Because instead of a one line reply you wrote three comments with tons and tons of references to what prove that one line reply.

This is what happens when there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the conversation is. You started with not agreeing on what a "corporation" is. I thought that was what we were talking about. Since you later said you agree with me, and responded in such a way that made me think you understood, I have since not addressed it.

That's how things work. If you give me feedback that makes sense, I won't belabor it. If you give me feedback that suggests a misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear. My "multiple posts" in response were trying to address it in a way that addressed your perceived misapprehension (even if you did understand, I didn't understand that you did).

And if you truly did not understand the question you would have asked me to clarify instead of writing 3 posts proving what your stand would have been, had you actually understood the question!

Its OK that I didn't understand the question... I said I didn't several times. I'm still not sure, since you haven't said "yes, your reformation of the 'right answer I expected' is what I meant."

You are perhaps confusing who had the right to vote vs who the constitution applied to?

While I didn't say it in that sentence, I made it clear in other areas that the word "applied" meant "who could participate in decisions." And it wasn't just a "right to vote," it was also a limit on who could become a representative within the governing body, even in theory. In practice the limits were much more stringent.

As for your "constitutional protections," there is no such thing within the document we got. The Bill of Rights was one of the greatest feats of fuckery ever imagined. You can't make non-fuckery lists of "protected Rights*. You can only make statements that limit Rights. Here is all that is necessary to legitimately protect all individuals Rights.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction).
• Explicit statement that the Governmental Corporation created by the Treaty has no Jurisdiction over anything that could conceivably be within the Individuals Jurisdiction (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Property, etc.).
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are Natural Persons. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

Any "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery, since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) and the Jurisdiction of that Sovereignty makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.

Because instead of a one line reply you wrote three comments with tons and tons of references to what prove that one line reply.

This is what happens when there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the conversation is. You started with not agreeing on what a "corporation" is. I thought that was what we were talking about. Since you later said you agree with me, and responded in such a way that made me think you understood, I have since not addressed it.

That's how things work. If you give me feedback that makes sense, I won't belabor it. If you give me feedback that suggests a misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear. My "multiple posts" in response were trying to address it in a way that addressed your perceived misapprehension (even if you did understand, I didn't understand that you did).

And if you truly did not understand the question you would have asked me to clarify instead of writing 3 posts proving what your stand would have been, had you actually understood the question!

Its OK that I didn't understand the question... I said I didn't several times. I'm still not sure, since you haven't said "yes, your reformation of the 'right answer I expected' is what I meant."

You are perhaps confusing who had the right to vote vs who the constitution applied to?

While I didn't say it in that sentence, I made it clear in other areas that the word "applied" meant "who could participate in decisions." And it wasn't just a "right to vote," it was also a limit on who could become a representative, even in theory. In practice the limits were much more stringent.

As for your "constitutional protections," there is no such thing within the document we got. The Bill of Rights was one of the greatest feats of fuckery ever imagined. You can't make non-fuckery lists of "protected Rights*. You can only make statements that limit Rights. Here is all that is necessary to legitimately protect all individuals Rights.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction).
• Explicit statement that the Governmental Corporation created by the Treaty has no Jurisdiction over anything that could conceivably be within the Individuals Jurisdiction (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Property, etc.).
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are Natural Persons. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

Any "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery, since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) and the Jurisdiction of that Sovereignty makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.

Because instead of a one line reply you wrote three comments with tons and tons of references to what prove that one line reply.

This is what happens when there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the conversation is. You started with not agreeing on what a "corporation" is. I thought that was what we were talking about. Since you later said you agree with me, and responded in such a way that made me think you understood, I have since not addressed it.

That's how things work. If you give me feedback that makes sense, I won't belabor it. If you give me feedback that suggests a misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear. My "multiple posts" in response were trying to address it in a way that addressed your perceived misapprehension (even if you did understand, I didn't understand that you did).

And if you truly did not understand the question you would have asked me to clarify instead of writing 3 posts proving what your stand would have been, had you actually understood the question!

