Comment: This is pointless if you don't (or can't) read:

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Again?? (see in situ)

This is pointless if you don't (or can't) read:

Again?? Your evidence is reposting the same thing?

Um...yeah, it would be "again??" IF I actually posted the same thing twice, to you, as a reply.

But 'sadly'? No.

Uh, no genius. I updated my previous reply to you, back on to the main thread: I'm not re-posting it, "again??"

You're simply NOT-reading it, "again," for the second time!

LOLOLOL.

Which proves to me that you haven't actually read any of the links in the original thread post, prior to the update, nor the one that you're supposedly replying to, now.

Plus, I actually, clearly post "UPDATE:" to my...er...updates! LOL.

In about 99% of my threads, I do that, just so that people (who even care to) know that my thread's content may have been added or edited, know that in fact, it has actually been changed.

Gotta read first. Gotta read, otherwise, what makes you think you're actually talking TO someone, let alone, an actual back and forth dialog?

Please:

1. Learn what CRS is.
2. Learn what Library of Congress is.
3. Learn what Federal Register is.
4. Learn to hover your mouse cursor over crimson font types as they reveal URLs; psst: one of them even has "treasurey.gov" OMG! Shhhh...don't tell anyone. vewy vewy quietly, now. shhhhhh....

As a rule, I usually don't spoon feed lazy ass people (even those on DP) who cannot even be bothered to use search engines. Now I'm sorry that I broke it.

And, even if everything you say is true, it changes zero. Nothing.

Thanks for finally admitting...without even verifying.

If a stranger were to compare and contrast my reply vs. yours, do you honestly believe they'd weigh your feelings, or my actual, factual links, as to discern who is being more assertively truthful, here?

Frankly, I don't give a frakk what you think, or whether it changes anything. I made no assertions about your feelings, or whether me posting this thread on DailyPaul, "changes" anything.

The real question is, what have you "changed," other than stretch out your obvious mistake of replying to something you had no intention of reading or verifying, for the world to see?

Is anything you're doing now, changing anything, as you're typing?

No?

Do you have some activism project in the works? If so, let us know, despite this exchange, I'd be more than willing to support it, if your cause is worth it. Sincerely.

So do you have a project you're working on, that will "change"...anything??

Yes? No?

Right.

Correction, not nothing, a few really angry people would run around ripping gold fringe off of flags and yelling "We're Free!" while claiming they have now magically fixed all our ills.

Seriously, you really should stop while you're at it.

NONE of this is about admiralty/UCC/"Patriot Myths."

Capice?

These are actual congressional records and analyses provided by Congress' own research & policy arm: the Congressional Research Service, along with Cornell.edu, Treasury.gov, etc.

Nothing would happen. That's because it is the results and causation inside your theory that are in question.

Tsk tsk, now you're getting petty insulting. No need, especially when I'm not the one woefully lacking in logic here.

So... now we're down to arguing actual congressional records as my "theory"??

You know your critique would actually have a bit more weight, if you actually read (or could read) what you were replying to.

So no, I'm not worried about what you 'think' is or is not a relevant "causation inside your theory," because frankly, the 'logic' employed to assert the premise of everything you've raised so far, is in fact questionable, to say the least.

Seriously, how does someone get this vested in 'answering' questions never brought up? Worse, asking others to 'defend' positions they've never advocated?

It's like, dude, seriously, got Debate101 much?

The self-evident point (though, obviously not to you) of my original thread was to simply point out for those who may not be familiar, that America is technically, already a de jure police state, that all this lunacy didn't just happen in the last 10+ yrs.

It was simply to point out that yes, 'we' are 'officially' under a state of "national emergency," a syntax legal-fiction for "martial law," since 1933, when FDR signed and commenced it, and every single subsequent POTUS has renewed it, and oh by the way: you can see the floor clerk on CSPAN reading oBUSHma's words supporting the renewal/continuation of "State of Emergency," aka. police state martial law.

That, was the whole point.

No shiite, what they're doing is UnConstitutional. Of course, it's color of law. Tell me something that most here don't know already, well except you, apparently.

Plus, I supplied actual links to govt's own documents and websites along with wiki links for quick summary...and you think that's not proof, because they're digital PDF's and don't have Xerox copy streaks?

And...you think I should continue to discuss this matter with such person who lacks any semblance of an urge to want to verify...anything, if nothing else, to at least proficiently prove me wrong, let alone engage in an actual adult dialog?

If I wanted empty exchanges devoid of content, context, or commenters who reply with incessantly annoying non-sequiturs and demand I defend a position I never advocated, or 'rebut' with responses devoid of any semblance of the apt commentary on the video or comment in discussion, I'd go on YT comment sections.

You'd actually qualify as an "informed skeptic," IF you were someone whom, while cautious, are actually open-minded enough to look at facts and/or assertions as presented, before adjudicating any opinion.

The mere fact that you actually thought that I was "reposting the same thing?" not only insults my intelligence, it utterly exposes you as nothing but an intellectually lazy person, who doesn't even bother to read what he is responding to, let alone, check out the literature in question with the links provided.

If you don't know if something can or do in fact exist, yet continue to assume it never can exist without ever verifying, you cannot know what you do not know, no?

To rule out things you don't know, then moving on to assume they cannot exist because you don't 'believe' it to be so...has what bearing? Exactly??

Right.

Your a-priori presumption only proves one thing: you're intellectually lazy. So, your ego-save is to redirect to switch to a topic and ask me to defend what I did not assert?

Good luck at NeoCon-fest.

This will be my last reply to you on the matter. Good luck talking to yourself in the mirror, trying to convince the world that you're not too lazy to read even digital copies posted at govt sites, and links provided.

-cheers lad. good weekend.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul