I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[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?

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

There you go, dumbass.

Here's post 394:

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

Show me. As I'm not any part of that post.

 

[L.K.Eder]

my 3 year old is more reasonable than you *****. awesome display.

EDITH says: there seems to be only gofundmenedbeattypig actively spazzing in this thread, so i clarify that i am calling this cuntling a cúnt.

 

[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.

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.

Simple, you witless douche bag. It would still be rape, whether there was a law against it or not. A rapist cannot consent for some other person whether to have sex. That's the fact you keep trying to get around but only look like a moron in the attempt.

Furthermore, I don't say I'm "beyond the law," whatever that is supposed to mean. I say that law and justice are two separate things. Justice requires consent. The law mostly doesn't.

 

[G.T.]

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.

NO YOU STUPID STUPID STUPID fucker

I did not say consent was meaningless.

For the THOUSANDTH time.

You imbecile.


I said revoking consent without acting IS MEANINGLESS.

Revoking consent for sex is not meaningless because theres a LAW, thats the ACTING part that makes your consent revocation HAVE MEANING. You revoked consent, if youre raped, you have REDRESS. This gives your non consent MEANING. The OPPOSITE of what you "understand" Im saying because you are retarded.

MY GOD YOU ARE DAFT SAVE ME FAKE BABY JESUS

 

[OnePercenter]

... 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

BriPat seems to like Canada. Think about it.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Party first, me first, brainwashed idiot dupes of the New BS GOP....now about to be routed. Couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of a-holes and fools...change the channel, fear mongered functional morons...

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

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?

I will indeed, I enjoy a good intellectual debate. I rarely resort to cursing or name calling for the sake of name calling, but I am human, so when assaulted I will strike back. We can be friends who disagree with respect.....or we can try, we are only human.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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?

I will indeed, I enjoy a good intellectual debate. I rarely resort to cursing or name calling for the sake of name calling, but I am human, so when assaulted I will strike back. We can be friends who disagree with respect.....or we can try, we are only human.

Thats what i dont like about bripat.

Everything is casual cordial until he comes in with his baby boy " you liberals this and that" and then its fire with fire, and im not even a liberal.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Here's post 394:

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

Show me. As I'm not any part of that post.

Sorry, it was #324. I already quoted the text where you started bleating about a civil war.

 

[G.T.]

Bripat gets confused by simple concepts.

Like, saying that revoking consent without action to infect any change...


is the same, to him, as saying revoking consent is always meaningless.

Its ok, its because youre stupid bripat.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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?

I will indeed, I enjoy a good intellectual debate. I rarely resort to cursing or name calling for the sake of name calling, but I am human, so when assaulted I will strike back. We can be friends who disagree with respect.....or we can try, we are only human.

Thats what i dont like about bripat.

Everything is casual cordial until he comes in with his baby boy " you liberals this and that" and then its fire with fire, and im not even a liberal.

You're obviously an authoritarian. Many conservatives are. They object to leftwing schemes to run their lives, but then they want to impose their own.

 

[G.T.]

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?

I will indeed, I enjoy a good intellectual debate. I rarely resort to cursing or name calling for the sake of name calling, but I am human, so when assaulted I will strike back. We can be friends who disagree with respect.....or we can try, we are only human.

Thats what i dont like about bripat.

Everything is casual cordial until he comes in with his baby boy " you liberals this and that" and then its fire with fire, and im not even a liberal.

You're obviously an authoritarian. Mean conservatives are.

^ makes zero sense. Par.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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?

I will indeed, I enjoy a good intellectual debate. I rarely resort to cursing or name calling for the sake of name calling, but I am human, so when assaulted I will strike back. We can be friends who disagree with respect.....or we can try, we are only human.

I'm right there with you. And looking at our discussion in the gay marriage/ constitutional rights debate, I can see I may have brought on the snark a little early. And unprovoked. Sorry about that.

Though I still stand by my argument about the Constitution not being an exhaustive list of rights. With the 9th amendment (and plenty of debates in the constitutional congress) being my evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat gets confused by simple concepts.

Like, saying that revoking consent without action to infect any change...


is the same, to him, as saying revoking consent is always meaningless.

Its ok, its because youre stupid bripat.

Ironic. You call me stupid in a post that is pathetically stupid.

 

[Synthaholic]

You need to quit thinking and do as you're told, kaz. You're dangerous.

You spelled 'drinking' wrong.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Here's post 394:

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

Show me. As I'm not any part of that post.

Sorry, it was #324. I already quoted the text where you started bleating about a civil war.

Now you have the opposite problem. As you're no part of post 324:

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

So where, pray tell, did I claim that you introduced civil war to this thread? So far you're just covered in Strawman stuffing.

 

[kaz]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

No fucking shit, Captain Obvious. Did you figure it out when I said it?

 

[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.

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.

Me personally? Never. The People, of which I'm a part? Long before either of us was born, codified most recently by the US Constitution. We create laws, we enforce laws, we adjudicate laws.

Your imaginary revisionist history of the US where you can unilaterally exempt yourself from all law at your whim has nothing to do with our system of law, our constitution, or our legal tradition.

Which is why its so gloriously irrelevant to any discussion of the law.

 

[Skylar]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"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


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

 

[G.T.]

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?

I will indeed, I enjoy a good intellectual debate. I rarely resort to cursing or name calling for the sake of name calling, but I am human, so when assaulted I will strike back. We can be friends who disagree with respect.....or we can try, we are only human.

Thats what i dont like about bripat.

Everything is casual cordial until he comes in with his baby boy " you liberals this and that" and then its fire with fire, and im not even a liberal.

You're obviously an authoritarian. Many conservatives are. They object to leftwing schemes to run their lives, but then they want to impose their own.

Um, nope.