Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Dude, I cannot believe you are continuing this argument.
|
I can't believe that you still try to evade admitting that you were wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
1. There have now been THREE lawsuits on this same topic.
Source: your own kitv article. This is madness.
|
Contrary to you, I'm at least quoting a well-respected news site from a broadcasting company instead of weblogs or other unfunded sources, if any at all. I gave you the option to find further sources through Google to verify this yourself, too, should I add another dozen links that tell the same story? But wait, why don't you do your homework yourself?
Where's that Kenyan birth certificate, BTW? Or evidence for some of the other myths that you brought up, and which I debunked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
2. Some Democratic functionaire saying 'yes he has a legitimate' birth certificate is of *no* legal validity.
|
A statement by the Department of Health's director for verification is good enough for a layman like me unless somebody successfully disproves this in court. I don't see how the political position of the Department of Health's director matters. Yeah, "unfortunately", he is a Democrat. There's a 50/50 chance for that, perhaps a little more so if he's from Hawai'i. So what? As you already said, the prosecution is a Democrat, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Releasing a document on a webs site is of *no* legal validity.
|
Apparently some rumor on the web is good enough for you to challenge legal validity, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
A. Any candidate should have to prove his qualifications.
B. Obama should have just released his birth certificate to the court, instead of squashing the suit on techical grounds.
If you want to argue with me - address those two points. I don't even see how anyone can think otherwise.
|
ad A.: like McCain, too. Remember that Obama wasn't the only one with allegations of unsure citizenship. Not that I'd think there would be reason to doubt that.
ad B.: the one that squashed the case was the judge. Regardless if there was a hearing or not, what the judge decides is what's "right". I'm not a lawyer, but I'd suppose that if a judge dismisses a case then that doesn't have to do with the defendant evading a trial, but, and let me quote you here again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
There have now been three *stupid* and time wasting lawsuits on this stupid subject. How many do we have to have? How does that help anyone? Its a big enough deal to enough people.
|
... but, continuing my sentence from above, to avoid a nonsensical lawsuit with no sign of success that does little more but waste the time of the defendant, the judge, the jury, and the taxpayer's money over a lunatic's pipe dream.
As I already said, Berg brought the case before the US Supreme Court now. Let's see what they say about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
There is a logical tactic called Reductio ad absurdum - lets use it now.
[some hypothetical scenario and calling me a liar]
|
I don't see how this matters. Desperation? And I'm really getting tired when I have to repeat myself for people that are too slow or too stubborn to admit that their arguments are groundless and that they have to take them back. I already gave you the choice between humble pie or crow to eat.
Somebody else fight the tin-foil hat people from here on, please. Unless chrispedersen admits that he's at a fault and/or apologizes, I don't care anymore.