Thread: Lou Dobbs: No Impeachment

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

CrocketsGhost wrote:

First off, Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia and its submissions are not fact-checked.

Second, that something was peripherally implied in an unrelated case (the subjects of the Plyler case were not born in the United States) does not in any way settle the matter. In fact, there IS NO STANDING DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT RELATING TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS BORN ON US SOIL. Period. Contrary to your claims, the matter has not been settled by the Supreme Court, and the clear legislative intent of the Amendment states that such people are to be excluded.

I've to look into that ( your claims ).
I always use wikipedia, it's good enough for me.

Look into it all you want. I have done the research and I know that there is no such case.

Also, whether Wikipedia is "good enough" for you or not is neither here nor there. It is an "open" resource whose own disclaimer makes clear that its articles are not fact-checked. But why should I be surprised that a second-rate resource is good enough for you when a third-rate president and his fourth-rate carpetbagging Senator shrew are good enough for you?

first of all have I never claimed that wikipedia is fact based. But, you haven't backed up your claims when you said that kids born on US soil are not automatically citizens. If wiki is fact based or not, it can still be a very useful resource, and valid enough to use it as a resource. Hillary is not only good enough for me, she is the light at the end of the tunnel. She's the light in our darkness where Bush put us in.

Okay, here is my basis for stating that the clause is not meant to include anchor babies. When introducing the proposed Amendment XIV and its citizenship provision, Sen. Merritt Jacob Howard stated that the relevant portion was "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural and national law, a citizen of the United States." He went on to explain who the provision did not include:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Also bothered that American Indians may seek to claim citizenship, Sen. James Doolittle added, "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi-foreign nations."

Sen. Edward Cowan was more specific and forceful still:

"It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. … I have supposed … that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.

"I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration…? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the Country of California, and if another people, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? … As I understand the rights of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she choose who is not a citizen of some one of the United States."

Sen. Reverdy Johnson, expressing concern that the reading of the provision may be too broad, added,

"Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power – for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us – shall be considered as citizens of the United States. … I am, however, by no means prepared to say, as I think I have intimated before, that being born within the United States, independent of any new constitutional provision on the subject, creates the relation of citizen to the United States."

So the intent of the legislators who authored the amendment is quite clear. Justices are meant to defer to legislative intent where that intent is clear. Could it be clearer in this case?

Cassie, if amnesty is granted, more illegals will come in as amnesty encourages more illegal immigration. This is what happened when the 1986 amnesty was granted. A guest worker program would ensure that the steady stream of cheap labor would continue to flow in. It would be never ending. If amnesty is granted, those who are here now would be able to bring their families in and then apply for welfare benefits. A poor, uneducated person working for $6/hr. with a large family is not going to be self-sustaining. Please try to think this out. We cannot afford to make decisions which affect the future of this country and our children based on emotions.

You seem to view the situation we have here with the illegals as a "victimless" crime. As I have already mentioned, illegals take jobs away from American citizens, often those at the lower end of the pay scale, and depress wages. There are plenty of articles on this site that expand on this subject. You might want to start with the meatpacking industry which 20 years ago paid $20/hr. with benefits to American citizens and now, due to the influx of illegals, pays about $6/hr. with no benefits.

There are also the crimes (murders, rapes, child molestations, DUIs) committed by those residing illegally in our country. While it is true that we have our own homegrown criminals, that is no justification for importing foreign national criminals. The cost to the criminal justice system (also borne by the taxpayers) is staggering.

You state that these people do not cost anything. That is also a false assumption. We are required to pay higher taxes to educate their children, provide ESL classes, free school breakfasts and lunches, extra costs for free healthcare; quite a few hospitals in the border states have been forced to shut down because of these increased costs. When an illegal has children here (and they tend to have large families), the family is entitled to apply for any benefits (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, WIC) that any other American citizen would qualify for.

Illegal immigrants are cheap labor for greedy corporations which are subsidized by struggling American taxpayers. Again, illegal immigrants impose a great personal and societal cost; illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. My compassion is reserved for my fellow Americans who are suffering from our government's dereliction of duty to secure our borders and enforce the immigration law.

