Obviously its not the main problem with the comic, but it is sort of unintentionally funny that to demonstrate how heavy the coin would be is to say it would sink a ship that’s primarily famous for being surprisingly easy to sink. You’d think they could come up with a ship that’s famous for not sinking.
Depends. Would you sell me an iceberg for a trillion dollars?
Obviously the Mayflower would have been the correct choice here.
I’d love to. When would you like it delivered?
Will that be cash or charge? 
It is useful for the introduction of the term ‘whip-ship’, though I suggest dropping the hyphen.
Dude, my congressman is a total Whipship!
An absence of an implication of a negation of an unstated requirement? :dubious:
As I said, the intrinsic value of metal in a coin, and the legal-tender face value, are entirely independent. There are current minted examples both ways (legal-tender face values above and below metal price). The Supreme Court ruling I quoted was from, IIRC, 1910.
I’ve already done so, but beyond that, you’ve already admitted it. I’m not sure what your point might be here, in the unlikely event that you actually have one.
Or, put slightly differently, you were ignorant of the law WRT the specific aspect of the law that you were mocking.
You responded to the specific argument put forth by Drum with
That is an ad hominem response, FYI.
It would, if you’re confusing the general concept of coins with the specific law authorizing platinum coins.
This is silly and ignorant even by your standards.
The treasury raises money by selling these coins because they sell them for a lot more than the face value. It’s not because the face value is higher than the value of the metal.
Beyond noting again that he did not address that issue, I would also point out that he didn’t say that anything is ridiculous.
This is ignorance, as noted above.
I gave my reason for assuming you have read the article in the sentence after the one I quoted. I said “You were responding to it.”.
I would have thought that’s a reasonable assumption that if you were responding to an article that you would have actually read it. But perhaps the lesson here is that no assumptions about reasonable behavior should be applied to you.
Your posts are like lessons in logical fallacies (among other things).
In this case, it’s called circular reasoning.
I don’t really believe that the most effective use of my time and energy in the fight against ignorance is to hoover up EVERY previously unknown (to me) fact that approaches within a country mile of my position.
Sometimes, and particularly when I’m not taking something very seriously, all I’m interested in doing is making a smart-ass remark.
Debunked upthread. BTW, in a similar vein, did you approve of your fan who compared Biden’s forgetting a constituent’s mother’s maiden name to Bush’s invading Iraq to fight the Gog and Magog of Revelations ?
In future, we’d all appreciate it if you’d save time and bypass the middlemen: Just post your “thoughts” directly to the Republicans say the stupidest things thread.
Sorry, but criticizing my OP on the basis of something brought into the thread a bit later doesn’t fly. Time travelers strictly cash, and all that.
Umm, no it isn’t. Like I said, you don’t know what ‘ad hominem’ means. I was kind enough to link you to the Wikipedia page outlining the different kinds of ad-hominem fallacies. This isn’t one of them. Sorry, thanks for playing.
And because you’ve demonstrated to my satisfaction what an idiot you are, and because there’s only so much meta even I can take, I think I’ll leave it there.
That’s fine with me.
I think this exchange speaks for itself.
Clearly not in the way you think it does.