I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[BuckToothMoron]

^ 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?

Umm, this whole thread.

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?

That would be Uncen in post 299 who started babbling about civil war.

Which you'd already know if you bothered to read the thread.

Some people just can't help but have a nasty tone.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

Frankly I am not sure what species it is.

The informed kind?

Of the two of us, I'm the only one who has a working understanding of the 9th amendment. Or recognizes that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights.....but instead an exhaustive list of powers.

Or that James Madison laid out how the Compact could be exited: by the same parties that made it: The People of the Several States.

I've done my research. I know my argument.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


errr...wait..


YOU had a plan.


And couldnt raise 1 god damned dollar. And .....that speaks for itself, failpat

More ad hominems. You couldn't post of valid syllogism if your life depended on it. Of course, that's obvious to anyone reading this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Umm, this whole thread.

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?

That would be Uncen in post 299 who started babbling about civil war.

Which you'd already know if you bothered to read the thread.

Some people just can't help but have a nasty tone.

Especially the kind who have no valid facts or logic in their quiver.

 

[Skylar]

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.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

And it continues on none the less. As you've got the process exactly backward. We're not subject to your authority. You're subject to our authority. As we are The People. You, all by your lonesome, are not.

I get that you're an Anarchist. I get that you consider the founders tyrants. But in a legal discussion, both issues are irrelevant. And 'consent to be governed' is most definitely a legal issue.

 

[G.T.]

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.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

Your non consent is MEANINGLESS if it doesnt manifest itself by way of taking action and effecting change. So far? We've an elderly bripat who boasts about his protest on messageboards and is so good at what he does, zero red cents have been donated to his cause of the requested 40 MILLION.


Do you know how AWESOME that is?

(I do )

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Frankly I am not sure what species it is.

The informed kind?

Of the two of us, I'm the only one who has a working understanding of the 9th amendment. Or recognizes that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights.....but instead an exhaustive list of powers.

Or that James Madison laid out how the Compact could be exited: by the same parties that made it: The People of the Several States.

I've done my research. I know my argument.

"I'm the only one who has a working understanding of the 9th amendment"

 

[Skylar]

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?

Umm, this whole thread.

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.

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?

That would be Uncen in post 299 who started babbling about civil war.

Which you'd already know if you bothered to read the thread.

Some people just can't help but have a nasty tone.

Especially the kind who have no valid facts or logic in their quiver.

Laughing......save of course, the post number where Uncen started with his babble about Civil War. Which you still refuse to read.

And an excellent quote from James Madison where he explains how an exit from the Compact could be achieved under the Constitution: by the parties that entered to it, the People of the Several States.

Which you aren't.

Why ask a question if you're just going to ignore the answer?

 

[Synthaholic]

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

Good. Now get the fuck out of my country.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

And it continues on none the less. As you've got the process exactly backward. We're not subject to your authority. You're subject to our authority. As we are The People. You, all by your lonesome, are not.

I get that you're an Anarchist. I get that you consider the founders tyrants. But in a legal discussion, both issues are irrelevant. And 'consent to be governed' is most definitely a legal issue.

When did you acquire any legitimate authority over me?

The biggest problem in this world is people who believe they have "authority" to run other people's lives. That's the fundamental principle of fascism and communism.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

Your non consent is MEANINGLESS if it doesnt manifest itself by way of taking action and effecting change. So far? We've an elderly bripat who boasts about his protest on messageboards and is so good at what he does, zero red cents have been donated to his cause of the requested 40 MILLION.


Do you know how AWESOME that is?

(I do )

You keep saying that, but I have demonstrated that it's not true. Sex with consent is perfectly benign. Without consent it's a crime. Yet, you claim consent is meaningless. Not only are you wrong, but you are also an authoritarian douche bag.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Umm, this whole thread.

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.

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?

That would be Uncen in post 299 who started babbling about civil war.

Which you'd already know if you bothered to read the thread.

Some people just can't help but have a nasty tone.

Especially the kind who have no valid facts or logic in their quiver.

Laughing......save of course, the post number where Uncen started with his babble about Civil War. Which you still refuse to read.

And an excellent quote from James Madison where he explains how an exit from the Compact could be achieved under the Constitution: by the parties that entered to it, the People of the Several States.

Which you aren't.

Why ask a question if you're just going to ignore the answer?

Please link to the post where I introduced the subject of civil war.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Umm, this whole thread.

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?

