I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[bripat9643]

So your opinion of gay marriage is irrelevant because you've done nothing about it?

My opinion of gay marriage?

Well, Im assuming you KNOW that opinion.

And i have DEFINITELY done something about it.

What have you done, other than whine about it in this forum?

None of your fucking business, whiney twat

ROFL! Nothing, in other words.

Thanks for playing!

I dont play your little failgames, mr kickstarter that earned net ZERO dollars out of what...a 40million dollar goal?

Youre mentally disturbed.

My "game" is called logic. You are correct in claiming that you don't play that "game."

Now you're calling me "mentally disturbed" for questioning the logic of your claims?

That is so beautifully liberal!

 

[G.T.]

My opinion of gay marriage?

Well, Im assuming you KNOW that opinion.

And i have DEFINITELY done something about it.

What have you done, other than whine about it in this forum?

None of your fucking business, whiney twat

ROFL! Nothing, in other words.

Thanks for playing!

I dont play your little failgames, mr kickstarter that earned net ZERO dollars out of what...a 40million dollar goal?

Youre mentally disturbed.

My "game" is called logic. You are correct in claiming that you don't play that "game."

Now you're calling me "mentally disturbed" for questioning the logic of your claims?

That is so beautifully liberal!

You fail ten times out of ten attempting logic. Sorry, dude. Writing's all there. Youre loony and full of FAIL, hence the kickstarter page and hence all your other insane nonsense ramblings that amount to incoherent hate filled psychobabble.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think coal plants should be outlawed to cure AGW or not?

I dont believe Ive researched the issue of coal plants thoroughly and so ive never OPINED regarding coal plants.


Have you ever had a go fund me campaign earn zero fucking dollars?

How about this: Do you think the government should impose taxes and pass laws to cure AGW?

See if you can respond with something other than personal attacks.

Refer to the post you are responding to. Because it answers this very question.

You're just trying to weasel out of addressing the point. You claim if you don't take some overt action, like breaking the law, then you haven't done anything. So what laws have you broken that you disagree with?

What on fucking EARTH does my taking action on something...or breaking the law...have to do with fucking GLOBAL WARMING you insane fuckin weirdo?

It has to do with your claim that taking action (breaking laws) is what proves you are complying with your principles. Apparently you have no principles.

 

[G.T.]

I dont believe Ive researched the issue of coal plants thoroughly and so ive never OPINED regarding coal plants.


Have you ever had a go fund me campaign earn zero fucking dollars?

How about this: Do you think the government should impose taxes and pass laws to cure AGW?

See if you can respond with something other than personal attacks.

Refer to the post you are responding to. Because it answers this very question.

You're just trying to weasel out of addressing the point. You claim if you don't take some overt action, like breaking the law, then you haven't done anything. So what laws have you broken that you disagree with?

What on fucking EARTH does my taking action on something...or breaking the law...have to do with fucking GLOBAL WARMING you insane fuckin weirdo?

It has to do with your claim that taking action (breaking laws) is what proves you are complying with your principles. Apparently you have no principles.

Thats not my claim.

You fail, logically.


Again and again.

 

[bripat9643]

What have you done, other than whine about it in this forum?

None of your fucking business, whiney twat

ROFL! Nothing, in other words.

Thanks for playing!

I dont play your little failgames, mr kickstarter that earned net ZERO dollars out of what...a 40million dollar goal?

Youre mentally disturbed.

My "game" is called logic. You are correct in claiming that you don't play that "game."

Now you're calling me "mentally disturbed" for questioning the logic of your claims?

That is so beautifully liberal!

You fail ten times put of ten attempting logic. Sorry, dude. Writing's all there. Youre loony and full of FAIL, hence the kickstarter page and hence all your other insane nonsense ramblings that amount to incoherent hate filled psychobabble.

Your running away with your tail between your legs. You now realize your claims are irrational, so you refuse to debate them.

In short, your a typical leftwing douche bag.

 

[bripat9643]

How about this: Do you think the government should impose taxes and pass laws to cure AGW?

See if you can respond with something other than personal attacks.

Refer to the post you are responding to. Because it answers this very question.

You're just trying to weasel out of addressing the point. You claim if you don't take some overt action, like breaking the law, then you haven't done anything. So what laws have you broken that you disagree with?

What on fucking EARTH does my taking action on something...or breaking the law...have to do with fucking GLOBAL WARMING you insane fuckin weirdo?

It has to do with your claim that taking action (breaking laws) is what proves you are complying with your principles. Apparently you have no principles.

Thats not my claim.

You fail, logically.


Again and again.

That is exactly what your claim is. Otherwise, what are you attacking Kaz about?

 

[bripat9643]

Your life and opinion are empty and meaningless, mine are not. That's your choice, that's my choice

Your ad hom melting down doesnt change the fact that you are in no actionable way revoking your consent to be governed.

Ill keep nailing it down, you keep going off on asides about girls and dolls and shit.

Revoking your consent requires no action other than saying your revoke your consent. If you refuse to purchase the insurance the salesman is selling, what is required other then your refusal to sign the papers?

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.

No, you miss the point dweeb.

In order to revoke consent...(next parts in caps cuz youre steeeeeewpit)AND HAVE IT MEAN A GOD DAMNED THING, AT ALL, you have to get off your fat ass and do something.

So you consent to buy insurance even if you have done nothing? Since when has consent ever worked that way. To consent to something you have to take some action, like signing a document. Failing to do something doesn't constitute consent to anything, and never has. Just ask a lawyer.

 

[G.T.]

Refer to the post you are responding to. Because it answers this very question.

You're just trying to weasel out of addressing the point. You claim if you don't take some overt action, like breaking the law, then you haven't done anything. So what laws have you broken that you disagree with?

What on fucking EARTH does my taking action on something...or breaking the law...have to do with fucking GLOBAL WARMING you insane fuckin weirdo?

It has to do with your claim that taking action (breaking laws) is what proves you are complying with your principles. Apparently you have no principles.

Thats not my claim.

You fail, logically.


Again and again.

That is exactly what your claim is. Otherwise, what are you attacking Kaz about?

His consent to be GOVERNED, where the LAW is one of the many arms of BEING Governed.

Im sorry that you couldnt seperate that SIMPLE AS FUCK logic, from the claim that "doing anything that matters at all about anything ever means breaking the law, tee hee."


Your brain is literally soup. Its broken. Theres no other explaination.

 

[G.T.]

Your ad hom melting down doesnt change the fact that you are in no actionable way revoking your consent to be governed.

Ill keep nailing it down, you keep going off on asides about girls and dolls and shit.

Revoking your consent requires no action other than saying your revoke your consent. If you refuse to purchase the insurance the salesman is selling, what is required other then your refusal to sign the papers?

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.

No, you miss the point dweeb.

In order to revoke consent...(next parts in caps cuz youre steeeeeewpit)AND HAVE IT MEAN A GOD DAMNED THING, AT ALL, you have to get off your fat ass and do something.

So you consent to buy insurance even if you have done nothing? Since when has consent ever worked that way. To consent to something you have to take some action, like signing a document. Failing to do something doesn't constitute consent to anything, and never has. Just ask a lawyer.

^ you dont even realize you prove my point and argued against yourself.

Bravo, failPat.

 

[kaz]

I didn't say that, I specifically said I am not saying that. Reread the OP and stop saying snarky things that have nothing to do with what I said

I said 'this is like...'

So if you aren't saying you don't give your consent to be govorned by duly elected US officials and laws, what are you saying?

Another liberal who failed civics. Seriously, if you don't understand the basic premises of the foundation of the laws of your own country, has Google never occurred to you?

It's your position and you don't want to defend it, which is fine. I just don't know what exactly you are advocating if not anarchy and that you are special and the laws don't apply to you. You don't want to answer, fair enough. It's your thread.

If you want to discuss the second part of your post, ask it again without the snarky lie you started the post with. I specifically said repeatedly that your strawman is not what I'm saying

I'm snarky just as habit. I find humor in everything.

Again, what is your position.

Being snarky about something I didn't say is of dubious purpose to me, but you honored my request. I'm not sure why you don't want to google Consent of the Governed, it is the basis of the US Constitution.

Consent to be governed gives the government legitimacy. The people of the United States ceded specific enumerated powers to the Federal government and in exchange consented to be governed under those terms.

I am saying the Federal government is not following those terms. The Supreme Court, which is part of the government, keeps granting the rest of government powers that "We the people" did not give it. Obama is the worst, but it's been increasingly common for Presidents to size power. The Legislature is just ignoring the tenth amendment. Trump and Hillary are both running campaigns that promise to violate the Constitution even further.

So, I withdraw my consent because the Federal government has not fulfilled it's Constitutional role. I will obey most laws because I am not willing to pay the price to not do it, I have other priorities in my life. But I am now only following the law when I do under coercion. Government is forcing me to follow the law, I do not recognize the legitimacy of their rule

 

[bripat9643]

Revoking your consent requires no action other than saying your revoke your consent. If you refuse to purchase the insurance the salesman is selling, what is required other then your refusal to sign the papers?

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.

No, you miss the point dweeb.

In order to revoke consent...(next parts in caps cuz youre steeeeeewpit)AND HAVE IT MEAN A GOD DAMNED THING, AT ALL, you have to get off your fat ass and do something.

So you consent to buy insurance even if you have done nothing? Since when has consent ever worked that way. To consent to something you have to take some action, like signing a document. Failing to do something doesn't constitute consent to anything, and never has. Just ask a lawyer.

^ you dont even realize you prove my point and argued against yourself.

Bravo, failPat.

ROFL!

That's some funny shit right there!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

What you call enslavement, others, who are far more informed on the subject, call Federalism.

Being a bootlicking douche bag makes you "informed?" A "federalist," at least at the time of the founders, was simply someone who didn't believe in freedom.

You're a bloody fool and ignorant of the actual history of MY Nation! To accuse one of the founding Federalists of a plot to enslave the citizens is pitifully stupid along with being woefully ignorant. Now piss the fuck off and scurry back in your den like the fucking rodent you make yourself out to be in the eyes of normal folks!

