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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:59 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
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!

How long do you think it'll take 'em to either kill this guy,
discredit him in some way or publicly ridicule him into the political
corner with Ron Paul:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/4501.htm

LOL!

(crickets chirping)

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