Warning to CSS
-
As you have proved to us[^] that you are gullible and easily deceived, I felt duty bound to warn you: Fake Courtroom Scam[^]. (Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation.)
-
As you have proved to us[^] that you are gullible and easily deceived, I felt duty bound to warn you: Fake Courtroom Scam[^]. (Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation.)
Yes, I am aware of the fake courtroom scam.
ict558 wrote:
They just need to be freed from over-regulation.
Is this your argument for more regulations? It is already illegal, it has been illegal since the birth of the country. Everything that is wrong with the country would be solved if the government would do what it is supposed to do which is to enforce constitutional law. Instead they don't enforce the constitution and use that as an excuse for taxes regulations that de-industrialize this country and impoverish the people.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Yes, I am aware of the fake courtroom scam.
ict558 wrote:
They just need to be freed from over-regulation.
Is this your argument for more regulations? It is already illegal, it has been illegal since the birth of the country. Everything that is wrong with the country would be solved if the government would do what it is supposed to do which is to enforce constitutional law. Instead they don't enforce the constitution and use that as an excuse for taxes regulations that de-industrialize this country and impoverish the people.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
fake courtroom scam
Wow... I mean just wow... This is one of those things that will occur regardless of regulations, these "people" (that term is used very lightly) are little more that scammers working on peoples lack of knowledge.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
-
Yes, I am aware of the fake courtroom scam.
ict558 wrote:
They just need to be freed from over-regulation.
Is this your argument for more regulations? It is already illegal, it has been illegal since the birth of the country. Everything that is wrong with the country would be solved if the government would do what it is supposed to do which is to enforce constitutional law. Instead they don't enforce the constitution and use that as an excuse for taxes regulations that de-industrialize this country and impoverish the people.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Is this your argument for more regulations?
:rolleyes: Gullible, easily deceived, and, consequently, easily conditioned. Ding - salivate.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Is this your argument for more regulations?
:rolleyes: Gullible, easily deceived, and, consequently, easily conditioned. Ding - salivate.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Explain your position.
Why not try to explain yours? How does this: Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation. merit this: Is this your argument for more regulations? Please show your working.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Explain your position.
Why not try to explain yours? How does this: Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation. merit this: Is this your argument for more regulations? Please show your working.
ict558 wrote:
Why not try to explain yours?
I already have.
ict558 wrote:
How does this: Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation. merit this: Is this your argument for more regulations?
I thought you were being sarcastic, and that the entrepreneurs are the scammers setting up fake courts.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
ict558 wrote:
Why not try to explain yours?
I already have.
ict558 wrote:
How does this: Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation. merit this: Is this your argument for more regulations?
I thought you were being sarcastic, and that the entrepreneurs are the scammers setting up fake courts.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I already have.
Not to me, not in this thread.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the entrepreneurs are the scammers setting up fake courts
And from that you concluded that I was arguing for more regulations? Given that the linked article states "The Pennsylvania Attorney General has brought charges against Unicredit" (i.e. regulations exist, and they have been charged with contravening them), how did you arrive at that conclusion? (Other than by 'Ding - Salivate'.)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I already have.
Not to me, not in this thread.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the entrepreneurs are the scammers setting up fake courts
And from that you concluded that I was arguing for more regulations? Given that the linked article states "The Pennsylvania Attorney General has brought charges against Unicredit" (i.e. regulations exist, and they have been charged with contravening them), how did you arrive at that conclusion? (Other than by 'Ding - Salivate'.)
ict558 wrote:
regulations exist, and they have been charged with contravening them
What regulations exactly did they not comply with. I think you are confusing regulatory protocol with constitutional law, specifically the Bill of Rights amendment about due process.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Explain your position.
Why not try to explain yours? How does this: Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation. merit this: Is this your argument for more regulations? Please show your working.
Careful now, if you make him realise the self-contradictory nature of his position, his brain fries and he starts issuing threats http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3658589/Re-The-Yanks-have-done-it-again.aspx[^]. I thought he was an [albeit persistant] troll, but now I actually think he beleives this stuff.
-
ict558 wrote:
regulations exist, and they have been charged with contravening them
What regulations exactly did they not comply with. I think you are confusing regulatory protocol with constitutional law, specifically the Bill of Rights amendment about due process.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
I love the smell of Red Herrings in the morning.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What regulations exactly did they not comply with[?]
FWIW: "Unicredit is accused of violating Pennsylvania's Consumer Protection Law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and also failed to comply with state and Erie County court rules in order to extract payments from consumers." However, the point is that regulations do exist, and that Unicredit has been charged with contravening them.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I think you are confusing regulatory protocol with constitutional law, specifically the Bill of Rights amendment about due process.
