I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[bodecea]

Obviously both. I want to pay my own bills? I don't want to pay yours, I don't want you to pay mine? WTF? That's just whacked ...

It's not a choice you get to make. You get a voice and a vote, no more, no less.

Typical Marxist answer

You are severely confused. It is a typical REALITY BASED answer.


No wonder Republican party is what it is today, too many reality-detached martians like you.

Or too many reality-detached martinis for her.

 

[bripat9643]

And what would that be, pray tell?

The US Constitution

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

What the US government is doing now has nothing to do with the Constitution

Sure it does. The Constitution is what got us here. It was Alexander Hamilton's secret plot to enslave us.

Granted, Hamilton could just as easily have fought for the British, but he wasn't alone in contriving America's radical departure from its revolutionary principles. Unfortunately, some, like James Madison, didn't realize the Federalist motives until he and Hamilton had already shouted down the Antifederalists.

But though a radical shift to the left, the Constitution was still not a leftist document. Perhaps centrist, but not leftist. When considered, as originalists insist, in the context of history and the Federalist, it prohibited the new government from acting without internal checks and balances, from centralizing power in a single branch, and from abridging the primacy of the individual.

The U.S. government is not constitutional now, but that's not due to the Constitution. It's due to progressivism.

The checks and balances are largely imaginary. Just consider what happens when all three branches of the government are in the hands of the same party. Anything they want gets rammed through Congress, signed and then endorsed by the Supreme Court. The court is the mechanism whereby the government ruled on its own laws. How is that a check? It's like having Al Capone judging a dispute between you and Al Capone.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. An election is not consent. It's simply mob rule. It's a war without bullets.

You are right - time to stop that mob rule that is elections.

Consensual Democracy - what do YOU think that means?

That's why I say you're a boot licking douche bag.

lol wtf? Someone needs some hugs or meds maybe.

The term "consensual democracy" is an oxymoron. When did everyone consent to it?

Social compact theory does not imply two-party contracts. In America, the social compact is traceable to church covenants in little Puritan towns, and even those, to be valid, did not require everyone's signature.

In other words, I never consented to it. You could have just admitted that without all the blather.

 

[JWBooth]

...ROFL! If the Republic and its People would just leave me alone, I would be more than happy.

If you cannot or will not hold up your end of The Social Contract, then you are neither needed nor welcome.

Present this "social contract" of which you speak. Identify the signatories while you are at it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

... 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

Ciao!

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. An election is not consent. It's simply mob rule. It's a war without bullets.

You are right - time to stop that mob rule that is elections.

Consensual Democracy - what do YOU think that means?

That's why I say you're a boot licking douche bag.

lol wtf? Someone needs some hugs or meds maybe.

The term "consensual democracy" is an oxymoron. When did everyone consent to it?

I would say the moment they cast their vote in any election.

Nope. I vote to protect myself from the kind of douche bags that infest this forum. If that's the consent, it's like signing a contract when someone is holding a gun to your head. It's not legally enforceable, in other words.

 

[LoneLaugher]

... 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.

Anarchy requires that you get your fat ass off that sofa.

 

[Timmy]

... 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

Awesome ! We are all now free to hunt you for sport !

Let's see how long u last without the law protecting you!!!

 

[norwegen]

The US Constitution

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

What the US government is doing now has nothing to do with the Constitution

Sure it does. The Constitution is what got us here. It was Alexander Hamilton's secret plot to enslave us.

Granted, Hamilton could just as easily have fought for the British, but he wasn't alone in contriving America's radical departure from its revolutionary principles. Unfortunately, some, like James Madison, didn't realize the Federalist motives until he and Hamilton had already shouted down the Antifederalists.

But though a radical shift to the left, the Constitution was still not a leftist document. Perhaps centrist, but not leftist. When considered, as originalists insist, in the context of history and the Federalist, it prohibited the new government from acting without internal checks and balances, from centralizing power in a single branch, and from abridging the primacy of the individual.

The U.S. government is not constitutional now, but that's not due to the Constitution. It's due to progressivism.

The checks and balances are largely imaginary. Just consider what happens when all three branches of the government are in the hands of the same party. Anything they want gets rammed through Congress, signed and then endorsed by the Supreme Court. The court is the mechanism whereby the government ruled on its own laws. How is that a check? It's like having Al Capone judging a dispute between you and Al Capone.

Only true, largely, since the Progressive Era. Since then, our government is less a government divided into three branches and more a living organism. Its growth as a single, massive seat of power is also evident in more liberal applications of the veto power and of judicial fiat. Presidents have also become more secure in their desires to initiate legislation, which they, with the support of popular sentiment, press upon unwilling legislatures.

America's government has changed, irrespective of constitutional changes. Talk of dissent should not surprise us.

 

[norwegen]

Wrong. An election is not consent. It's simply mob rule. It's a war without bullets.

You are right - time to stop that mob rule that is elections.

Consensual Democracy - what do YOU think that means?

That's why I say you're a boot licking douche bag.

lol wtf? Someone needs some hugs or meds maybe.

The term "consensual democracy" is an oxymoron. When did everyone consent to it?

Social compact theory does not imply two-party contracts. In America, the social compact is traceable to church covenants in little Puritan towns, and even those, to be valid, did not require everyone's signature.

In other words, I never consented to it. You could have just admitted that without all the blather.

You should find a country whose government you personally may help formulate.

 

[owebo]

Wrong. An election is not consent. It's simply mob rule. It's a war without bullets.

You are right - time to stop that mob rule that is elections.

Consensual Democracy - what do YOU think that means?

That's why I say you're a boot licking douche bag.

lol wtf? Someone needs some hugs or meds maybe.

The term "consensual democracy" is an oxymoron. When did everyone consent to it?

Social compact theory does not imply two-party contracts. In America, the social compact is traceable to church covenants in little Puritan towns, and even those, to be valid, did not require everyone's signature.

In other words, I never consented to it. You could have just admitted that without all the blather.

You should find a country whose government you personally may help formulate.

Or just reconfirm the instruction manual of this country....

 

[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

Goodbye.

And good riddance. Where you going?

 

[kaz]

Obviously both. I want to pay my own bills? I don't want to pay yours, I don't want you to pay mine? WTF? That's just whacked ...

It's not a choice you get to make. You get a voice and a vote, no more, no less.

Typical Marxist answer

You are severely confused. It is a typical REALITY BASED answer.


No wonder Republican party is what it is today, too many reality-detached martians like you.

Or too many reality-detached martinis for her.

 

[JWBooth]

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

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

Good for you

 

[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

Ciao!

Adios. Write when you find work

 

[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

Welcome to the world of anarchy, my friend.

Anarchy requires that you get your fat ass off that sofa.

You're hogging it anyway

 

[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

Awesome ! We are all now free to hunt you for sport !

Let's see how long u last without the law protecting you!!!

Um. OK? I don't get it but sure, I'll give you a

 

[kaz]

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

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

Good for you

You as well, thanks!

 

[norwegen]

You are right - time to stop that mob rule that is elections.

Consensual Democracy - what do YOU think that means?

lol wtf? Someone needs some hugs or meds maybe.

The term "consensual democracy" is an oxymoron. When did everyone consent to it?

Social compact theory does not imply two-party contracts. In America, the social compact is traceable to church covenants in little Puritan towns, and even those, to be valid, did not require everyone's signature.

In other words, I never consented to it. You could have just admitted that without all the blather.

You should find a country whose government you personally may help formulate.

Or just reconfirm the instruction manual of this country....

Won't happen.

Leftist movement is inevitable. It abated in America somewhat, amazingly, when the Tories fled, but it always comes back, almost imperceptively at first, as with the Federalists, then the Jacksonian Democrats, and now - unabashed socialists.

Republicanism in America is nearly spent.

 

[bripat9643]

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

What the US government is doing now has nothing to do with the Constitution

Sure it does. The Constitution is what got us here. It was Alexander Hamilton's secret plot to enslave us.

Granted, Hamilton could just as easily have fought for the British, but he wasn't alone in contriving America's radical departure from its revolutionary principles. Unfortunately, some, like James Madison, didn't realize the Federalist motives until he and Hamilton had already shouted down the Antifederalists.

But though a radical shift to the left, the Constitution was still not a leftist document. Perhaps centrist, but not leftist. When considered, as originalists insist, in the context of history and the Federalist, it prohibited the new government from acting without internal checks and balances, from centralizing power in a single branch, and from abridging the primacy of the individual.

The U.S. government is not constitutional now, but that's not due to the Constitution. It's due to progressivism.

The checks and balances are largely imaginary. Just consider what happens when all three branches of the government are in the hands of the same party. Anything they want gets rammed through Congress, signed and then endorsed by the Supreme Court. The court is the mechanism whereby the government ruled on its own laws. How is that a check? It's like having Al Capone judging a dispute between you and Al Capone.

Only true, largely, since the Progressive Era. Since then, our government is less a government divided into three branches and more a living organism. Its growth as a single, massive seat of power is also evident in more liberal applications of the veto power and of judicial fiat. Presidents have also become more secure in their desires to initiate legislation, which they, with the support of popular sentiment, press upon unwilling legislatures.

America's government has changed, irrespective of constitutional changes. Talk of dissent should not surprise us.

It's been true since the Civil War. The threat of states to leave was the only thing that kept the federal government in check. When the tyrant Lincoln ruled that option out, it began to grow unchecked. The lawlessness of the federal government is much worse than you describe. For example, there's Obama's recent Executive Order that makes being a gun smith virtually illegal. If he gets away with it, he pretty much just over ruled the 2nd Amendment.