I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[Skylar]

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?

By your bizarro argument, her rapist could simply 'declare the revocation of the consent to be governed'.....and there would be no law that could be applied to him that would outlaw his actions.

Thankfully that's not how our system of laws work nor has ever worked. As the power recedes with the People. Not a person.

What you're thinking of is called a monarchy. And we haven't had one of those since we handed Cornwallis his ass.

 

[kaz]

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

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

 

[kaz]

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?

By your bizarro argument, her rapist could simply 'declare the revocation of the consent to be governed'.....and there would be no law that could be applied to him that would outlaw his actions.

Thankfully that's not how our system of laws work nor has ever worked. As the power recedes with the People. Not a person.

What you're thinking of is called a monarchy. And we haven't had one of those since we handed Cornwallis his ass.

That's a stupid analogy. I said I am going to follow the law, it's just out of coercion. Nowhere did I say I think I'm above the regime that rules this country now. In fact I said I keep my eye on the sparrow. Address the real discussion

 

[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

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.

Swish. My issue as I said is that government is NOT following the agreement it made with "We The People." You're just saying you're on the side of our tyrannical government

 

[G.T.]

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

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

If the Government was raping ME, Id revolt. Not just say, "i dont like this" on a messageboard. That is in effect (2 words, "in effect" make sure you get their context), MEANINGLESS.

 

[norwegen]

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!

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

 

[Skylar]

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?

By your bizarro argument, her rapist could simply 'declare the revocation of the consent to be governed'.....and there would be no law that could be applied to him that would outlaw his actions.

Thankfully that's not how our system of laws work nor has ever worked. As the power recedes with the People. Not a person.

What you're thinking of is called a monarchy. And we haven't had one of those since we handed Cornwallis his ass.

That's a stupid analogy. I said I am going to follow the law, it's just out of coercion. Nowhere did I say I think I'm above the regime that rules this country now. In fact I said I keep my eye on the sparrow. Address the real discussion

Its a perfect analogy. As you are claiming that you, and you alone, define when laws are applicable to you.

Back in reality, the PEOPLE decide which laws are applicable to you.

Authority being retained by a singular individual autonomously is monarchy. Authority being retained by the people collectively is democracy, with our method of excercising that authority being a republic.

You have sorely misinterpreted your relationship with the rest of us. We're not subject to your 'declarations'. You're subject to ours.

See how that works?

 

[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?

If the Government was raping ME, Id revolt. Not just say, "i dont like this" on a messageboard. That is in effect (2 words, "in effect" make sure you get their context), MEANINGLESS.

You are an eight year old

 

[kaz]

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?

By your bizarro argument, her rapist could simply 'declare the revocation of the consent to be governed'.....and there would be no law that could be applied to him that would outlaw his actions.

Thankfully that's not how our system of laws work nor has ever worked. As the power recedes with the People. Not a person.

What you're thinking of is called a monarchy. And we haven't had one of those since we handed Cornwallis his ass.

That's a stupid analogy. I said I am going to follow the law, it's just out of coercion. Nowhere did I say I think I'm above the regime that rules this country now. In fact I said I keep my eye on the sparrow. Address the real discussion

Its a perfect analogy. As you are claiming that you, and you alone, define when laws are applicable to you.

Back in reality, the PEOPLE decide which laws are applicable to you.

Authority being retained by a singular individual autonomously is monarchy. Authority being retained by the people collectively is democracy, with our method of excercising that authority being a republic.

You have sorely misinterpreted your relationship with the rest of us. We're not subject to your 'declarations'. You're subject to ours.

See how that works?

When I say I'm following the law, but it's out of coercion, how is that "you are claiming that you, and you alone, define when laws are applicable to you?" That's stupid. I said I recognize the power of the government to impose it's will on me. Stop being stupid.

Nazis put Jews legally into prison camps. According to you, that's legitimacy because the Jews wouldn't have gone except for the guns?

I have guns, but the government has more than I do. I will follow the law because I keep my eye on the sparrow. But their guns don't make their rule legitimate, the consent of the people does. And they no longer have my consent

 

[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.

Swish. My issue as I said is that government is NOT following the agreement it made with "We The People." You're just saying you're on the side of our tyrannical government

Says you. But you aren't the 'We The People'. You're a person. And your personal opinion on how an agreement is being carried out has no legal authority. As you are not delegated the People's Authority to administer, enforce or adjudicate that agreement.

Making your 'declaration' another empty wannabe Sovereign Citizen argument. With exactly jack shit in legal significance.

