| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#46
05-12-2010, 09:58 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote: On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote: (snip) Whatever... depends on what amuses me at the moment. It's that time of year again, Snit  Remember how you used to amuse yourself with this... (sung to: Frosty the Snowman) Toasty the Snowbear Sleeps in Snit's bed every night But it's not by choice 'cuz he has no voice Which is much to Snit's delight Toasty the Snowbear Has a very sore rear end With a tear in his eye and a big supply Of Preparation H to mend (it) There must have been some magic In the suppository pad he used For when he put it into place He forgot about being abused Toasty the Snowbear Was alive wishing it wouldn't last Running here and there like a crazy bear Hoping Snit couldn't run that fast. He had a thing for Fluffy the Cat So down to the basement he went He hoped that bitch could help him out while he hid in the laundry vent Then that cat came strolling in As soaked as it could be Poor Toasty hadn't counted on The plight he was too see Toasty the Snowbear Didn't get ****ed on like Snit's cat Though his bottom was sore And he wanted no more He was glad not to deal with that Thumpety thump thump Thumpety thump thump Just look at Toasty flee Thumpety thump thump Thumpety thump thump Anything to avoid Snit's pee !!!! -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] LOL! Not _that_ is funny! (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#47
05-12-2010, 09:59 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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 (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#48
05-12-2010, 09:59 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 6:13 pm, Snit wrote: Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on 12/4/10 5:59 PM: 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 So So lock it... early. 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' ? Who said Not "said"... -asked- ... I asked you a question. And why are you whining that you're getting back what you hand out? Poor Steve: you know I am better than you Well... I've certainly never seen anyone create more thread's "with people's names in them" than you have. Oh, and you and Sandman started putting my name in threads long before I did so to either of you... A lie. Next you'll be telling me that you didn't have a website about me. Remember, this "discussion" started out talking about topics - Uh.. sure, Snit... whatever you say (GEEZUS you're high tonight!). Now back to ignoring your begging... Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument. I simply have I know. That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it intelligently anyway. LOL! I was not discussing it much at all - I agree... you were basically sticking your fingers in your ears and your hands over your eyes, like you usually do when the facts come a callin' But, hey, you got another post from me Why do you persist in pretending that you're not responding to me when you haven't ever stopped responding to me in ~7 years? (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#49
05-12-2010, 10:00 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote: (snip) Whatever... depends on what amuses me at the moment. It's that time of year again, Snit Remember how you used to amuse yourself with this... (sung to: Frosty the Snowman) Toasty the Snowbear Sleeps in Snit's bed every night But it's not by choice 'cuz he has no voice Which is much to Snit's delight Toasty the Snowbear Has a very sore rear end With a tear in his eye and a big supply Of Preparation H to mend (it) There must have been some magic In the suppository pad he used For when he put it into place He forgot about being abused Toasty the Snowbear Was alive wishing it wouldn't last Running here and there like a crazy bear Hoping Snit couldn't run that fast. He had a thing for Fluffy the Cat So down to the basement he went He hoped that bitch could help him out while he hid in the laundry vent Then that cat came strolling in As soaked as it could be Poor Toasty hadn't counted on The plight he was too see Toasty the Snowbear Didn't get ****ed on like Snit's cat Though his bottom was sore And he wanted no more He was glad not to deal with that Thumpety thump thump Thumpety thump thump Just look at Toasty flee Thumpety thump thump Thumpety thump thump Anything to avoid Snit's pee !!!! -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#50
05-12-2010, 10:00 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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. (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#51
06-12-2010, 04:13 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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 (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#52
06-12-2010, 04:14 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 6:13 pm, Snit wrote: Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on 12/4/10 5:59 PM: 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 So So lock it... early. 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' ? Who said Not "said"... -asked- ... I asked you a question. And why are you whining that you're getting back what you hand out? Poor Steve: you know I am better than you Well... I've certainly never seen anyone create more thread's "with people's names in them" than you have. Oh, and you and Sandman started putting my name in threads long before I did so to either of you... A lie. Next you'll be telling me that you didn't have a website about me. Remember, this "discussion" started out talking about topics - Uh.. sure, Snit... whatever you say (GEEZUS you're high tonight!). Now back to ignoring your begging... Translation: You have abandoned the field on this argument. I simply have I know. That;s OK, Snit... it's not like you were discussing it intelligently anyway. LOL! I was not discussing it much at all - I agree... you were basically sticking your fingers in your ears and your hands over your eyes, like you usually do when the facts come a callin' But, hey, you got another post from me Why do you persist in pretending that you're not responding to me when you haven't ever stopped responding to me in ~7 years? (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#53
06-12-2010, 04:14 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, Snit wrote: (snip) Whatever... depends on what amuses me at the moment. It's that time of year again, Snit Remember how you used to amuse yourself with this... (sung to: Frosty the Snowman) Toasty the Snowbear Sleeps in Snit's bed every night But it's not by choice 'cuz he has no voice Which is much to Snit's delight Toasty the Snowbear Has a very sore rear end With a tear in his eye and a big supply Of Preparation H to mend (it) There must have been some magic In the suppository pad he used For when he put it into place He forgot about being abused Toasty the Snowbear Was alive wishing it wouldn't last Running here and there like a crazy bear Hoping Snit couldn't run that fast. He had a thing for Fluffy the Cat So down to the basement he went He hoped that bitch could help him out while he hid in the laundry vent Then that cat came strolling in As soaked as it could be Poor Toasty hadn't counted on The plight he was too see Toasty the Snowbear Didn't get ****ed on like Snit's cat Though his bottom was sore And he wanted no more He was glad not to deal with that Thumpety thump thump Thumpety thump thump Just look at Toasty flee Thumpety thump thump Thumpety thump thump Anything to avoid Snit's pee !!!! -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#54
06-12-2010, 04:14 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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. (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#55
06-12-2010, 04:14 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 3:49 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish 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! Well, think about it... how else can they dismiss arguments as frivolous when it's obvious they can't be if the law applies? The best counter argument I've personally seen comes from Dr. Flaherty... and it falls down when you apply a few basic facts to it. I've now given Snit the name... we can wait to see if he tries to pick up Flaherty's argument and go with it. Snit's only real interest is in proving me wrong so there's a good chance he'll do it (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#56
06-12-2010, 04:14 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:51 pm, Snit wrote: (snip of Snit discussing personality over content) you whine that it is I who cannot stick to an actual argument... Whine? You're clearly not sticking "to an actual argument" (snip more of the same) Nothing left... I guess Snit is done making his "argument" and presenting his "evidence" (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
|
#57
06-12-2010, 04:14 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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? (crickets chirping) -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ping: Snit and Socks | Gardening | |||
| Snit's position on an OSX "inconsistency": "user error" | Gardening | |||
| Bloody VERMIN Cats again, and again, and again, and again....:-(((( | United Kingdom | |||
| Quarintine? Reality? | Ponds | |||
Linear Mode
