Replies

Yes, thanks for providing a concrete example of how you perform cheap intellectual sleight of hand.

LOL - You have yet again demonstrated both your ignorance and your inability to comprehend. Or, you are trying to perform some cheap non-intellectual sleight of hand.

You make two clear references to George Washington in your statement. Once before the quote I referenced in 450 and once after. You even ask me if I think Washington was the eleventh president, informing me that you're improperly referring to executuve power within the context of AoC.

LOL - I never referred to "executive power" within the context of the AoC. I referred to the Presidents that existed under the AoC. I had immediately corrected your ignorant misunderstanding of what I was saying the very instant you made that ignorant mistake, as I have clearly shown in post # 586, and as can be easily seen in the entire series: post #429 containing my original statement referencing the existence of Presidents under the AoC, post #450 containing your ignorant misunderstanding of that statement, and post #455 where I immediately correct your ignorant misunderstanding of what I said. I had only referred to there being "Presidents" under the "perpetual" AoC, which there were. To you that means "executive power" only because you are ignorant of our nation's history and it's earlier forms of government. I stopped and corrected your ignorant mistake the very first time you made it, and clarified that I had only referred to "Presidents". The reason I had referred to the Presidents under the AoC was because you evidently thought that the "perpetual" AoC meant that they were forever and ever. Hence, I was asking if you thought the "Presidents" under the AoC should be counted before Washington. I was explaining to you that your understanding of the word "perpetual" was incorrect and that it obviously did not mean what you thought it did since those "Presidents" are not counted before Washington, as they were Presidents under a different government that obviously was not "perpetual". Irregardless, I very clearly corrected you the very first time your ignorance led you to think I had referred to "executive power".

To clarify your use of the word "presidents", I refer back to your statement and ask "Since you made this statement perhaps you could point to the specific Article of Confederation that deals with executive power."

And I immediately at that point corrected your ignorant mistake and clarified that I had only said there were "Presidents" under the AoC, which there were. I made it clear that I had referred to "Presidents", not "executive power". To you, "President" means "executive power" because you are ignorant of history. The Presidents under the AoC did not have "executive power" as we understand that phrase today, which is why I had immediatley corrected your ignorant mistake the moment that you made it.

Being a dimwitted confederate, you took the bait and responded here 455 that its Article IX. Of course, the correct answer would be that there are no executive powers enumerated in the Articles of Confederation.

LOL - I clearly corrected your ignorant misunderstanding of what I had referred to before I responded to your ignorance of the fact that there were Presidents under the AoC. That post clearly demonstrates that fact.

Now, could you be more WRONG about something chucklehead?

ROFLMAO - I am completely CORRECT in all regards. It is obviously you who are wrong, and evidently quite ignorant to boot. Given your obvious comprehension disabilities, it is not surprising that you are "less than smart".