Comment: No point still?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: That is almost hilarious Joe, (see in situ)

No point still?

"That is almost hilarious Joe, you accuse me of posting falsehoods and yet look at what you wrote. First, there was no “president” under The Articles of Confederation, there was therefore, no way to limit “the president” to what he could or could not do when there existed no “president”. That is a patently false Joe."

Who said there was a president under The Articles of Confederation?

I think you miss the point. So...what is the point of continuing this exchange? I won't read the rest of your response past that quote above, I see no point in it.