I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[Uncensored2008]

[

Under the constitution, the interpreters of the meaning of the constitution are the judiciary. With the judiciary placing the constitution above legislation that would

The problem is that you've placed the Judiciary above the Constitution, and in fact declared the Constitution meaningless, as ONLY the utterance of the dictatorship of the judiciary constitutes "law" according to the left.

You're proposing that YOU get to authoritatively interpret the meaning of the Constitution. And through violence, impose your interpretations on the majority of the people by overthrowing their government.

That's sedition and treason.

Opposition to the will of the party is sedition, according to you Marxists. The Constitution is a written document in a language understood by Americans. Terms such as "the people" and "shall not be infringed" are fully understood. If our rulers declare that "the people" means only our rulers and their guards, this does not alter what the Constitution in fact says.

And you know you don't have majorities, else you would impose your will politically. But you can't....because you're an extreme minority. In a nation of 320 million people you speak of working your way up to 10 million who might agree with you.

Your best case scenario is about 3% of the population violently overthrowing the government and the will of 97% of the population.

And of course, that's not happening as your 3% doesn't have the will to bleed for their civil war. Which is why there is none.

You always, always run headlong into the Chickenshit Conundrum. And you have no solution for it.

You Marxists count on the idea that most Americans are asleep and cannot be bothered to pay attention to what you are doing. When I say that a civil war can be fought without violence, I specifically point to getting the masses in this nation to pay attention to you and the assault you have waged on our nation.

Treason to be sure, and the treason is all yours, as we both know,.

 

[Skylar]

[

Under the constitution, the interpreters of the meaning of the constitution are the judiciary. With the judiciary placing the constitution above legislation that would

The problem is that you've placed the Judiciary above the Constitution, and in fact declared the Constitution meaningless, as ONLY the utterance of the dictatorship of the judiciary constitutes "law" according to the left.

Says the soul that just put himself as the sole authoritative arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Sorry Uncen....but you're nobody. You don't get to unilaterally overthrow any Supreme Court ruling you don't like. Nor does your personal opinion trump the constitutionally delegated judicial power. Or the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the constitution.

And you're insisting that your interpretations of the Constitution trump the courts, elections, the People's, everyone's.

No, they don't.

Opposition to the will of the party is sedition, according to you Marxists. The Constitution is a written document in a language understood by Americans. Terms such as "the people" and "shall not be infringed" are fully understood. If our rulers declare that "the people" means only our rulers and their guards, this does not alter what the Constitution in fact says.

You are not the people. You're talking about violently overthrowing the results of the election if you don't like the way the people voted. That's not in the constitution.

With your best case scenario for support when begin your 'civil war' being about 3% of the population turning on the 97% majority. That's not in the constitution either.

Please don't pretend that you give a fiddler's fuck about the people or the constitution. You only care about your own power, your own judgment, and your ability to violently enforce both.

You're openly advocating sedition and treason. In a war....you aren't even willing to fight in.Nor is the rest of your ilk. Which is why there is no such war. Nor will there be.

 

[Mr Natural]

 

[bripat9643]

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).

So you're saying the Jews consented to be gasses? If it's so meaningless, then why did anyone get upset about it? Pulling the petals off a dandelion is meaningless. Having sex with a woman who doesn't consent to it is a crime called rape. What you're not willing to face up to is that douche bags like you, who want to force all your hair brained schemes on us, are no better than criminals.

 

[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).

So you're saying the Jews consented to be gasses? If it's so meaningless, then why did anyone get upset about it? Pulling the petals off a dandelion is meaningless. Having sex with a woman who doesn't consent to is a crime called rape. What you're not willing to face up to is that douche bags like you who want to force all your hair brained schemes are no better than criminals.

Umm, NO IDIOT.

Im saying the Jews DIDNT consent, and the INACTION and/or INABILITY to act made their NON consent irrelevant to their OUTCOME.

Holy shit you're psychotic levels of stupid

 

[bripat9643]

[

Under the constitution, the interpreters of the meaning of the constitution are the judiciary. With the judiciary placing the constitution above legislation that would

The problem is that you've placed the Judiciary above the Constitution, and in fact declared the Constitution meaningless, as ONLY the utterance of the dictatorship of the judiciary constitutes "law" according to the left.

Says the soul that just put himself as the sole authoritative arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Sorry Uncen....but you're nobody. You don't get to unilaterally overthrow any Supreme Court ruling you don't like. Nor does your personal opinion trump the constitutionally delegated judicial power. Or the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the constitution.

And you're insisting that your interpretations of the Constitution trump the courts, elections, the People's, everyone's.

No, they don't.

Opposition to the will of the party is sedition, according to you Marxists. The Constitution is a written document in a language understood by Americans. Terms such as "the people" and "shall not be infringed" are fully understood. If our rulers declare that "the people" means only our rulers and their guards, this does not alter what the Constitution in fact says.

You are not the people. You're talking about violently overthrowing the results of the election if you don't like the way the people voted. That's not in the constitution.

With your best case scenario for support when begin your 'civil war' being about 3% of the population turning on the 97% majority. That's not in the constitution either.

