I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[norwegen]

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!

Tell me again, please.

What is wrong about that bit of history I posted?

 

[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

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

We get to 10 million one at a time

 

[G.T.]

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

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.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

 

[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?

 

[kaz]

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

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

 

[kaz]

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.

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
The US Government was founded on/by the US Constitution. Are you saying you won't be governed by the Constitution either? One is meaningless without the other.

The US Government was founded on the Constitution, but the ruling elite have discarded it.

It falls to patriots to restore the nation to Constitutional government.

We have a POTUS who is shown to sell federal positions in exchange for bribes;

Leaked DNC Emails Show How Blatantly Democrats Trade Access For Donations

We have the DNC candidate engaged in treason and declared to be above the law by the FBI.

Then we have that idiot Trump.

IF we want to restore this nation to one of the people, then serious actions need to be taken.

 

[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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

 

[bodecea]

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?

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.

 

[Skylar]

[
The US Government was founded on/by the US Constitution. Are you saying you won't be governed by the Constitution either? One is meaningless without the other.

The US Government was founded on the Constitution, but the ruling elite have discarded it.

It falls to patriots to restore the nation to Constitutional government.

We have a POTUS who is shown to sell federal positions in exchange for bribes;

Leaked DNC Emails Show How Blatantly Democrats Trade Access For Donations

We have the DNC candidate engaged in treason and declared to be above the law by the FBI.

Then we have that idiot Trump.

IF we want to restore this nation to one of the people, then serious actions need to be taken.

Same problem as before: the Chickenshit Conundrum. You and your 'patriots' aren't willing to bleed. Its always someone *else* that has to fight, someone else that has to sacrifice for your 'civil war'.

Which is why there isn't one.

Get used to the idea.

 

[G.T.]

[
The US Government was founded on/by the US Constitution. Are you saying you won't be governed by the Constitution either? One is meaningless without the other.

The US Government was founded on the Constitution, but the ruling elite have discarded it.

It falls to patriots to restore the nation to Constitutional government.

We have a POTUS who is shown to sell federal positions in exchange for bribes;

Leaked DNC Emails Show How Blatantly Democrats Trade Access For Donations

We have the DNC candidate engaged in treason and declared to be above the law by the FBI.

Then we have that idiot Trump.

IF we want to restore this nation to one of the people, then serious actions need to be taken.

And there ya are, on your butt.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


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.

Of course you are,.

Government by consent of the governed is a Constitutional proposition. Clearly you are fully opposed to it.

democrats promote peasants ruled by force.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

 

[bodecea]

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

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.

 

[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.

Of course you are,.

Government by consent of the governed is a Constitutional proposition. Clearly you are fully opposed to it.

democrats promote peasants ruled by force.

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

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

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!