Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
You are factually wrong. The lawsuit was filed Aug 28. The day after Obama became the nominee.
|
He
first filed this lawsuit on Aug 21, so a week before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
The lawsuit filed does have several affidavits in support of its position. Motions for dismissal were defeated. Ergo, the motion has some basis.
|
I said that he doesn't have any documented evidence, and he doesn't. All he does is poking around in the dark and trying to besmirch Obama's reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
There is *no* chance it will be resolved in favor of berg, as the date of hearing was after the US election - so you won't have to adjust your position, will you?
|
Right. If it is being resolved in favor of Berg, I'll do that, of course. Just a mere accusation doesn't make it a fact, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
To put matters into a bit of perspective: I filed a lawsuit yesterday. I got a hearing on December 8. Berg filed his lawsuit Aug 28. He doesn't get a hearing until..... January? Why do you suppose that is?
|
I haven't followed it closely, but I guess it's pretty obvious to see what the real idea behind that lawsuit was. You probably don't stop a presidential candidate's campaign just because some lunatic files a complaint, as he is legally entitled to do. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick
dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because Obama did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
As for the empty rantings comment - I am here after going to ignore your arguments as you have chosen to ignore mine.
|
I'm sorry, but I have a scientific background and arguments not based on factual evidence, or based on wrong facts, are void to me. Since I have found out that this applies to yours, I guess it's time to give up instead of keeping up this charade any longer, yes.