Comment: Break

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What is interesting Joe is (see in situ)

Break

"What we would have had from the beginning is nationalism instead."

I cut off the steady flow of bull at that point. Your steady flow of bull is typical, easy to recognize, and worthy of challenge, otherwise your steady flow of bull aught to be saved for use as entertainment I suppose, if used at all by any bull artist.

BS

You get another BS break.

"What we would have had from the beginning is nationalism instead."

Anyone caring to know better knows what Dictators do to gain power, such as Alexander Hamilton seeking a legal money monopoly. They, the criminals, like Hamilton, lie.

So do you.

What of it?

What does that have to do with me?

You can pretend to be an authority over what I say, or what I do, but failing to actually employ what I say, or what I do, in quotes, or in English, and instead propping up your Man of Straw in place of what I actually say, or do, with your "versions" of what you falsely claim is what I do, is typical.

Liars do it all the time.

One of the reasons for usurping the extremely imperfect Union under The Articles of Confederation was Shays's Rebellion whereby the Rebels who were still honoring their duty as declared in The Declaration of Independence lost that Revolutionary War in the then Sovereign State of Massachusetts. Sovereign in the sense that the criminals took over the government and created slaves out of the people in Massachusetts. The losers of the Revolutionary War in Massachusetts fled, like any runaway slave would, to somewhere else, and they fled to Vermont, another Sovereign State in the Democratic Federated Republic of the day, under very imperfect Articles of Confederation.

As imperfect as those rule may have been, they didn't authorize a Dictator to enslave slaves into acting as counterfeit soldiers to invade one of the formerly Sovereign States so as to crush a money competitor.

That was why the Nationalists like Hamilton pulled Washington out of retirement so as to usurp the imperfect voluntary Union and create a Despotic Nation State, and you, fool, can lie all you want, and feint stupidity all you want, but it is all well recorded as historical fact.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

" And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";

"And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;"

Nation States, so called, have to crush the competition.

Moving on after the break:

"you seem to assert that I have simply ignored a portion of history"

What I "seem to assert" (your words not mine) and what I do are two different things. I do what I do, the genuine article, and you falsify, spin, change, alter, counterfeit, what I do, in your own, false, words.

What I did was to point out a false sentence and then point out how false the false sentence was, in fact.

I did this:

"An absolute statement such as "never considered" as in "never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States." appears to leave out a whole lot of individuals who were publishing any lie that could work toward usurpation and a whole lot of individuals who were blowing that tune."

What is false?

False statements, for one example, are false.

True or false?

False statements, for one example, are false.

How about an example of a false statement?

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

That is patently false.

Anyone open for a competitive review, or is it more likely that the author of the false statement will resort to any tactic of lies that works to crush the competition?

1. Straw Man argument (for the sake of argument).

2. Hyperbole

It is a long list.

The statement is false, it employs an absolute word that is absolutely false, if taken literally, and if the word is taken figuratively, then is the word meant to be entertaining, as in playing on person's emotion (for effect), or is the word choice a willful distortion of the facts, for some reason?

I can't know, but the statement is false.

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

The statement is dangerously false according to my perspective that can be offered in competition with any other review of the words being published on this competitive forum.

Alexander Hamilton was a very dangerous person because of false statements made by that liar, so as to usurp Liberty in this country, which is what he helped do, in fact, and Alexander Hamilton most certainly did, in fact, consider that the Constitution was to be a method by which all Sovereignty of the States would be Crushed, and that is why the example offered, with the Whiskey Rebellion, proves the point - in FACT.

"Those are perhaps the clearest example of exactly what is meant by the statement you seem to want to pull out of the context of the whole."

What I "seem to want to pull" and what I do are two different things. As a courtesy, in my own estimate, if not yours, I stopped reading your offering at the point at which I found a false statement, so as to put that false statement up for competitive review.

Anyone care to review the false statement in a competitive manner?

What could happen from that point on is what is happening, and what is happening is your resort to deception as a means of crushing the competition: a familiar story.

Routine.

The false statement - again:

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

The criminals among us, those who can be accurately known as enemies within, lie.

They lie.

Why?

They lie to get away with other crimes.

Their lies are fraud, crimes, bad guy stuff.

Why lie?

In the case of the events that became knows as the Con-Con of 1787 there were lies made so as to remove Common Law as a POWER an in place of it there would be Legal Crime.

People who argue for the sake of argument are apt to do so for a reason, but they do not often confess that reason.

I won't be holding my breath.

Joe