You're a bloody fool and ignorant of the actual history of MY Nation!

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."*

Being woefully ignorant like are, you lap up taxation and regulation like Kool-Aide and call it freedom.

Good boy.



*Alfred, Antifederalist 16

It sounds like you paraphrased that from Orwell's book. The Federalists were actually Antifederalists and the Union was actually a Confederacy! And "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia!"

First and foremost, the Antifederalists lost the argument when the Constitution was ratified in 1788 and eventually and technically became the first statute of the United States; the Law of the Land! Attempting to rewrite history to fit another narrative you're comfortable with after indoctrination and consumption of a faction's propaganda is a fool errand!

Second, the 13 States tried a confederation form of government first and it failed miserably, and a constitutional convention was agreed upon to create a new form of government to,"...form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."; a constitutional federal republic aka constitutional federal representative democracy, a UNION in the common tongue! In a literal manner only, you are correct, only by accident of the English language and not intent; "...Federalists did not create a government that preserved the confederacy"! No cigar for you!

Third, the authors of the "Federalist Papers", Hamilton, Madison and Jay, were, indeed, Federalists. "Alfred" was numbered among the Antifederalist who felt an actual Union of the several States was anathema to what had gone before, wishing to maintain strict sovereignty of each State for the greater good of their own State primarily and very unwilling to cede any sovereignty to a Federal entity. In other words, another Confederation maintaining the status quo like conservatives of any stripe are wont to attempt to continue things unchanged.

Therefore, fuck you very much, I'm sure!

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!

 

[kaz]

Your continuous deflection is cool, bro.

But....unfortunately, your revocation of consent is still empty and meaningless.

Your life and opinion are empty and meaningless, mine are not. That's your choice, that's my choice

Your ad hom melting down doesnt change the fact that you are in no actionable way revoking your consent to be governed.

Ill keep nailing it down, you keep going off on asides about girls and dolls and shit.

Revoking your consent requires no action other than saying your revoke your consent. If you refuse to purchase the insurance the salesman is selling, what is required other then your refusal to sign the papers?

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

 

[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

Good luck with that. When you figure out the difference between 'The People' and a person, you'll probably feel a little silly by this whole exercise.

 

[G.T.]

I thought it was funny, myself....then I consider the source and realize its not intentional.

We say revoking consent without actually DOING something....makes your revocation meaningless. In effect, it doesnt mean jack shit.

You take that REALLY SUPER HARD thought, and conflate it with "but but but you can revoke consent without acting on it, look at the gassed JEWS!!"

Well duh dummy......their "consent revocation" without ACTION made their consent revocation MEANINGLESS to their OUTCOME....

Youre proving the point.



(Its because youre stupid).

 

[kaz]

Your life and opinion are empty and meaningless, mine are not. That's your choice, that's my choice

Your ad hom melting down doesnt change the fact that you are in no actionable way revoking your consent to be governed.

Ill keep nailing it down, you keep going off on asides about girls and dolls and shit.

Revoking your consent requires no action other than saying your revoke your consent. If you refuse to purchase the insurance the salesman is selling, what is required other then your refusal to sign the papers?

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.

No, you miss the point dweeb.

In order to revoke consent...(next parts in caps cuz youre steeeeeewpit)AND HAVE IT MEAN A GOD DAMNED THING, AT ALL, you have to get off your fat ass and do something.

That's the problem with women who get raped ... without their consent ..., huh? They didn't get off their fat asses and do something?

 

[Skylar]

I thought it was funny, myself....then I consider the source and realize its not intentional.

We say revoking consent without actually DOING something....makes your revocation meaningless. In effect, it doesnt mean jack shit.

You take that REALLY SUPER HARD thought, and conflate it with "but but but you can revoke consent without acting on it, look at the gassed JEWS!!"

Well duh dummy......their "consent revocation" without ACTION made their consent revocation MEANINGLESS to their OUTCOME....

Youre proving the point.



(Its because youre stupid).

It has all weight and majesty of cutting and pasting a revocation of the consent of the Facebook terms of Service.....on Facebook.

 

[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

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant, naive, and wrong.

Can you be more specific?

 

[G.T.]

Your life and opinion are empty and meaningless, mine are not. That's your choice, that's my choice

Your ad hom melting down doesnt change the fact that you are in no actionable way revoking your consent to be governed.

Ill keep nailing it down, you keep going off on asides about girls and dolls and shit.

Revoking your consent requires no action other than saying your revoke your consent. If you refuse to purchase the insurance the salesman is selling, what is required other then your refusal to sign the papers?

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

 

[G.T.]

I thought it was funny, myself....then I consider the source and realize its not intentional.

We say revoking consent without actually DOING something....makes your revocation meaningless. In effect, it doesnt mean jack shit.

You take that REALLY SUPER HARD thought, and conflate it with "but but but you can revoke consent without acting on it, look at the gassed JEWS!!"

Well duh dummy......their "consent revocation" without ACTION made their consent revocation MEANINGLESS to their OUTCOME....

Youre proving the point.



(Its because youre stupid).

It has all weight and majesty of cutting and pasting a revocation of the consent of the Facebook terms of Service.....on Facebook.