CrocketsGhost

If all you say is true, I can’t do anything more than admitting that I was wrong. I don’t have a comprehension problem, and understand that any person born on US soil is not automatically a US citizen after reading the text you gave. However, the supreme court has never clarified the 14th amendment ( as far as I know ) and therefore it’s no wonder that I think the way I do.

jp_48504 wrote:

[There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant only illegal alien, get your facts straight. An immigrant is someone who comes here legally. An alien is someone that is here illegally.

But this is just a minor thing, it’s just a word game. The media calls it:
illegal aliens, undocumented aliens, undocumented immigrants, immigrants without papers, illegal immigrants, etc. You all know what they mean.

They don’t just all come here to work. Ever here of the: El Plan Espiritual de Santa Barbara, El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán? Look it up for yourself.

I’ve heard about that. They ( La Raza ) are just a small minority of racist yelling scum. The SW has never belonged to Mexico, they stole this part of the world too, while we bought it.

You say its okay for people to seek a better life for their families, well I agree, so long as they do it legally.

I don’t know if it’s difficult to immigrate to the US legally. I was just born here, just like my parents and grandparents

Noyoucannot wrote:

Cassie, if amnesty is granted, more illegals will come in as amnesty encourages more illegal immigration. This is what happened when the 1986 amnesty was granted. A guest worker program would ensure that the steady stream of cheap labor would continue to flow in. It would be never ending.

Yes, this is true. When Bush proposed his guest worker’s program, more people rushed to the border and thought it was ok to break in this time. I don’t know, man. We’re humans and we will do whatever necessary to survive. We’re also a nation of laws that must be obeyed to prevent anarchy. I believe in borders because I also have a fence around my garden. Not to keep people out, burglars can break through my fence, but just to point out what is mine and what is my neigbor’s. This is a very difficult issue, and I understand why presidential candidates prefer not to be asked this question

If amnesty is granted, those who are here now would be able to bring their families in and then apply for welfare benefits. A poor, uneducated person working for $6/hr. with a large family is not going to be self-sustaining. Please try to think this out. We cannot afford to make decisions which affect the future of this country and our children based on emotions.

That’s why it’s good that I’m not the president of this country. I’m too emotional, but I’m still free to share my point of view and say whatever I want to say under the first amendment.

You seem to view the situation we have here with the illegals as a "victimless" crime. As I have already mentioned, illegals take jobs away from American citizens, often those at the lower end of the pay scale, and depress wages. There are plenty of articles on this site that expand on this subject. You might want to start with the meatpacking industry which 20 years ago paid $20/hr. with benefits to American citizens and now, due to the influx of illegals, pays about $6/hr. with no benefits.

Do illegals work for $ 6 an hour ?? I never said illegal immigration is victimless. I was only referring to those that are working under the table, work 14 hours a day, and have no time to harm us. But how can illegals take the jobs away form US citizens ?? My friend always says that they do the dirty jobs we’re not willing to do.

There are also the crimes (murders, rapes, child molestations, DUIs) committed by those residing illegally in our country. While it is true that we have our own homegrown criminals, that is no justification for importing foreign national criminals. The cost to the criminal justice system (also borne by the taxpayers) is staggering.

Foreign criminals should stay in their land, and be kept out of the US.
But do you never watch tv ?? When I see a 6 yo orphan in African, look into his/her eyes, it makes me san and I want to take care of that kid.

You state that these people do not cost anything. That is also a false assumption. We are required to pay higher taxes to educate their children, provide ESL classes, free school breakfasts and lunches, extra costs for free healthcare; quite a few hospitals in the border states have been forced to shut down because of these increased costs. When an illegal has children here (and they tend to have large families), the family is entitled to apply for any benefits (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, WIC) that any other American citizen would qualify for.

This is what I addressed earlier by saying that illegal aliens and the or kids have no right to receive social benefits. We have 10 million illegal aliens in this country, that’s huge ! How are we supposed to deport him. It took Eisenhower some time to deport 1 million, how long will it take to deport 10 million ??

Illegal immigrants are cheap labor for greedy corporations which are subsidized by struggling American taxpayers. Again, illegal immigrants impose a great personal and societal cost; illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. My compassion is reserved for my fellow Americans who are suffering from our government's dereliction of duty to secure our borders and enforce the immigration law.

Ok, stop right here. Are we ( you and I ) paying tax so that greedy corporations get subsidized ? And they betray us by hiring illegal aliens ? Is this what you’re saying ?? I don’t know what to believe anymore, this issue is too complicated. My sister says this too, and I just thought she was talking without thinking, but if more people say it, it may be true that we pay for corporations and they betray us. I don’t know anymore. It’s weekend and time to relax a little.

But Hillary *standing by her man*

Is a good thing.....................right?






Neils
11:33 pm
01/26/2007

Ok, stop right here. Are we ( you and I ) paying tax so that greedy corporations get subsidized ? And they betray us by hiring illegal aliens ? Is this what you’re saying ?? I don’t know what to believe anymore, this issue is too complicated. My sister says this too, and I just thought she was talking without thinking, but if more people say it, it may be true that we pay for corporations and they betray us. I don’t know anymore. It’s weekend and time to relax a little.

Yes, that's what I am saying. The thing about "they are doing work that Americans won't do" is propaganda from those who stand to benefit from this influx of illegals--corporations who want the cheap labor, the affluent who want cheap nannies, gardeners, and housecleaners, politicians who want the cheap vote, and ethnic advocacy groups who want to gain political power.

Think: who was doing these jobs before the illegals showed up? These jobs were getting done by Americans! Once the illegals started flooding in, Americans were cast aside so the employers could hire the illegals at a cheaper wage. They are the 21st century version of slave labor. Do you really think there are no Americans willing to do construction work, painting, drywalling, framing, roofing, work in the service industry, etc.? These illegals are not all coming to pick lettuce; they are branching out into all areas of the labor market.

You say you do not agree with giving illegals welfare benefits or pay to educate their children, but it does not really matter if you agree with it or not. It is happening; it is the law. Not only welfare benefits, but in-state tuition for college while American citizens must pay out of state tuition rates. For that matter, immigrants who have followed the law must also pay out of state rates. How is this fair?

I can understand feeling compassion for the poor; but the poor need to be helped in their own countries. Immigration to this country must be orderly and controlled. Consider this: the majority of illegals are from Mexico; 80% of illegals are from Latin America. Mexico IS NOT a poor country. They have many resources and have the capacity to become a first world country. It is their corruption and inefficient economic policies which keep their people in poverty. They use the US as their safety valve to avoid being forced to implement the necessary reforms. As long as they can continue to foist their poorest citizens off on us, they can avoid making the changes necessary to provide opportunity to their people. On top of that, remittances sent back to Mexico from illegals working here account for that country's second largest source of income.

Lastly, nobody is suggesting massive round ups and deportations. What is needed is for our government to enforce our immigration laws. Secure the border and do interior enforcement; IOW, fine employers who hire illegals. If they continue to hire illegals, give them jail time. The jobs and welfare benefits are the magnets that attract the illegals. If they cannot get jobs because employers know they will be fined if they hire illegals, and they cannot collect welfare benefits, they will self-deport over time. It will not happen overnight, but then we did not get into this mess overnight either.

When the borders are secured and the illegals return home, wages will rise back up. If there are labor shortages in certain sectors, seasonal farm work for example, then employers--after proving that they have advertised and offered the prevailing wage for that type of employment to American citizens without success--could possibly request foreign workers through a limited type of guest worker program; and this is just my opinion, but I think in that case visas should be made available to people from a variety of countries, not just one demographic group. But this should not be done until we get control of this out of control situation.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

CrocketsGhost wrote:

Cassie, the son of an illegal alien is not necessarily a citizen. Case law on this is anything but settled, and the legislative intent of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within Amendment XIV's citizenship clause was made clear in the debate surrounding the inclusion of that verbiage. The automatic citizenship was meant to apply only to those born to persons here lawfully and specifically subject to the jurisdiction. That means that neither the offspring of illegal entrants nor of foreign diplomats or visitors on US soil would gain automatic citizenship.

It’s not true what you say. I think you’re referring to the Wong Kim Ark trial and the court did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" But the supreme court decided that even kids of illegals are citizens

Please cite the Supreme Court case that determined that children of illegal aliens secure automatic citizenship under Amendment XIV.

I understand why you'd want a cite, but I don't understand why you'd make a demand for a cite when you repeatedly ducked my demand for your cites. Of course, your cites don't exist, so, granted, you have an excuse.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

CrocketsGhost wrote:

Cassie, the son of an illegal alien is not necessarily a citizen. Case law on this is anything but settled, and the legislative intent of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within Amendment XIV's citizenship clause was made clear in the debate surrounding the inclusion of that verbiage. The automatic citizenship was meant to apply only to those born to persons here lawfully and specifically subject to the jurisdiction. That means that neither the offspring of illegal entrants nor of foreign diplomats or visitors on US soil would gain automatic citizenship.

It’s not true what you say. I think you’re referring to the Wong Kim Ark trial and the court did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" But the supreme court decided that even kids of illegals are citizens

Please cite the Supreme Court case that determined that children of illegal aliens secure automatic citizenship under Amendment XIV.

I understand why you'd want a cite, but I don't understand why you'd make a demand for a cite when you repeatedly ducked my demand for your cites. Of course, your cites don't exist, so, granted, you have an excuse.

First off, you're crossposting, which is a sure sign of a troll, eh, Strother Martin? Second, I made no claim that a precedent existed in the case of a jurisdictional challenge made by a person operating outside the lex mercatorum in a case tried under lex mercatorum. The poster above made the specific claim that a Supreme Court precedent existed for birthright citizenship of the offspring of illegal aliens on US soil.

Every reasonable poster on this site (which is the vast majority of posters here) can comprehend the difference between the two separate issues and the claims made. Thanks for proving that you are a stalker and a troll. Then again, you are well known, Strother Martin, and your tactics have been well catalogued.

For anyone following along, I recommend that you do a search of posts by this troll. Notice a pattern?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

CrocketsGhost wrote:

Cassie, the son of an illegal alien is not necessarily a citizen. Case law on this is anything but settled, and the legislative intent of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within Amendment XIV's citizenship clause was made clear in the debate surrounding the inclusion of that verbiage. The automatic citizenship was meant to apply only to those born to persons here lawfully and specifically subject to the jurisdiction. That means that neither the offspring of illegal entrants nor of foreign diplomats or visitors on US soil would gain automatic citizenship.

It’s not true what you say. I think you’re referring to the Wong Kim Ark trial and the court did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" But the supreme court decided that even kids of illegals are citizens

Please cite the Supreme Court case that determined that children of illegal aliens secure automatic citizenship under Amendment XIV.

I understand why you'd want a cite, but I don't understand why you'd make a demand for a cite when you repeatedly ducked my demand for your cites. Of course, your cites don't exist, so, granted, you have an excuse.

First off, you're crossposting, which is a sure sign of a troll, eh, Strother Martin? Second, I made no claim that a precedent existed in the case of a jurisdictional challenge made by a person operating outside the lex mercatorum in a case tried under lex mercatorum. The poster above made the specific claim that a Supreme Court precedent existed for birthright citizenship of the offspring of illegal aliens on US soil.

Every reasonable poster on this site (which is the vast majority of posters here) can comprehend the difference between the two separate issues and the claims made. Thanks for proving that you are a stalker and a troll. Then again, you are well known, Strother Martin, and your tactics have been well catalogued.

For anyone following along, I recommend that you do a search of posts by this troll. Notice a pattern?