Please don't pretend that you give a fiddler's fuck about the people or the constitution. You only care about your own power, your own judgment, and your ability to violently enforce both.

You're openly advocating sedition and treason. In a war....you aren't even willing to fight in.Nor is the rest of your ilk. Which is why there is no such war. Nor will there be.

You are suffering from the delusion that truth is determined by some authority figure. Kaz hasn't said or even implied that the Constitution means what he says it means solely because he's saying it. Furthermore, he isn't advocating "sedition," which is a violation of the First Amendment or war.

You just spew one straw man after another.

 

[bripat9643]

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).

So you're saying the Jews consented to be gasses? If it's so meaningless, then why did anyone get upset about it? Pulling the petals off a dandelion is meaningless. Having sex with a woman who doesn't consent to is a crime called rape. What you're not willing to face up to is that douche bags like you who want to force all your hair brained schemes are no better than criminals.

Umm, NO IDIOT.

Im saying the Jews DIDNT consent, and the INACTION and/or INABILITY to act made their NON consent irrelevant to their OUTCOME.

Holy shit you're psychotic levels of stupid

But you're saying I do consent if the government points a gun at me and forces me to pay for its "services." How is that any different? And, like I said, how is it "irrelevant." Of course, no one would consent to being gassed, but people do consent to having sex all the time. If they don't consent, we call that rape. it's a crime. "Consent" is what distinguishes an act from being criminal or being benign. You don't ant to acknowledge that because your agenda has to be jammed down everyone's throat without their consent. Left wing douche bags despise the principle of consent. Socialism is based on compulsion, not consent.

 

[bripat9643]

When we want input from a dumbass, we'll let you know.

 

[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).

So you're saying the Jews consented to be gasses? If it's so meaningless, then why did anyone get upset about it? Pulling the petals off a dandelion is meaningless. Having sex with a woman who doesn't consent to is a crime called rape. What you're not willing to face up to is that douche bags like you who want to force all your hair brained schemes are no better than criminals.

Umm, NO IDIOT.

Im saying the Jews DIDNT consent, and the INACTION and/or INABILITY to act made their NON consent irrelevant to their OUTCOME.

Holy shit you're psychotic levels of stupid

But you're saying I do consent if the government points a gun at me and forces me to pay for its "services." How is that any different? And, like I said, how is it "irrelevant." Of course, no one would consent to being gassed, but people do consent to having sex all the time. If they don't consent, we call that rape. it's a crime. "Consent" is what distinguishes an act from being criminal or being benign. You don't ant to acknowledge that because your agenda has to be jammed down everyone's throat without their consent. Left wing douche bags despise the principle of consent. Socialism is based on compulsion, not consent.

No, strawman. Im not saying that.

Dummies gunna dumb, you wrote a 250 word essay over what I didnt say. Nice work corky.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong, dumbass. You can't consent or withdraw it for another person. That concept is idiotic. The whole "social contract" abracadabra depends on changing the meaning of the word "consent." Interpreting the term correctly wouldn't change any of our criminal laws. Rape, murder, assault and stealing would all still be a crimes. They are crimes precisely because the victim doesn't consent.

 

[bripat9643]

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).

So you're saying the Jews consented to be gasses? If it's so meaningless, then why did anyone get upset about it? Pulling the petals off a dandelion is meaningless. Having sex with a woman who doesn't consent to is a crime called rape. What you're not willing to face up to is that douche bags like you who want to force all your hair brained schemes are no better than criminals.

Umm, NO IDIOT.

Im saying the Jews DIDNT consent, and the INACTION and/or INABILITY to act made their NON consent irrelevant to their OUTCOME.

Holy shit you're psychotic levels of stupid

But you're saying I do consent if the government points a gun at me and forces me to pay for its "services." How is that any different? And, like I said, how is it "irrelevant." Of course, no one would consent to being gassed, but people do consent to having sex all the time. If they don't consent, we call that rape. it's a crime. "Consent" is what distinguishes an act from being criminal or being benign. You don't ant to acknowledge that because your agenda has to be jammed down everyone's throat without their consent. Left wing douche bags despise the principle of consent. Socialism is based on compulsion, not consent.

No, strawman. Im not saying that.

Dummies gunna dumb, you wrote a 250 word essay over what I didnt say. Nice work corky.

We know you didn't say it. You spewed bullshit. However, those are the implications of your bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

... 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.

I other words, truth is determined by some authority. We aren't able to decipher it for ourselves.

You truly are a brainless irrational drone. You believe whatever you're told to believe.

 

[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).

So you're saying the Jews consented to be gasses? If it's so meaningless, then why did anyone get upset about it? Pulling the petals off a dandelion is meaningless. Having sex with a woman who doesn't consent to is a crime called rape. What you're not willing to face up to is that douche bags like you who want to force all your hair brained schemes are no better than criminals.

Umm, NO IDIOT.

Im saying the Jews DIDNT consent, and the INACTION and/or INABILITY to act made their NON consent irrelevant to their OUTCOME.