Irrelevant. The point is that regulations do exist, whatever their source, and that Unicredit has been charged with contravening them. Enough of the evasionary tactics and reply to the original post:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the entrepreneurs are the scammers setting up fake courts
And from that you concluded that I was arguing for more regulations? Given that the linked article states "The Pennsylvania Attorney General has brought charges against Unicredit" (i.e. regulations exist, and they have been charged with contravening them), how did you arrive at that conclusion? (Other than by 'Ding - Salivate'.)
-
Careful now, if you make him realise the self-contradictory nature of his position, his brain fries and he starts issuing threats http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3658589/Re-The-Yanks-have-done-it-again.aspx[^]. I thought he was an [albeit persistant] troll, but now I actually think he beleives this stuff.
-
I love the smell of Red Herrings in the morning.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What regulations exactly did they not comply with[?]
FWIW: "Unicredit is accused of violating Pennsylvania's Consumer Protection Law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and also failed to comply with state and Erie County court rules in order to extract payments from consumers." However, the point is that regulations do exist, and that Unicredit has been charged with contravening them.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I think you are confusing regulatory protocol with constitutional law, specifically the Bill of Rights amendment about due process.
Irrelevant. The point is that regulations do exist, whatever their source, and that Unicredit has been charged with contravening them. Enough of the evasionary tactics and reply to the original post:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the entrepreneurs are the scammers setting up fake courts
And from that you concluded that I was arguing for more regulations? Given that the linked article states "The Pennsylvania Attorney General has brought charges against Unicredit" (i.e. regulations exist, and they have been charged with contravening them), how did you arrive at that conclusion? (Other than by 'Ding - Salivate'.)
ict558 wrote:
Irrelevant. The point is that regulations do exist, whatever their source, and that Unicredit has been charged with contravening them.
No it is not irrelevant. What if that redundant law didn't exist, would they not prosecute and convict those scamers under constitutional law? Somehow I doubt they would because you and your democrat/rhino buddies fucking hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
ict558 wrote:
Irrelevant. The point is that regulations do exist, whatever their source, and that Unicredit has been charged with contravening them.
No it is not irrelevant. What if that redundant law didn't exist, would they not prosecute and convict those scamers under constitutional law? Somehow I doubt they would because you and your democrat/rhino buddies fucking hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
ict558 wrote:
Irrelevant. The point is that regulations do exist, whatever their source, and that Unicredit has been charged with contravening them.
No it is not irrelevant. What if that redundant law didn't exist, would they not prosecute and convict those scamers under constitutional law? Somehow I doubt they would because you and your democrat/rhino buddies fucking hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Red Herring for tea as well?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No it is not irrelevant.
It is irrelevant to establishing how this: Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation. could merit this: "Is this your argument for more regulations?" given that regulations exist, and they have been charged with contravening them. (Unless you had a 'Ding - Salivate' moment.)
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What if that redundant law didn't exist, would they not prosecute and convict those scam[m]ers under constitutional law?
Again, the particular subset of regulations - constitutional law, state law, et al - under which the scammers are prosecuted is irrelevant to establishing the logic of your response.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Somehow I doubt they would because you and your democrat/r[h]ino buddies f***ing hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Another 'Ding - Salivate' moment? Easily conditioned, indeed.
-
Red Herring for tea as well?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No it is not irrelevant.
It is irrelevant to establishing how this: Who said there are no entrepreneurs in the USA? They just need to be freed from over-regulation. could merit this: "Is this your argument for more regulations?" given that regulations exist, and they have been charged with contravening them. (Unless you had a 'Ding - Salivate' moment.)
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What if that redundant law didn't exist, would they not prosecute and convict those scam[m]ers under constitutional law?
Again, the particular subset of regulations - constitutional law, state law, et al - under which the scammers are prosecuted is irrelevant to establishing the logic of your response.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Somehow I doubt they would because you and your democrat/r[h]ino buddies f***ing hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Another 'Ding - Salivate' moment? Easily conditioned, indeed.
You are irrelevant. I might as well be having a conversation with an automated spambot.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You are irrelevant. I might as well be having a conversation with an automated spambot.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I might as well be having a conversation with an automated spambot.
Still unable to provide an answer, then? My conclusion is that your assertion of my being a Democrat/RINO arguing for the increased regulation of debt collection must be due to conditioning (or a brain marred by drink and/or drugs).
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I might as well be having a conversation with an automated spambot.
Still unable to provide an answer, then? My conclusion is that your assertion of my being a Democrat/RINO arguing for the increased regulation of debt collection must be due to conditioning (or a brain marred by drink and/or drugs).
ict558 wrote:
Still unable to provide an answer, then?
I already have. You are not from this country, your english comprehension skills need developed
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
ict558 wrote:
Still unable to provide an answer, then?
I already have. You are not from this country, your english comprehension skills need developed
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I already have.
You really believe that evasion and insults are an answer? Still in 6th Grade?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are not from this country, your english comprehension skills need developed
That should be: You are not from this country**;** your English comprehension skills need to be developed. Confirmed, still in 6th Grade.