No, the problem is and always has been your inability to post coherent, cogent comments and you being a triggered snowflake when someone doesn't blindly accept what you have to say. Which reminds me...you

I am not wrong on any point and you can keep saying that I am wrong on all points till you are blue and it won't make it true. So, you admitted that Clarkson is a private school but is still some part

It is not an issue of how it is done it is an issue with you not knowing the definitions of the words that you are using. Is it your modus operandi to commit an ad hominem fallacy whenever anyone challenges

What's funny is he thinks he some sort of genius.

You miss the blatant point and make largely a fool of you for it. Or you are not making your case well. Render a person dead, then you did murder. Someone coming by later to fix that does not vindicate

Killing a disarmed, caged prisoner is just killing a disarmed, caged prisoner. This should read "Executing a person found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers and having availed

You are leaving several key points. a person that has been sentenced to death was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime by a jury of their peers. Thus, they are not a victim but a criminal. They

If Clarkson is a private school then they are not the state. Thus, the state did not self-incriminate in that instance. State will self incriminate as agents of State also do. It is impossible for the

I'd say overall your views are of no use to anyone. Given how misguided you are. And how closed minded you are. It sounds like someone doesn't like having the errors and inconsistencies of their comments

You need to actually read what I have written as I have explicitly defined treason per the US Constitution. Murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice

Or how about you tell a complete and coherent story. I shouldn't have to tease the events out of you. If you had included the events you might have made a stronger case. That is, of course, if you know

This does not mean that you were executed.

Provide a news story about the "whole constellation of frauds and behaviors around me".

Your views and points of logic, really are so fringe and wrong responding to them is a waste of time. I am still, at this point, trying to get a coherent and consistent statement out of you. And in your

You keep saying that the State euthanized/murdered you yet you are alive to post on Steemit. The fact that you are alive proves your assertion that the state euthanized/murdered you to be wrong.

How can the state have murdered you yet you are still alive to post on Steemit. Either they didn't murder you or you don't know what murder is.

None of those legal offers were present here. You are quite simply wrong.

You need to go and read your comments or read my comment where I quoted you. However, if they are guilty of it then why haven't you taken them to trial or, at the very least, provided actual evidence and

One does not preclude the other does it? Actually one does preclude the other because if you were euthanized then you would be dead and if you are dead then you couldn't post on Steemit. I also find it

How can you have been murdered and are still posting on Steemit?