Its OK that I didn't understand the question... I said I didn't several times. I'm still not sure, since you haven't said "yes, your reformation of the 'right answer I expected' is what I meant."

You are perhaps confusing who had the right to vote vs who the constitution applied to?

While I didn't say it in that sentence, I made it clear in other areas that the word "applied" meant "who could participate in decisions."

As for your "constitutional protections," there is no such thing within the document we got. The Bill of Rights was one of the greatest feats of fuckery ever imagined. You can't make non-fuckery lists of "protected Rights*. You can only make statements that limit Rights. Here is all that is necessary to legitimately protect all individuals Rights.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction).
• Explicit statement that the Governmental Corporation created by the Treaty has no Jurisdiction over anything that could conceivably be within the Individuals Jurisdiction (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Property, etc.).
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are Natural Persons. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

Any "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery, since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) and the Jurisdiction of that Sovereignty makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.

Because instead of a one line reply you wrote three comments with tons and tons of references to what prove that one line reply.

This is what happens when there is a fundamental misunderstand of what the conversation is. You started with not agreeing on what a "corporation" is. I thought that was what we were talking about. Since you later said you agree with me, and responded in such a way that made me think you understood, I have since not addressed it.

That's how things work. If you give me feedback that makes sense, I won't belabor it. If you give me feedback that suggests a misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear. My "multiple posts" in response were trying to address it in a way that addressed your perceived misapprehension (even if you did understand, I didn't understand that you did).

And if you truly did not understand the question you would have asked me to clarify instead of writing 3 posts proving what your stand would have been, had you actually understood the question!

Its OK that I didn't understand the question... I said I didn't several times. I'm still not sure, since you haven't said "yes, your reformation of the 'right answer I expected' is what I meant."

You are perhaps confusing who had the right to vote vs who the constitution applied to?

While I didn't say it in that sentence, I made it clear in other areas that the word "applied" meant "who could participate in decisions."

As for your "constitutional protections," there is no such thing within the document we got. The Bill of Rights was one of the greatest feats of fuckery ever imagined. You can't make non-fuckery lists of "protected Rights*. You can only make statements that limit Rights. Here is all that is necessary to legitimately protect all individuals Rights.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction).
• Explicit statement that the Governmental Corporation created by the Treaty has no Jurisdiction over anything that could conceivably be within the Individuals Jurisdiction (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Property, etc.).
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are Natural Persons. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

Any "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery, since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) and the Jurisdiction of that Sovereignty makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.

Because instead of a one line reply you wrote three comments with tons and tons of references to what prove that one line reply.

This is what happens when there is a fundamental misunderstand of what the conversation is. You started with not agreeing on what a "corporation" is. I thought that was what we were talking about. Since you later said you agree with me, and responded in such a way that made me think you understood, I have since not addressed it.

That's how things work. If you give me feedback that makes sense, I won't belabor it. If you give me feedback that suggests a misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear. My "multiple posts" in response were trying to address it in a way that addressed your perceived misapprehension (even if you did understand, I didn't understand that you did).

And if you truly did not understand the question you would have asked me to clarify instead of writing 3 posts proving what your stand would have been, had you actually understood the question!

Its OK that I didn't understand the question... I said I didn't several times. I'm still not sure, since you haven't said "yes, your reformation of the 'right answer I expected' is what I meant."

You are perhaps confusing who had the right to vote vs who the constitution applied to?

While I didn't say it in that sentence, I made it clear in other areas that the word "applied" meant "who could participate in decisions."

As for your "constitutional protections," there is no such thing within the document we got. The Bill of Rights was one of the greatest feats of fuckery ever imagined. You can't make non-fuckery statements of "protection of Rights*. You can only make statements that limit Rights. Here is all that is necessary to legitimately protect all individuals Rights.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction).
• Explicit statement that the Governmental Corporation created by the Treaty has no Jurisdiction over anything that could conceivably be within the Individuals Jurisdiction (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Property, etc.).
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are Natural Persons. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

Any "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery, since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) and the Jurisdiction of that Sovereignty makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.