That would be Uncen in post 299 who started babbling about civil war.

Which you'd already know if you bothered to read the thread.

Some people just can't help but have a nasty tone.

I don't suffer fools. But I'll happily try to make our conversation a little less snarky ...if you'll do the same.

But you can hardly complain about 'tone' when you're snarking about 'what species I am'.

Care to dial it back together?

 

[Skylar]

Umm, this whole thread.

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.

Who has mentioned civil war in this discussion other than you?

That would be Uncen in post 299 who started babbling about civil war.

Which you'd already know if you bothered to read the thread.

Some people just can't help but have a nasty tone.

Especially the kind who have no valid facts or logic in their quiver.

Laughing......save of course, the post number where Uncen started with his babble about Civil War. Which you still refuse to read.

And an excellent quote from James Madison where he explains how an exit from the Compact could be achieved under the Constitution: by the parties that entered to it, the People of the Several States.

Which you aren't.

Why ask a question if you're just going to ignore the answer?

Please link to the post where I introduced the subject of civil war.

Please link to the post where I claimed you did, oh great and powerful summoner of Strawmen.

 

[bripat9643]

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

Good. Now get the fuck out of my country.

Make me, asshole.

 

[G.T.]

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.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

Your non consent is MEANINGLESS if it doesnt manifest itself by way of taking action and effecting change. So far? We've an elderly bripat who boasts about his protest on messageboards and is so good at what he does, zero red cents have been donated to his cause of the requested 40 MILLION.


Do you know how AWESOME that is?

(I do )

You keep saying that, but I have demonstrated that it's not true. Sex with consent is perfectly benign. Without consent it's a crime. Yet, you claim consent is meaningless. Not only are you wrong, but you are also an authoritarian douche bag.

Ehh, wrong. youve been demonstrated incorrect.

The LAW is the TEETH behind sexual non consent, and a victim HAS REDRESS, TAKE ACTION, PROSECUTES.....doesnt sit on a messageboard and DO NOTHING.

Try again, dumbshit.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Umm, this whole thread.

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.

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?

That would be Uncen in post 299 who started babbling about civil war.

Which you'd already know if you bothered to read the thread.

Some people just can't help but have a nasty tone.

Especially the kind who have no valid facts or logic in their quiver.

Laughing......save of course, the post number where Uncen started with his babble about Civil War. Which you still refuse to read.

And an excellent quote from James Madison where he explains how an exit from the Compact could be achieved under the Constitution: by the parties that entered to it, the People of the Several States.

Which you aren't.

Why ask a question if you're just going to ignore the answer?

"Your ilk won't fight, bleed or sacrifice for your 'Civil War'." Post #394

There you go, dumbass.

 

[Skylar]

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.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

Your non consent is MEANINGLESS if it doesnt manifest itself by way of taking action and effecting change. So far? We've an elderly bripat who boasts about his protest on messageboards and is so good at what he does, zero red cents have been donated to his cause of the requested 40 MILLION.


Do you know how AWESOME that is?

(I do )

You keep saying that, but I have demonstrated that it's not true. Sex with consent is perfectly benign. Without consent it's a crime. Yet, you claim consent is meaningless. Not only are you wrong, but you are also an authoritarian douche bag.

Per your understanding of the law, why couldn't a rapist unilaterally declare that he 'no longer consents to be governed' mid act and be beyond prosecution or the application of the law?

As you've insisted you're beyond the law if you merely *say* that you are.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

Your non consent is MEANINGLESS if it doesnt manifest itself by way of taking action and effecting change. So far? We've an elderly bripat who boasts about his protest on messageboards and is so good at what he does, zero red cents have been donated to his cause of the requested 40 MILLION.


Do you know how AWESOME that is?

(I do )

You keep saying that, but I have demonstrated that it's not true. Sex with consent is perfectly benign. Without consent it's a crime. Yet, you claim consent is meaningless. Not only are you wrong, but you are also an authoritarian douche bag.

Ehh, wrong. youve been demonstrated incorrect.

The LAW is the TEETH behind sexual non consent, and a victim HAS REDRESS, TAKE ACTION, PROSECUTES.....doesnt sit on a messageboard and DO NOTHING.

Try again, dumbshit.

The law defines "rape" as sex without consent. You quote the law, say consent is meaningless, but the law itself mentions consent. The word "rape" is defined as non-consensual sex.

You're too full of shit to understand how wrong you are.