Recent Posts
I don't know if you're actually religious or not, but Jesus was pro-taxation.
Daniel Jones Evidence of Jesus?
I am now going repeat my words that YOU DELIBERATELY ignored: "These four elements: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds) are the 𝑴𝑰𝑵𝑰𝑴𝑼𝑴 requirements for a contract to exist.
Admit or Deny."
You see that bold-italicized word "𝑴𝑰𝑵𝑰𝑴𝑼𝑴"?
I am forced to suspect you ignored the word 𝑴𝑰𝑵𝑰𝑴𝑼𝑴 deliberately. At the moment my suspicion is only my opinion and not a proven fact. I am now going to check the veracity of my opinion.
1. An offer is an element of a contract.
Admit or Deny.
2. A consideration is an element of a contract.
Admit or Deny.
3. An acceptance of the terms of a contract is an element of a contract.
Admit or Deny.
4. A mutual agreement (a meeting of minds) is an element of a contract.
Admit or Deny.
On 11 November @ 07:29, I asked you "If you and I agree that you will pay me $20 for each time I mow your lawn, Are you going to argue that you and I don't have a contract?"
Ignoring my points and questions will not make them evaporate, disappear, or go away. So here it is again:
If you and I agree that you will pay me $20 for each time I mow your lawn, then you and I have entered into a contract.
Admit or Deny.
Note to self: double check that Squirmy actually answers this point.
➽ Dale Eastman Even your own sources disagree that those are the elements of a contract.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
You made the claim, the burden of proof is yours.
➽ One of your own links provides multiple other sources.
➽ One of your own links provides multiple other sources. 𝙋𝙀𝙍𝙄𝙊𝘿!
I emphasize that your 9 words convey NOTHING. As in: "Look! A tree. 𝙋𝙀𝙍𝙄𝙊𝘿!"
This is just you doing another 𝗗-𝟲. This is just you doing another Dishonest attempt to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail the discussion away from my points and questions.
➽ And again, under whose authority are those the four elements?
On 11 November @ 07:29 I addressed your inane claim.
I did so again On 15 November @ 11:20.
I am now asking you a 𝙏𝙃𝙄𝙍𝘿 time:
Whose authority are you using to deny the elements of a contract I have presented?
➽ You're using the same laws as the system that you claim has no authority over you.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
You made the claim, the burden of proof is yours.
➽ Under your system...
You made the claim, the burden of proof is yours.
Do post all the intricate details of this system you 𝑰𝑴𝑨𝑮𝑰𝑵𝑬 I have.
➽ Under your system, there is no authority that can determine something like this.
Do post all the intricate details of this system you 𝑰𝑴𝑨𝑮𝑰𝑵𝑬 I have.
➽ Do you not understand your own hypocrisy?
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
You made the claim, the burden of proof is yours.
Do post my exact words and my other exact words the contradict the first words you just posted.
➽ In order for us to even entertain the possibility of your claim being right, you must admit that there is a legal system that has the authority to make those the proper elements of a contract.
I don't have to admit anything.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Prove your own claim.
Dale Eastman You really aren't very good at this. You're the pot calling the kettle black when you claim I'm being hypocritical. The fact of the matter is that you are claiming that those four specific elements of a contract exist, but you are relying on the same system you say has no authority to determine anything, or you're implying that there is some universal law that can determine that those are the elements (even minimum ones) of a contract. You either know you don't have a leg to stand on here, or you're really not even half as bright as you think you are.
If you and I agree that you will pay me $20 for each time I mow your lawn, then you and I have entered into a contract.
Admit or Deny.
Dale Eastman Yes, in the same way that when you buy a property in the US, you are agreeing to pay property tax, and in the same way that when you drive on the road, you are agreeing to be licensed and to be bound by the laws of the road.
Your "Yes" is the "admission" that; If you and I agree that you will pay me $20 for each time I mow your lawn, then you and I have entered into a contract.
I decline to follow your 48 words of red herring off topic.
Staying on topic; This lawn mowing contract...
Is a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds) an element of this contract?
Is a consideration of $20 for each lawn mowing an element of this contract?
Is the offer of mowing your lawn for $20 an element of this contract?
Is both of us agreeing to (accepting) the terms of this contract an element of this contract.
I will now briefly follow your red herring...
You have again used the term "law". I guaranty your definition does not match mine.
Dale Eastman I don't care what your definition of the law is. I care what the legal definition of the law is. Every time you drive on the road, you agree to the laws of the road. Every time you agree to buy a property, you agree to pay property tax. If you don't abide by that agreement, you will be penalized for it, and rightfully so. This isn't rocket science, and yet you are trying to make it that way through semantics. You are giving up certain natural rights (subjecting yourself to the law) and receiving consideration of services and protection in exchange. That's your consideration.
➽ "Dale Eastman I don't care what your definition of the law is."
Is this just like you didn't care about the minimum requirements to make an agreement into a contract?
➽ "I care what the legal definition of the law is."
OBJECTION! Facts not in evidence.
You have claimed that a legal definition of law exists.
You have failed to present that legal definition of law.
➽ "Every time you drive on the road, you agree to the laws of the road. Every time you agree to buy a property, you agree to pay property tax. "
I deny your delusional claim that you can read my mind.
➽ "If you don't abide by that agreement, you will be penalized for it, and rightfully so. "
OBJECTION! Facts of an agreement not in evidence.
➽ "This isn't rocket science, and yet you are trying to make it that way through semantics. "
OBJECTION! Facts of this scurrilous claim not in evidence.
➽ "You are giving up certain natural rights (subjecting yourself to the law) and receiving consideration of services and protection in exchange. "
I do not share this Stockholm Syndrome that you have.
You are making delusional claims about how good the abusive government treats you.
Moving back on topic; This lawn mowing contract...
Your "Yes" is the "admission" that; If you and I agree that you will pay me $20 for each time I mow your lawn, then you and I have entered into a contract.
Is a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds) an element of this contract?
Is a consideration of $20 for each lawn mowing an element of this contract?
Is the offer of mowing your lawn for $20 an element of this contract?
Is both of us agreeing to (accepting) the terms of this contract an element of this contract.
Thank God there hasn't been an invasion of the US. To say otherwise is to be either ignorant or racist or both. Invasion implies hostile intent. As for Trump and his ilk, they are all just fascists.
Daniel Jones Thank you for your Votard opinion.
Dale Eastman Thank God I didn't provide any opinions.
Daniel Jones Thank you for THAT Votard opinion.
Dale Eastman Lmao! It seems like I broke you the same way I broke Mike Cerrio or whatever his name was. Truly hilarious.
Dale Eastman I gave you the answer already. You just didn't like it or you didn't understand it. That's not my problem. That's a 'you' problem. So, no, I'm not a coward. You're just not half as bright as you think you are or you're operating in bad faith or both.
Daniel Jones These four elements: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds) are the minimum requirements for a contract to exist.
Admit or Deny.
Dale Eastman Even your own sources disagree that those are the elements of a contract. One of your own links provides multiple other sources. And again, under whose authority are those the four elements? You're using the same laws as the system that you claim has no authority over you. Under your system, there is no authority that can determine something like this. Do you not understand your own hypocrisy? In order for us to even entertain the possibility of your claim being right, you must admit that there is a legal system that has the authority to make those the proper elements of a contract.
Compare air transmission to touch-based transmission. Some diseases/viruses survive a shockingly low period of time on hard surfaces. But they can be easily transmitted via air.
Thank you for your opinion.
Dale Eastman I didn't offer any opinion. I only stated facts.
Thank you for your second opinion.
On November 1, 2024 @ 11:40 you [opined]: ➽ "As I mentioned, the contract is the Constitution " [...]
Correction: Thank you for your third opinion.
Your OPINION that the constituition is a social contact was debunked here:
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1808.msg17235#msg17235
Being the coward and liar that you are, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to admit that the CONstitution (sic) is not a social contract.
Dale Eastman I'm sorry that you don't have a firm connection with reality. That's your problem, though, not mine.
Looking in the mirror while you wrote that?
Too much of a COWARD to deal with the point directly?
I'm still waiting for you to support your opinion and claim the the CONstitution is a social contract. Verifiable facts and sound logic is required.
It is my intent to address your spew every time it shows in my feed. You are a COWARD and a LIAR. I'll stop calling you what you are when you man up on your bullshit about the CONstitution.
Dale Eastman Oh, I did provide the answer. You just didn't like it. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it on your behalf. Also, calling me names doesn't mean anything to me. If you were important to me, it would. But you don't mean a darn thing to me, so it doesn't. At the end of the day, you're just another low-information person who is incapable of understanding an explanation when it is given to you.
➽ Oh, I did provide the answer.
➽ I can explain it to you
Oh please do. Not just to educate me, to also educate any other readers of this publicly archived discussion.
Previously posted and ignored by you:
In yet another Dishonest attempt to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail having to actually prove your claim, you asked: ➽ Question: Under whose authority does your definition of the elements of a contract come from?
https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/the-essential-elements-of-a-contract/
https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/the-principles-of-contract-law/
https://www.contractscounsel.com/b/elements-of-a-contract
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/elements-of-a-contract
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract
https://www.contractsafe.com/blog/elements-of-a-contract
https://www.docjuris.com/post/the-elements-of-a-contract-six-essential-components
Whose authority are you using to deny the elements of a contract I have presented?
End review.
These four elements: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds) are the minimum requirements for a contract to exist.
Admit or Deny.
I thought Obama took all the guns. That's what you idiots said for seven years he was going to do. What happened? Did he forget?
This pdf file is a long read. It is 107 pages.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2004/08/31/op-olc-v028-p0126.pdf
Dale Eastman Congrats. Didn't Obama take away all the guns? That's what the people that think for you told you to say he would.
Hey blue hat Votard, You are aware that I am ANTI-voting for anything?
These are MY words. They follow logic, Something you pro-government Votards don't use.
https://synapticsparks.info/government/ExaminingVoting.html
Blue hat Votard posted this as a Non-Sequitur.
Hey Votard... Run out of troll bait?
Perhaps your only purpose here is to spew your ignorant opinions.
Your turn again.
Dale Eastman They're knocking at your door ready to take your guns!
Please present the evidence that supports and backs you claim, a.k.a. your opinion.
Other than laws against abortion and certain civil asset forfeiture laws, I can't think of any laws off the top of my head that are not right. I suppose I would make changes to the prison system and how we handle drug offenses as well, but we're talking about small matters compared to the broader picture.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1808.msg17235#msg17235
Come on Coward. You can't be out of bait to troll me already.
Tell me Coward, what personal difference to you will result from you knowing how many guns could be aimed at government tyrannical terrorists?
Are you one of them?
I wonders to myself, who am I dealing with?
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550999503004
Hmm. Looks like an astro-turf sock puppet.
You think guns keep us safe from the government so I want to know how many it would take. Don't whimp out now, tough guy.
How many kept the colonialists safe from King George's Redcoats?
Why you calling me "tough guy"? Should I be calling you "coward"?
So you just need to make sure you outgunned the government. How many guns is that?