Holy shit you're psychotic levels of stupid

But you're saying I do consent if the government points a gun at me and forces me to pay for its "services." How is that any different? And, like I said, how is it "irrelevant." Of course, no one would consent to being gassed, but people do consent to having sex all the time. If they don't consent, we call that rape. it's a crime. "Consent" is what distinguishes an act from being criminal or being benign. You don't ant to acknowledge that because your agenda has to be jammed down everyone's throat without their consent. Left wing douche bags despise the principle of consent. Socialism is based on compulsion, not consent.

No, strawman. Im not saying that.

Dummies gunna dumb, you wrote a 250 word essay over what I didnt say. Nice work corky.

We know you didn't say it. You spewed bullshit. However, those are the implications of your bullshit.

^ not logic, not an argument, but a cop out. you fail. again. its got to be frustrating at this point.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sorry, dumbass, but you're the one with the toddler brain. You aren't even capable of understanding the argument he's making, let alone defeating it.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying the Jews consented to be gasses? If it's so meaningless, then why did anyone get upset about it? Pulling the petals off a dandelion is meaningless. Having sex with a woman who doesn't consent to is a crime called rape. What you're not willing to face up to is that douche bags like you who want to force all your hair brained schemes are no better than criminals.

Umm, NO IDIOT.

Im saying the Jews DIDNT consent, and the INACTION and/or INABILITY to act made their NON consent irrelevant to their OUTCOME.

Holy shit you're psychotic levels of stupid

But you're saying I do consent if the government points a gun at me and forces me to pay for its "services." How is that any different? And, like I said, how is it "irrelevant." Of course, no one would consent to being gassed, but people do consent to having sex all the time. If they don't consent, we call that rape. it's a crime. "Consent" is what distinguishes an act from being criminal or being benign. You don't ant to acknowledge that because your agenda has to be jammed down everyone's throat without their consent. Left wing douche bags despise the principle of consent. Socialism is based on compulsion, not consent.

No, strawman. Im not saying that.

Dummies gunna dumb, you wrote a 250 word essay over what I didnt say. Nice work corky.

We know you didn't say it. You spewed bullshit. However, those are the implications of your bullshit.

^ not logic, not an argument, but a cop out. you fail. again. its got to be frustrating at this point.

Once again, a lot of mindless prattle signifying absolutely nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

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

You flatter him.

 

[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.

Sorry, dumbass, but you're the one with the toddler brain. You aren't even capable of understanding the argument he's making, let alone defeating it.

^^ Not an argument, not a demonstrationnof logic, just a cop out from mere frustration of not being able to make a sound logical point.

 

[G.T.]

Umm, NO IDIOT.

Im saying the Jews DIDNT consent, and the INACTION and/or INABILITY to act made their NON consent irrelevant to their OUTCOME.

Holy shit you're psychotic levels of stupid

But you're saying I do consent if the government points a gun at me and forces me to pay for its "services." How is that any different? And, like I said, how is it "irrelevant." Of course, no one would consent to being gassed, but people do consent to having sex all the time. If they don't consent, we call that rape. it's a crime. "Consent" is what distinguishes an act from being criminal or being benign. You don't ant to acknowledge that because your agenda has to be jammed down everyone's throat without their consent. Left wing douche bags despise the principle of consent. Socialism is based on compulsion, not consent.

No, strawman. Im not saying that.

Dummies gunna dumb, you wrote a 250 word essay over what I didnt say. Nice work corky.

We know you didn't say it. You spewed bullshit. However, those are the implications of your bullshit.

^ not logic, not an argument, but a cop out. you fail. again. its got to be frustrating at this point.

Once again, a lot of mindless prattle signifying absolutely nothing.

Of course, repeating the same thing I just said to you is ... not original.


And...its not a demonstration of logic. Ita not an argument. Its big baby boy whino shit like ya always do, weakling.

 

[bripat9643]

... 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.

So if there is no civil war, you're nose is out of joint, and when there is a civil war your nose is out of joint.

That's so beautifully Skylar!

 

[bripat9643]

But you're saying I do consent if the government points a gun at me and forces me to pay for its "services." How is that any different? And, like I said, how is it "irrelevant." Of course, no one would consent to being gassed, but people do consent to having sex all the time. If they don't consent, we call that rape. it's a crime. "Consent" is what distinguishes an act from being criminal or being benign. You don't ant to acknowledge that because your agenda has to be jammed down everyone's throat without their consent. Left wing douche bags despise the principle of consent. Socialism is based on compulsion, not consent.

No, strawman. Im not saying that.

Dummies gunna dumb, you wrote a 250 word essay over what I didnt say. Nice work corky.

We know you didn't say it. You spewed bullshit. However, those are the implications of your bullshit.

^ not logic, not an argument, but a cop out. you fail. again. its got to be frustrating at this point.

Once again, a lot of mindless prattle signifying absolutely nothing.

Of course, repeating the same thing I just said to you is ... not original.


And...its not a demonstration of logic. Ita not an argument. Its big baby boy whino shit like ya always do, weakling.

Where have you posted anything other than ad hominems, douche bag?