Comment: Roflol

(See in situ)


Roflol

"You have a question nobody can answer"

I have witnessed gibberish in the clip you posted before. Walk into any court and as soon as the word "state" is mentioned object to the use of any undefined terms on the grounds it is impossible for communication to occur when no meaning is conveyed. What constitutes a state?

This is what one will witness from judges or prosecutors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XREnvJRkif0

I am glad you brought that clip up because judges and prosecutors sound exactly like that when challenged to define their magical terms.

I can go on for days and years, if necessary, repeating the same unrebutted and unanswered proposition. I think I prefer it that way. Think about how many INT_ personality types are among Ron Paul supporters. We are talking about a group comprised of really smart people. Think about how many Constitutionalists are among Ron Paul supporters. Die hard conservatives and minarchists and some of the most educated people in the history of America yet ...

Not one single individual can:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

It makes the lack of any answer all the more fascinating as more time elapses. The longer it lingers in a state of being unanswered the more damage it will do to the credibility of statism. If one is going to advocate even for a minimalist state and can't answer the most basic of basic questions such as:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

If no one can answer the most basic of basic questions about registration then how can any just authority exist to engage in any registration business or enforcement?

Your form over substance fetish has already been debunked. Rebutted. Your misapplication of rules and failure to comprehend the object of a rule or its purpose has been debunked. Rebutted. Your misuse of terms by misrepresentation to only narrow aspects of their known historical meanings has been debunked. Rebutted.

Unlike you, I am not challenged to explain terms I use by forming common sense analogies out of well documented definitions:

person regarded as an agent or vehicle for some purpose or quality a citizen because she was the vessel of the Lord a state which is a member of the United States

Finally, the OP contains a picture because people think in pictures. Since I can reduce a complex concept to a picture I am able to communicate meaning directly to a higher level of ones conscinous. I can communicate concepts of jurisdiction in pictures, objects of rules, human action, or any number of topics I discuss. If someone has never seen an apple it is far more efficient to draw an apple instead of trying to explain what an apple is using words.

Not that I expect you to fully understand it because I think if you were presented with a piece of graph paper and tasked to illustrate a rule or its object you would be unable to do it. If you can not illustrate what you are talking about and can only rely on words to communicate your meaning with others how effective are you going to be?

Consider something simpler like human action, a foundation of law. How would you illustrate it? Or are you going to rely merely upon words to communicate meaning?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Once it is illustrated I can take the same concept and go in many directions. I can use geometry and create a sphere of known human action. I can triangulate jurisdictions of resistance.

You are trying to debate a picture in the OP using an inferior form ... words, which can contradict or have multiple definitions. Pictures do not contradict themselves. I have already pointed out your lack of power but you aren't listening and keep trying to rely upon magical words.

I drew a picture in the OP of a real phenomenon. If it was BS this thread would be raining with comments from tons of really smart Ron Paul supporters like any other thread containing BS ... but it isn't.

Here is my suggestion to you. Instead of focusing on the labels (ie. words) draw a better picture. The labels (ie. words) don't matter because they can be anything. How did an apple become known as an apple? Someone thought up a label for it. It is entirely arbitrary. The label, apple, is form and the picture of it is substance.

You say:

"You have a question nobody can answer"

Is it because parties can not be identified?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Or because no one can articulate any bundle of rights for each party to a registration because there is something dishonest about registration?

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.