GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post - Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!

Big Crotch on a Small Fish

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 5:15 PM:

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/3/10 2:52 PM:

Ok, Steve, even you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current topics:

* You claiming I am "lying" to believe your comments about
your motorcycle accidents - given that you lie so much only
an idiot would believe you.

* The fact that you have been trying, and failing, since
2003 to refute my argument about Bush, stated he
http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/

* Your accusations of my being like you - dishonest. You
know I am right that you lie more in one day than I do in a
decade.

* Your confusion between absolute proof / proof beyond a
reasonable doubt

* Your insistence that legal opinions written by Supreme
Court justices are not written in a legal context

* Your insistence that if A = B and B = C then A C

Etc. You just repeatedly made a complete fool of yourself.
Your reaction... wave your white flag and hope you can get
more attention (through your socks) by bringing up a debate
from *2006* where you cannot figure out that this law exists:

-----
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103. Legal Tender
United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

Snit proves he doesn't know the difference between "lawful
money" and "legal tender". LOL!

LOL!

First, Steve, let us not forget that the reason you are trying,
though your sock, to revive a debate from, I kid you not,
*2006* is because you know you have completely humiliated
yourself on the current debates *and* you are desperate to get
my attention.

But, hey, I am in a charitable mood... so please, Steve, try to
dig yourself out of your pathetic hole and explain the
difference between "lawful money" and "legal tender" *and*
explain why, contrary to the view of the US courts, that the
bills and coins in my pocket should not be considered both.

Now, of course, even though you have had since *2006* to try to
build a case so you can actually, finally, for once actually
make a point, we both know you will fail. Worth my laughing at
you for another couple of posts... but, I warn you, if you do
not actually try to support your claims then you will simply
bore me and I will ignore not just your main name but also your
new primary sock.

...

You are the one who always brings up the ancient debates. I am
just doing to you what you do to others. Don't whine like a baby.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our
wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the
bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts,
Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve,
not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an
equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation
can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be
the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of
practicality it has little use in direct transactions between
parties anymore.

If you even look at your "money" you will see it says it is legal
tender and not lawful money. Think this does not make a
difference? We only have to pay taxes on lawful money. You and
most Americans are stupid enough to buy what the IRS tells you
and pay taxes on your lawful money (as you have to) and your
legal tender _which_you_do_not_have_to_.

I wouldn't take this argument to court. I've watched these cases
for years... I feel the reason that judges keep tossing these
kinds of arguments out as "frivolous" has more to do with your
status. The question really becomes: Does the pertinent section
of Title 12 that references the redeeming of FRN's in "lawful
money" apply to the person making the argument in court? This
argument aside (and it gets very involved), the opinion of the
judge that Snit linked to showed the judge misinterpreted the
very thing that he referenced from Title 12 as he claimed Rickman
used "lawful money". Bringing
in things like Rickman are irrelevant anyway... the question is a
simple one: Are FRN "lawful money"? This is answered in Title 12,
not in Rickman or on an IRS website. What isn't so clear is: To
whom does it apply?

LOL!

(crickets chirping)

Hey, OK, you are begging after all... two points:

1) Of course you would not take your legal theories to court.

Uh... what I recommended he/she not take to court was not *my* theory.
Better lock the medicine cabinet early tonight, Snit

2) You recently were whining about me using threads with people's
names in them - Sandman's specifically. Who put my name in this
subject?

Why do you keep pretending you're like other 'people' ? And why are
you whining that you're getting back what you hand out?

Now back to ignoring your begging...

Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument.

That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it intelligently
anyway.

LOL!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch