twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Bzzzz wrong as if we don't know how to use quotes by now...the whole def would have been quoted nice tokeprep shuffle though. Insert 4 more coins or something of actual value to continue.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Why would the whole definition have been quoted? Because you just made some rule up? This is what I said about that text: "Presumably the quoted text--which is from those pages in the original source--is a definition of "negotiable instrument.""
Unfortunately for you, this question is easily settled because the text of the book is actually available on the internet. So I present to you the actual answer, which shows that I was 100% correct: "What are called 'negotiable instruments,' or 'paper to bearer,' such as bills of exchange, or promissory notes, do really pass from hand to hand, either by delivery or indorsement, giving to each successive recipient a right against the debtor..." http://books.google.com/books?id=HVAOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=holland+elements+of+jurisprudence+negotiable+instruments&source=bl&ots=GBEb-uMAci&sig=7FOPsdaIcYmmvsdeckC3DzLUvRs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SMXxUZXOKIP7qAGJhoCYAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=holland elements of jurisprudence negotiable instruments&f=false.
Again, this is the text from the opinion: "A Federal Reserve note is a negotiable instrument-it can “pass from hand to hand, either by delivery or indorsement, giving to each successive recipient a right against the debtor.”   Thomas E. Holland, The Elements of Jurisprudence 315-16 (13th ed.1924)."
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
So when was the last time you endorsed and bonded fed notes?
So where do you reckon the legal definition of negotiable instrument is then? You would think all the states adopted negotiable instruments laws or something and we could find it there might even be <ahem> uniform in all states.....that uniform definition might be law merchant adopted as state law or something.
And yes you literally distorted the quote on purpose.
"Federal reserve notes are negotiable instruments".
You said that quote comes from the source you quoted from the case......which makes you 200% wrong...wrong because it was not and still is not there....wrong again because you knew that already. Which is fraud.
Have you ever thought of just ignoring her? I mean the thread is ruined, there are pages and pages of symantic arguments and almost nothing worth reading. Just take it to PM. From now on just ignore the twit. You will get nothing but circular arguments, absurd claims that are never backed up, double speak, sophistry, lies upon lies inside a pack of lies, one minute he argues one thing, the next he totally contradicts his earlier argument and then when called on it, says that he meant something else entirely and that you are just too stupid to know this obviously. Or that she never said anything that quote says, it was taken out of context. A bitch is a bitch.
Is it really worth it?
I've never endorsed a Federal Reserve Note, and I've never known anyone who has. Evidently you don't know what an "endorsement" is.
See the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted as law in all 50 states. Money, by definition, is not a negotiable instrument. Period.
I said that? Where? Thanks.
Obviously I said no such thing.Once again, is it supposed to be insulting for you to refer to me as a woman? That just makes you a misogynistic fool, if you think the opinions of women are any less valuable than the opinions of men.
How funny that everything you said reflects your behavior and not mine. Feeling uneasy about your baseless claims? Bothered by the fact that I expose you as a liar? Ah yes.
When the truth is annoying, deny it. That's been the recipe for thousands of years.
Is it really worth it?[/QUOTE]
Start backing up your fucking claims. Maybe then someone will take you seriously instead of just laughing and rolling their eyes when you post nothing.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Have you not noticed?
It's us against you on this topic, you're so pigheaded you don't even realise noone agrees with you.
Source a single fucking thing you say and perhaps someone will actually take you seriously. Until then, go waste your breathe somewhere else.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Says the tard who thinks people regularly take delivery on gold futures...LOL.
Less than 5% on Comex...your fail cascade is endless.
She asks you to back up your claims, but if you do she will dismiss the source, claim that isn't what she asked you to claim or ignore it all together and pretend it never happened. She is wrong all the time, but cannot admit when her ideas are thoroughly trounced and cannot accept the defeat that happens with every single post. Constant goal post moving, denial of reality, denial of facts, a real gem.
Like a little bitch
My favorite was that " its a logical fallacy to think that economists study inflation."
Apparently Art history majors and monkeys are the ones studying inflation in the economy, certainly not economists.
LOLOLOLOLOL
When someone says that, you have to know that they don't know shit about the subject and you should not debate them, they will only pull you down to their idiotic level.
Plus the Gay might rub off.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Is TokenCunt, a cunt?
Most likely a Lesbian.
So stop flapping you mouth and PROVE IT. Just like you demand of everyone else.
Your sources usually have nothing to do with your claims. Very recent examples: 1) You posted a chapter on silver futures as proof that Comex gold isn't physically settled, even though the first line of the document is "This chapter only applies to silver"; 2) you posted a list of the largest employers produced by The Economist and asserted that the Department of Defense was the largest employer of economists; 3) you posted an opinion piece written by a hedge fund manager as "proof" of the monetary value of the LIBOR scandal.
Taking me out of context yet again, this time blatantly lying, because I never said that, and yet you just put it in quotes. Your logical fallacy was asserting that the government is the most significant user of core CPI because it is the largest employer of economists. Since most economists don't study inflation, you cannot possibly make that conclusion from the facts.
As I've said elsewhere, having worked with lots of economists, you seem to be utterly clueless about what they do. That's your ignorance at work against my real life work experience, though.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
That's God-damned ironic...
You are the dumbest, most ignorant cunt Iv ever "spoken" to.