Again, non-responsive. You quoted something I did not say. Apparently, you are incapable of admitted error of any kind. Sheesh.
This discussion is over.
No doubt you remain oblivious and are quite unaware that you have demonstrated perfectly my assertion in #98:
It is quite obvious that you either do not comprehend or simply do not read that which is addressed to you.
I wearily acknowledge your assertion that this discussion is over
This discussion is over.
And you lost.
nathan's arguments have been perfectly responsive, "on point" (I'm assuming you know what that means), and most importantly, correct. Your problem is simply that you don't like the conclusions, and you've argued (actually, blustered and ad hominemed) yourself into such a box that your only remaining option is to petulantly "pick up your marbles", proclaim "victory" and leave.
nathan, once again Freepers owe you thanks for your outstanding efforts in analyzing and explaining the various issues confronting us. Moreover, you do this while refusing to succumb to the temptation to descend into the ad hominem and dishonest, semantic sophistry and misdirection tactics of your opponents.
As you, and others, have noted in these threads, these opponents of the rule of law (and by that I mean the original intent of the Framers, not the "let's call a treaty a trade agreement so we can circumvent that intent") and the intent of the Founding Fathers that our government should actually represent the People, have won this battle. Unfortunately, they will re-discover all too soon that it was a Pyrrhic victory, but by then it will be too late.