Name one.Harvester wrote:No Mister psychopathic liar Famspear, there are dozens of Supreme Court cases which support Hendrickson's premise.
Good, then it should be easy for you to find one and provide the name of it here.Harvester wrote:Several of them cited in Hendrickson's book.
Pick the best one. The one that you think provides the strongest support for Hendrickson's premise.
That's a startling admission right there.Harvester wrote:LPC, while I may live within the united States,
It's your metaphor (or allegory). You don't like it any more?Harvester wrote:I do not live in a United States condo, and therefore don't owe united States user/pool fees. And no one in my association has pool-related income.
Or do you really not understand the concept of a metaphor?
Just for the record, moron, what I wrote was "think of the United States as a condo association...." I never said that the United States *was* a condo association, and I never said that you lived in a condo that was literally owned by the United States government. Under those circumstances, for you to respond by saying that "while I may live within the united States, I do not live in a United States condo" is either amazingly stupid or incredibly dishonest, because you are either demonstrating that you don't understand how metaphors work (and so don't understand that you are contradicting yourself) or you demonstrating that you are willing to switch back and forth between the metaphorical and the literal as it suits your purposes, with no intent whatsoever to be honest or consistent in any way.
My guess is that it's a little bit of both. You're too stupid to understand the full meaning of what you write, and too intellectually dishonest to admit to the meanings you actually do understand.