McCain turns down FEC matching funds

[jillian]

Sorry I missed the case law, can you repeat it please?
Ok, like I have said two times already his campaign wasn't sure if they were going to be using public funds.

You didn't miss anything. Answer the question or stop taking a disingenuous and unsubstantiated positions.

That isn't what they're teaching you at maryland.

 

[jreeves]

You didn't miss anything. Answer the question or stop taking a disingenuous and unsubstantiated positions.

That isn't what they're teaching you at maryland.

I did answer the question, he wasn't sure if he was going to be using public funds.

 

[jillian]

I did answer the question, he wasn't sure if he was going to be using public funds.

stop it... you're being silly. and you either understand the issue or you don't.

 

[jreeves]

stop it... you're being silly. and you either understand the issue or you don't.

I'm being silly, taking a contract that has explict terms that public funding isn't to be used as collateral and interpreting it to mean that public funding is to be used as future collateral is silly.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

stop it... you're being silly. and you either understand the issue or you don't.

He understands it perfectly. You are the one trying to spin it. You know damn good and well that there is a legal difference between collateral and security. There is no case law to support the DNC's position on this. Their suit will get tossed riki tik.

 

[jillian]

He understands it perfectly. You are the one trying to spin it. You know damn good and well that there is a legal difference between collateral and security. There is no case law to support the DNC's position on this. Their suit will get tossed riki tik.

No. He doesn't understand it. And if he does, he's asking the same question that's been answered over and over. So either he doesn't understand it... or it's intentional.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

No. He doesn't understand it. And if he does, he's asking the same question that's been answered over and over. So either he doesn't understand it... or it's intentional.

If you would answer his question, he could stop asking it.

 

[Dogger]

He understands it perfectly.

The bank created an interest in McCain's right (present or future) to receive funds. The purpose of that interest was to secure repayment of the loan. [this is not a comprehensive legal dissertation, but rather a dumbed-down statement for the obtuse]

His point has been that a federal court will blindly follow a label placed on the relationship by parties attempting to avoid federal law. There is specific language in the agreement, and he insinuates that it has no legal effect at all; the parties included it for fun.

And his points are absurd.

 

[Dogger]

If you would answer his question, he could stop answering it.

He could, but he won't. We did, and he didn't.

 

[jillian]

If you would answer his question, he could stop answering it.

What Dogger said......

 

[CrimsonWhite]

He could, but he won't. We did, and he didn't.

I've been all over this, I have yet to a citation of case law.

 

[Dogger]

I've been all over this, I have yet to [sic] a citation of case law.

Where is your case law for this: "You know damn good and well that there is a legal difference between collateral and security."

I've tried to keep my language simple, (you know, for kids). I have laid out the UCC language for easy reference, but if you need case law, look it up yourself.

 

[jreeves]

He could, but he won't. We did, and he didn't.

What the case law question, sorry maybe I missed it? But you have provided no case law to support your position and until you do, you look like a blubbering idiot that is highly educated.

 

[jreeves]

Where is your case law for this: "You know damn good and well that there is a legal difference between collateral and security."

I've tried to keep my language simple, (you know, for kids). I have laid out the UCC language for easy reference, but if you need case law, look it up yourself.

Come on, Westlaw or Nexis-Lexis isn't that difficult? I know why you can't provide adequate case law because it doesn't exist.

 

[jreeves]

Come on, Westlaw or Nexis-Lexis isn't that difficult? I know why you can't provide adequate case law because it doesn't exist.

Lexis-nexis I mean...sorry a few drinks tonight...LOL

 

[Dogger]

Come on, Westlaw or Nexis-Lexis isn't that difficult? I know why you can't provide adequate case law because it doesn't exist.

That stuff isn't free, and I don't subscribe anyway. When the DNC files its brief, it will be stuffed with case law.

Have you even started law school yet?

I noticed you've provided no case law either. And your debate on my argument has been mostly contradiction rather than reasoning. You disputed relevant portions of my UCC arguments, but offer no suggestion as to which body of law would apply instead, or how the principles would differ from those I've offered.

And I have pertinent questions that would guide your understanding of the issue if you only tried to answer them. Please answer them before asking me any more questions. I'm not here to fill in where your teachers have failed.

 

[jreeves]

That stuff isn't free, and I don't subscribe anyway. When the DNC files its brief, it will be stuffed with case law.

Have you even started law school yet?

I noticed you've provided no case law either. And your debate on my argument has been mostly contradiction rather than reasoning. You disputed relevant portions of my UCC arguments, but offer no suggestion as to which body of law would apply instead, or how the principles would differ from those I've offered.

And I have pertinent questions that would guide your understanding of the issue if you only tried to answer them. Please answer them before asking me any more questions. I'm not here to fill in where your teachers have failed.

LOL..no case law huh...ok...

 

[Dogger]

LOL..no case law huh...ok...

Not started law school yet, poser?

 

[jreeves]

Not started law school yet, poser?

No I understand the law perfectly, remember? You can't provide case law to support your baseless accusation though. What does me attending law school or not have to with your inability to support your accusation? This is truly funny....

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Where is your case law for this: "You know damn good and well that there is a legal difference between collateral and security."

I've tried to keep my language simple, (you know, for kids). I have laid out the UCC language for easy reference, but if you need case law, look it up yourself.

Off-topic. Don't dodge questions by deflecting to statements that were not even made to you. you have been challenged. Prove your case. Provide case law to support your position or shut the hell up.