First, I'd think your public post would better have been sent via PM. I'm not even sure what a crosspost is, really, but I still hardly see the grounds to establish your claim as such. For crying out loud. You bring up the Uniform Commercial Code in a discussion about habeas corpus, and you get it so woefully wrong at that.

Here, I simply pointed out that while you demand cites of other people, you repeatedly fail to provide to do likewise and provide cites when you're called on something. That's fair game and you shouldn't be enabled to hide behind some hyper-attenuated plea for "cross-posting". Pretty lame, actually.

Second, you just don't like that I am correcting your posts on this matter. Your repetitious error doesn't make me a troll. As I've repeatedly stated, as if the obvious needs such repetition, if you'd just post accurately, I'd have nothing to respond to. You're in control. So please. Do your research. Think, before you type.

Third, speaking of pattern, all I know is that my first post was met with your "Thank you," as I offered an explication in a pseudo-dispute you were Tied up in.

Naturally, I'd notice someone who welcomed me with appreciation and gratitude, but then I later took note of you going off on these wild UCC tangents, which, your earlier gratitude aside, I couldn't let slide. It was just wrong. All wrong. That's what these boards are for. Correcting people like you, or having people correct me, rare, I must say, as the latter possibility is. Not that I'm so smart. I just do my research and get my cue from Someone who is.

Getting to what might be called the substance of your response, you said:

Second, I made no claim that a precedent existed in the case of a jurisdictional challenge made by a person operating outside the lex mercatorum in a case tried under lex mercatorum.

That is pure bunk. First, you're throwing around these irrelevant terms, COMPLETELY irrelevant terms, in an argument that addresses NOTHING at issue -- and addressing NOTHING you've said -- and addressing NOTHING I've supposedly said you'd said. It's just typing. Check the thread to be sure. You're raising a smelly red herring. You are deliberately confusing the matter, and I'll set the record of this esteemed board straight later on this fine day if I get the time.

Oh wait, what is this Strohter stuff? Admittedly the literary or otherwise allusion is escaping me. And you've "well catalogued" me? While claiming I'm stalking YOU??????? Perhaps a PM is more in keeping with the decorum here, I don't know, but, either way, you surely can explain something to me for once.

Ghost, why are you making my inaugural posts on this board so difficult? I understand you're chafing at my correction of you on the UCC. You're wrong and who likes to be proved wrong so often? But I just checked, and my first couple of posts even came to your rescue, though that may be too strong a word.

Anyway, if you'd just post accurately, we'll have no further interaction whatsoever.

We’re humans and we will do whatever necessary to survive. We’re also a nation of laws that must be obeyed to prevent anarchy

Cassie, you contradict yourself with this statement. You can't have it both ways. What you are saying is that when it comes to basic survival, its okay to break laws. When laws are being broken and not enforced, this is the beginning of anarchy.

I’m not supporting illegal aliens coming to this country, I’m just saying I don’t mind them being here if they just work and try to feed their family back home, that’s all

Which here is another statement of yours indicating double talk. You say you don't support them, but you also don't mind them being here. Basically you're saying its okay for them to be here because they just want to work and support their families which means (to you) its okay to break the laws simply because they are trying to support their families.
If this was the case, then I guess its okay for homeless and struggling Americans to rob banks to support themselves.

Quote:
Simply because they want to come and work to provide for their family is NO EXCUSE for breaking another country's laws.

With all due respect, but this shows your ignorance. We’re humans, we’re survivors and will do anything to survive or feed our kids

So tell me how this statement reflects ignorance on my part?

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

CrocketsGhost wrote:

Cassie, the son of an illegal alien is not necessarily a citizen. Case law on this is anything but settled, and the legislative intent of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within Amendment XIV's citizenship clause was made clear in the debate surrounding the inclusion of that verbiage. The automatic citizenship was meant to apply only to those born to persons here lawfully and specifically subject to the jurisdiction. That means that neither the offspring of illegal entrants nor of foreign diplomats or visitors on US soil would gain automatic citizenship.

