Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Where is evidence of responsible government? How do you see it in that?
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten Grade 5 Social Studies already?
In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the British government was sensitive to unrest in its remaining colonies with large populations of British colonists. After the Lower Canada Rebellion led by Louis-Joseph Papineau in 1837, and the Upper Canada Rebellion led by William Lyon Mackenzie, Lord Durham was appointed governor general of British North America and had the task of examining the issues and determining how to defuse tensions. In his report, one of his recommendations was that colonies which were developed enough should be granted "responsible government". This term specifically meant the policy that British-appointed governors should bow to the will of elected colonial assemblies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_government#Canada
Click to expand...
Oh well, you make **** up all the time anyway.

Personal consent is required due to the rule of law, which states we are all equal. IF consent is not, we are not equal, are we? But we are all equal, so it is.

Seems obvious to me, and to anyone else who knows the law.

:D
Click to expand...
Have you figured out whose consent is required yet? You even posted the precise words.

Surely you can read and understand something so simple. (Hint: It's even written right in our constitution. Anyone who knows the law knows that, right?)
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
and the "menardgoaround" continues.

If thats true Rob then you couldnt maintain order in your freeman society.
Click to expand...

So we are not all equal and one man can govern another without consent. That is your position, right? Whosoever has the bigger stick is in charge, that is your previously stated position, right?

And it is not job done.

Hey you know who else was big on 'order' and was willing to sacrifice freedom to ensure it? :D
 
Will there ever be an end to the sophistry and the beginning of some evidence of a successful FOTL consent defence?

Nope.
 
D'rok said:
Have you forgotten Grade 5 Social Studies already?Have you figured out whose consent is required yet? You even posted the precise words.

Surely you can read and understand something so simple. (Hint: It's even written right in our constitution. Anyone who knows the law knows that, right?)
Click to expand...

I guess I can't. Maybe you can help me.

Please explain how one party can govern another without consent, if we are all equal.

Thank you.

I eagerly await your learned response.
 
D'rok said:
Will there ever be an end to the sophistry and the beginning of some evidence of a successful FOTL consent defence?

Nope.
Click to expand...

Sure just explain HOW you can govern me without my consent if we are equal.


That's all you have to do...

Take your time... been waiting now for years and no one can explain it.
 
Last edited:
So we are not all equal and one man can govern another without consent. That is your position, right? Whosoever has the bigger stick is in charge, that is your previously stated position, right?
Click to expand...

Thats your position isnt it?

How many times in the past have you said to me "if you dont like the rules you can leave or you will be made an outlaw" when I questioned the rules of freemanutopia?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
I guess I can't. Maybe you can help me.

Please explain how one party can govern another without consent, if we are all equal.

Thank you.

I eagerly await your learned response.
Click to expand...
Cut the ********. This is a silly and tedious game. You are perfectly aware that consent of the governed means consent of the people, not consent of Robert-Arthur: Menard.

Now, show some evidence that your consent is required.
 
jargon buster said:
Thats your position isnt it?

How many times in the past have you said to me "if you dont like the rules you can leave or you will be made an outlaw" when I questioned the rules of fremanutopia?
Click to expand...

I think 'job done' must mean different things to you then it does me, or you are delusional.

How can you question something that does not exist?

:D

IS this still just light hearted relief for you JB? :D
 
FreemanMenard said:
Sure just explain HOW you can govern me without my consent if we are equal.


That's all you have to do...

Take your time... been waiting now for years and no one can explain it.
Click to expand...
It's been explained to you endlessly and you well know the answer.

Now, give us just one verifiable example of a successful FOTL defence. You might start with your assertion just a few posts ago that you beat a criminal charge in BC provincial court by claiming no contract.

Get to it.
 
D'rok said:
Cut the ********. This is a silly and tedious game. You are perfectly aware that consent of the governed means consent of the people, not consent of Robert-Arthur: Menard.

Now, show some evidence that your consent is required.
Click to expand...

So in your world, 'consent of the governed' does not mean 'consent of the governed', but 'consent of the people'. And I guess 'consent of the people' means chocolate cake. And ice cream means pavement.

:D

I say consent of the governed means consent of the governed. Your argument relies on completely ignoring the words that are there and exchanging them with something else.

You are deluded.

:D
 
D'rok said:
It's been explained to you endlessly and you well know the answer.

Now, give us just one verifiable example of a successful FOTL defence. You might start with your assertion just a few posts ago that you beat a criminal charge in BC provincial court by claiming no contract.

Get to it.
Click to expand...

So once again you avoid the question, by claiming it had been previously answered, when all that was done was it was previously avoided.

How can you govern me without consent if we are equal?

No answer eh?

Still?

Hmmm...
:D

You really should develop some reading comprehension skills. Can you show me where I siad it was a criminal charge? Please? Bet you can't!

:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
So in your world, 'consent of the governed' does not mean 'consent of the governed', but 'consent of the people'. And I guess 'consent of the people' means chocolate cake. And ice cream means pavement.

:D

I say consent of the governed means consent of the governed. Your argument relies on completely ignoring the words that are there and exchanging them with something else.

You are deluded.

:D
Click to expand...
"In his report, one of his recommendations was that colonies which were developed enough should be granted "responsible government". This term specifically meant the policy that British-appointed governors should bow to the will of elected colonial assemblies Robert-Arthur:Menard"

"HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Robert-Arthur: Menard, enacts as follows:"

Yeah, I guess you're right.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
You really should develop some reading comprehension skills. Can you show me where I siad it was a criminal charge? Please? Bet you can't!
Click to expand...
Right here:

Menard said:
D'rok said:
Good news everyone! Here's how you can beat a charge of disorderly conduct in BC provincial court:

This can only end well
Click to expand...

It worked for me. The full name of the city is "The Corporation of the City of Vancouver".

Do we have to argue about whether corporations require contracts to issue invoices and demand payment?:rolleyes:

I love how hard you all try, and deeply respect how you keep trying even after endless failures...:biggrin:
Click to expand...

Now, since this is one of your claims, and the topic of this thread is "Rob Menard's FMOTL Claims", let's see some evidence for this claim.

You aren't abandoning your claim that statutes (like the Criminal Code) require consent, are you?
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
"In his report, one of his recommendations was that colonies which were developed enough should be granted "responsible government". This term specifically meant the policy that British-appointed governors should bow to the will of elected colonial assemblies Robert-Arthur:Menard"

"HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Robert-Arthur: Menard, enacts as follows:"

Yeah, I guess you're right.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sarcasm and substitution. But still no answer.

Well I have to go now. And you are boring.

It is interesting to note that you feel you are governed without your consent, and you allow it, and defend it. Says a lot about you as a man.
 
Insult and leave. How trite.

I'm so disappointed. I was so sure he was just about to provide some evidence.

Damn.
 
Rob
Didnt you once write
I consent to be governed if I engage in governable actions
Click to expand...

Why would you write that if you did not acknowledge "Responsible Government"?

exits that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Insult and leave. How trite.

I'm so disappointed. I was so sure he was just about to provide some evidence.

Damn.
Click to expand...

Sorry to insult, but I find sarcasm quite boring.

Do you have any evidence that consent is not required, or that you can govern another without their consent when you are equal?

IS mutual consent required for lawful contract?
Is mutual consent required for lawful sexual intercourse?
Is it considered self-evident that all men are created equal?
Is slavery against the law?
IS it not slavery to govern someone without their consent?

Simple questions reveal the truth.

Again, I apologize for any perceived insult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom