Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
... 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
are you trying to welcome kaz into the world of anarchy? fo shizzle?... 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
Welcome to the world of anarchy, my friend.
No, you miss the point dweeb.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.
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.
... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government.
I can't quite decide if you are just stupid or outright crazy.
No you cannot elect to stick around here while disregarding government and it's laws while taking advantages of the benefits system provides you.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
An eight year old would think making this thread was a good idea.Another emotional deflection.Thats not an argument, its your emotional deflection.You're an eight year old
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
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
That's all a Sovereign Citizen argument is.are you trying to welcome kaz into the world of anarchy? fo shizzle?... 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
Welcome to the world of anarchy, my friend.
... 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!
No, you miss the point dweeb.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.
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.
The contract isn't with you. Its with the People. They can pull out of the Contract. You can't. Says who?
Says James Madison of course.
"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "
-James Madison
The only party that can modify or leave the compact....is the party that made the compact: The People of the Several States.
Which neither you nor Kaz are.
Even casual application of your bizarre reasoning demonstrates its absurdity. For one could commit any crime, be caught mid act....and then simply 'declare' that they 'no longer consent to be governed' and be subject to no punishment or application of law.
Which obviously isn't nor has ever been our system of law.
Ever.
... 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!
She's got a knack for that sort of speak.
That's all a Sovereign Citizen argument is.are you trying to welcome kaz into the world of anarchy? fo shizzle?... 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
Welcome to the world of anarchy, my friend.
Umm, this whole thread.Of course, repeating the same thing I just said to you is ... not original.^ not logic, not an argument, but a cop out. you fail. again. its got to be frustrating at this point.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.
Once again, a lot of mindless prattle signifying absolutely nothing.
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?
of course you did, now squeal like a pig, fatty... 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!
She's got a knack for that sort of speak.
She? I thought Skylar was a big fat male homosexual.
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.
The contract isn't with you. Its with the People. They can pull out of the Contract. You can't. Says who?
Says James Madison of course.
"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "
-James Madison
The only party that can modify or leave the compact....is the party that made the compact: The People of the Several States.
Which neither you nor Kaz are.
Even casual application of your bizarre reasoning demonstrates its absurdity. For one could commit any crime, be caught mid act....and then simply 'declare' that they 'no longer consent to be governed' and be subject to no punishment or application of law.
Which obviously isn't nor has ever been our system of law.
Ever.
If the contract is not with me, then I'm not bound by it. When did "the people" sign this contract? All I see on it are the signatures of a bunch of humbug politicians.
[
Save one major problem: there can be no 'civil war' with only one side. And your ilk won't bleed. Its always someone *else* that has to fight, to bleed, to die, to sacrifice.
But never them personally.
Which is why there is no Civil War. But plenty of arm chair generals 'declaring' how they can see no other way than a war that they won't ever fight in.
It's a matter of tolerance. How much with the peasants tolerate in exchange for creature comforts. One person alone can do little, but you Marxist thugs are pushing the limits of tolerance of far more than a single person.
Your ilk won't fight, bleed or sacrifice for your 'Civil War'. Negating any 'tolerance' arguments. The Chickenshit Conundrum unravels your entire argument....as there can't be a war when there is only one side fighting.
And you won't fight.
What you fail to grasp is that its a fantasy and anyone educated from pre through k (lol!!) at minimal could explain to you why this thinking is both loony and retarded....but....youre. Old.The authority lies with the People. Not an indivudla person.
You forgot to tell the despot with the pen and the phone.
The issue is that you Marxists have perverted the system so that all authority rests with 9 unelected dictators, who's word is the ONLY law in the nation.
We have an open crook who is dedicated to appointing new dictators who will end civil rights, particularly the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.
When the dictatorship of the Judiciary does this, the tolerance of the ruled populace changes significantly.
Arguing that an individual person has the authority to 'declare' that the laws no longer apply to them is a Sovereign Citizen argument that has *never* been our system of laws.
You'd literally have to reimagine our nation's history to believe such nonsense.
Kaz is making a point, and a good one. My reaction was he needs 10 million behind him for it to have meaning.
What you fail to grasp is that he might well have them.
And
old people.....can get stuck in their ways
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.
The contract isn't with you. Its with the People. They can pull out of the Contract. You can't. Says who?
Says James Madison of course.
"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "
-James Madison
The only party that can modify or leave the compact....is the party that made the compact: The People of the Several States.
Which neither you nor Kaz are.
Even casual application of your bizarre reasoning demonstrates its absurdity. For one could commit any crime, be caught mid act....and then simply 'declare' that they 'no longer consent to be governed' and be subject to no punishment or application of law.
Which obviously isn't nor has ever been our system of law.
Ever.
If the contract is not with me, then I'm not bound by it. When did "the people" sign this contract? All I see on it are the signatures of a bunch of humbug politicians.
Its with the People of the Several States. Of which you're a part. And if the People of the Several States want to exit the contract, they can. But only the parties to the contract can exit or modify it.
Sorry my little anarchist.....but James Madison had a far better understanding of how our system of government works that you do.
... 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!
She's got a knack for that sort of speak.
She? I thought Skylar was a big fat male homosexual.
Umm, this whole thread.Of course, repeating the same thing I just said to you is ... not original.^ not logic, not an argument, but a cop out. you fail. again. its got to be frustrating at this point.We know you didn't say it. You spewed bullshit. However, those are the implications of your bullshit.
Once again, a lot of mindless prattle signifying absolutely nothing.
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?
My argument is that "revoking consent" on a messageboard is pissing in the wind, actionably DOES NOTHING, unless you put teeth behind it.
Neither you, n'or Kat have countered that.
Youve cowered in balls in corners, threw ad homs. talked about liberals like your childish asses always resort to and made no rational counter claim.
You're terrible at this so Im not sure why its one of your hobbies.
[
Save one major problem: there can be no 'civil war' with only one side. And your ilk won't bleed. Its always someone *else* that has to fight, to bleed, to die, to sacrifice.
But never them personally.
Which is why there is no Civil War. But plenty of arm chair generals 'declaring' how they can see no other way than a war that they won't ever fight in.
It's a matter of tolerance. How much with the peasants tolerate in exchange for creature comforts. One person alone can do little, but you Marxist thugs are pushing the limits of tolerance of far more than a single person.
Your ilk won't fight, bleed or sacrifice for your 'Civil War'. Negating any 'tolerance' arguments. The Chickenshit Conundrum unravels your entire argument....as there can't be a war when there is only one side fighting.
And you won't fight.
Who has mentioned civil war in this discussion other than you?
... 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
What you fail to grasp is that its a fantasy and anyone educated from pre through k (lol!!) at minimal could explain to you why this thinking is both loony and retarded....but....youre. Old.The authority lies with the People. Not an indivudla person.
You forgot to tell the despot with the pen and the phone.
The issue is that you Marxists have perverted the system so that all authority rests with 9 unelected dictators, who's word is the ONLY law in the nation.
We have an open crook who is dedicated to appointing new dictators who will end civil rights, particularly the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.
When the dictatorship of the Judiciary does this, the tolerance of the ruled populace changes significantly.
Arguing that an individual person has the authority to 'declare' that the laws no longer apply to them is a Sovereign Citizen argument that has *never* been our system of laws.
You'd literally have to reimagine our nation's history to believe such nonsense.
Kaz is making a point, and a good one. My reaction was he needs 10 million behind him for it to have meaning.
What you fail to grasp is that he might well have them.
And
old people.....can get stuck in their ways
Democracy was a fantasy for 1800 years until the Founding Fathers made it a reality. Your opinion of what's feasible isn't being discussed here.
Empty rhetoric doesnt win wars and dorks on messageboards with bloodlust fantasies dont have plans.What you fail to grasp is that its a fantasy and anyone educated from pre through k (lol!!) at minimal could explain to you why this thinking is both loony and retarded....but....youre. Old.The authority lies with the People. Not an indivudla person.
You forgot to tell the despot with the pen and the phone.
The issue is that you Marxists have perverted the system so that all authority rests with 9 unelected dictators, who's word is the ONLY law in the nation.
We have an open crook who is dedicated to appointing new dictators who will end civil rights, particularly the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.
When the dictatorship of the Judiciary does this, the tolerance of the ruled populace changes significantly.
Arguing that an individual person has the authority to 'declare' that the laws no longer apply to them is a Sovereign Citizen argument that has *never* been our system of laws.
You'd literally have to reimagine our nation's history to believe such nonsense.
Kaz is making a point, and a good one. My reaction was he needs 10 million behind him for it to have meaning.
What you fail to grasp is that he might well have them.
And
old people.....can get stuck in their ways
Democracy was a fantasy for 1800 years until the Founding Fathers made it a reality. Your opinion of what's feasible isn't being discussed here.
