeb thinks that it doesn't matter if a woman consents to being raped or not. It was just sex, what difference does it make if she consented or not?

I think it makes a whole fucking hell of a lot of difference

If you dont consent to sex, you are being raped and have redress: The Law. Calling the Police, i.e. an action.

Pressing charges, ie. an action.

Revoking consent didnt prevent her rape, or else she wasnt raped.

But she took that revocation, and ACTED.

Its something you might need a diagram to understand, but you likely still wouldnt

And what do you do when it's the government raping you and you go to the government?

Leave...or get enough to agree with you to change the government. If you cannot get others to agree with you, again you could leave if it so intolerable to you.

Why would I leave? If you can't live in the same country with me, bye bye

Funny how it's all about you now.

My OP was about my view, yes. Wow, what an insight ...

 

[bodecea]

You're an eight year old

Thats not an argument, its your emotional deflection.

Not to worry!~ The thread had no merit from jump. I didnt THINK youd be able to demonstrate.

High fives

you're an eight year old

Another emotional deflection.


Kaz, tell everyone what happens when the sparrow doesnt do what ya like....


Oh you revoke consent.


Ok, kaz. tell us what revoking your consent entails.....protest? avoid taxes? not following the law? moving?


Oh ...... NOTHING?!?!?!?



Fly away unscathed, sparrow, these revokers wont do jack shit, apparently.

This is just another variation on all the whining about PA laws, while taking no action to get them repealed.

Yes, that's it, my OP is about PA laws. Other than that I'm good. Wow, what an empty headed twat ...

Sorry the analogy was too difficult for you to grasp...continue with your whine-fest.

 

[kaz]

Get 10 million to join you, and we have a civil war.

At this point, I see no other outcome.

Save one major problem: there can be no 'civil war' with only one side. And your ilk won't bleed. Its always someone *else* that has to fight, to bleed, to die, to sacrifice.

But never them personally.

Which is why there is no Civil War. But plenty of arm chair generals 'declaring' how they can see no other way than a war that they won't ever fight in.

What the fuck are you talking about? Who asked for anyone to do anything for us? Where do you come up with this stupid shit?

Did you call for Civil War? No?

Then why do you think I'm addressing you? I'm replying to someone else entirely. Someone who is babbling about Civil War.

Do try and keep up.

Again ... in blue ...

And who is to fight in your civil war then?

Not you. Not Uncen. Who then?

There is no civil war and you're making up your shit