It’s not true what you say. I think you’re referring to the Wong Kim Ark trial and the court did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" But the supreme court decided that even kids of illegals are citizens

Please cite the Supreme Court case that determined that children of illegal aliens secure automatic citizenship under Amendment XIV.

I understand why you'd want a cite, but I don't understand why you'd make a demand for a cite when you repeatedly ducked my demand for your cites. Of course, your cites don't exist, so, granted, you have an excuse.

First off, you're crossposting, which is a sure sign of a troll, eh, Strother Martin? Second, I made no claim that a precedent existed in the case of a jurisdictional challenge made by a person operating outside the lex mercatorum in a case tried under lex mercatorum. The poster above made the specific claim that a Supreme Court precedent existed for birthright citizenship of the offspring of illegal aliens on US soil.

Every reasonable poster on this site (which is the vast majority of posters here) can comprehend the difference between the two separate issues and the claims made. Thanks for proving that you are a stalker and a troll. Then again, you are well known, Strother Martin, and your tactics have been well catalogued.

For anyone following along, I recommend that you do a search of posts by this troll. Notice a pattern?

First, I'd think your public post would better have been sent via PM. I'm not even sure what a crosspost is, really, but I still hardly see the grounds to establish your claim as such. For crying out loud. You bring up the Uniform Commercial Code in a discussion about habeas corpus, and you get it so woefully wrong at that.

Here, I simply pointed out that while you demand cites of other people, you repeatedly fail to provide to do likewise and provide cites when you're called on something. That's fair game and you shouldn't be enabled to hide behind some hyper-attenuated plea for "cross-posting". Pretty lame, actually.

Second, you just don't like that I am correcting your posts on this matter. Your repetitious error doesn't make me a troll. As I've repeatedly stated, as if the obvious needs such repetition, if you'd just post accurately, I'd have nothing to respond to. You're in control. So please. Do your research. Think, before you type.

Third, speaking of pattern, all I know is that my first post was met with your "Thank you," as I offered an explication in a pseudo-dispute you were Tied up in.

Naturally, I'd notice someone who welcomed me with appreciation and gratitude, but then I later took note of you going off on these wild UCC tangents, which, your earlier gratitude aside, I couldn't let slide. It was just wrong. All wrong. That's what these boards are for. Correcting people like you, or having people correct me, rare, I must say, as the latter possibility is. Not that I'm so smart. I just do my research and get my cue from Someone who is.

Getting to what might be called the substance of your response, you said:

[quote:2xwqwta7]Second, I made no claim that a precedent existed in the case of a jurisdictional challenge made by a person operating outside the lex mercatorum in a case tried under lex mercatorum.

That is pure bunk. First, you're throwing around these irrelevant terms, COMPLETELY irrelevant terms, in an argument that addresses NOTHING at issue -- and addressing NOTHING you've said -- and addressing NOTHING I've supposedly said you'd said. It's just typing. Check the thread to be sure. You're raising a smelly red herring. You are deliberately confusing the matter, and I'll set the record of this esteemed board straight later on this fine day if I get the time.

Oh wait, what is this Strohter stuff? Admittedly the literary or otherwise allusion is escaping me. And you've "well catalogued" me? While claiming I'm stalking YOU??????? Perhaps a PM is more in keeping with the decorum here, I don't know, but, either way, you surely can explain something to me for once.

Ghost, why are you making my inaugural posts on this board so difficult? I understand you're chafing at my correction of you on the UCC. You're wrong and who likes to be proved wrong so often? But I just checked, and my first couple of posts even came to your rescue, though that may be too strong a word.

Anyway, if you'd just post accurately, we'll have no further interaction whatsoever.[/quote:2xwqwta7]
How many other names have you posted under here, Strother? When do we see your alter egos who spew filth as has been the progression at countless other sites?

As for the factual accuracy of your posts, they're nothing but protracted obfuscation, as anyone can see when you base one of your arguments on the claim that transfers of titles are not covered under the UCC. That you do not comprehend the nature of the codes is scarcely my problem. I'm chuckling to myself at your claim tht the UCC's section on titles applies only to bills of lading and warehouse receipts!