 

[G.T.]

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?

If the Government was raping ME, Id revolt. Not just say, "i dont like this" on a messageboard. That is in effect (2 words, "in effect" make sure you get their context), MEANINGLESS.

You are an eight year old

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.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

By your bizarro argument, her rapist could simply 'declare the revocation of the consent to be governed'.....and there would be no law that could be applied to him that would outlaw his actions.

Thankfully that's not how our system of laws work nor has ever worked. As the power recedes with the People. Not a person.

What you're thinking of is called a monarchy. And we haven't had one of those since we handed Cornwallis his ass.

That's a stupid analogy. I said I am going to follow the law, it's just out of coercion. Nowhere did I say I think I'm above the regime that rules this country now. In fact I said I keep my eye on the sparrow. Address the real discussion

Its a perfect analogy. As you are claiming that you, and you alone, define when laws are applicable to you.

Back in reality, the PEOPLE decide which laws are applicable to you.

Authority being retained by a singular individual autonomously is monarchy. Authority being retained by the people collectively is democracy, with our method of excercising that authority being a republic.

You have sorely misinterpreted your relationship with the rest of us. We're not subject to your 'declarations'. You're subject to ours.

See how that works?

I, as an individual, am not subject to a damn thing you, as an individual, says.

So it's OK with you that as few as 5 people can say what you're subject to following? You say we're a republic but that sounds like an oligarchy to me.

 

[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

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.

Swish. My issue as I said is that government is NOT following the agreement it made with "We The People." You're just saying you're on the side of our tyrannical government

Says you. But you aren't the 'We The People'. You're a person. And your personal opinion on how an agreement is being carried out has no legal authority. As you are not delegated the People's Authority to administer, enforce or adjudicate that agreement.

Making your 'declaration' another empty wannabe Sovereign Citizen argument. With exactly jack shit in legal significance.

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

 

[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?

If the Government was raping ME, Id revolt. Not just say, "i dont like this" on a messageboard. That is in effect (2 words, "in effect" make sure you get their context), MEANINGLESS.

You are an eight year old

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

 

[Skylar]

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?

By your bizarro argument, her rapist could simply 'declare the revocation of the consent to be governed'.....and there would be no law that could be applied to him that would outlaw his actions.

Thankfully that's not how our system of laws work nor has ever worked. As the power recedes with the People. Not a person.

What you're thinking of is called a monarchy. And we haven't had one of those since we handed Cornwallis his ass.

That's a stupid analogy. I said I am going to follow the law, it's just out of coercion. Nowhere did I say I think I'm above the regime that rules this country now. In fact I said I keep my eye on the sparrow. Address the real discussion

Its a perfect analogy. As you are claiming that you, and you alone, define when laws are applicable to you.

Back in reality, the PEOPLE decide which laws are applicable to you.

Authority being retained by a singular individual autonomously is monarchy. Authority being retained by the people collectively is democracy, with our method of excercising that authority being a republic.

You have sorely misinterpreted your relationship with the rest of us. We're not subject to your 'declarations'. You're subject to ours.

See how that works?

When I say I'm following the law, but it's out of coercion, how is that "you are claiming that you, and you alone, define when laws are applicable to you?"

You can say whatever you'd like. But it has no relevance whatsoever to the applicability of the law to you. See, that's where your argument breaks: your 'withdrawing of consent' doesn't have a lick of legal authority. It doesn't change your relationship with the law, the government, The People, or their authority over you.

Making your 'declaration' an demonstration of typing prowess. But exactly jack shit in terms of legal significance.

 

[G.T.]

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?

If the Government was raping ME, Id revolt. Not just say, "i dont like this" on a messageboard. That is in effect (2 words, "in effect" make sure you get their context), MEANINGLESS.

You are an eight year old

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

 

[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.

Swish. My issue as I said is that government is NOT following the agreement it made with "We The People." You're just saying you're on the side of our tyrannical government

Says you. But you aren't the 'We The People'. You're a person. And your personal opinion on how an agreement is being carried out has no legal authority. As you are not delegated the People's Authority to administer, enforce or adjudicate that agreement.

Making your 'declaration' another empty wannabe Sovereign Citizen argument. With exactly jack shit in legal significance.

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.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

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!

 

[Uncensored2008]

... 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.

 

[kaz]

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

If the Government was raping ME, Id revolt. Not just say, "i dont like this" on a messageboard. That is in effect (2 words, "in effect" make sure you get their context), MEANINGLESS.

You are an eight year old

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