Gee, that judge who wrote the opinion I gave you did. People in the non-birther world don’t have a problem with that. Have you even read the decision, pages 13-18? And please don’t pull some “But I don’t like that site or that judge” blather.
Let me put it non-legal terms for you. You’re 25 years old again! You got a first date with this hot chick. You’re feeling “lovey.” Now when you get her back to your pad, you have two options.
1. A nice candlelit dinner, wine, and watching When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, and You’ve got Mail on the cozy living room sofa in front of the fireplace.
2. You have whips, chains, leather, 2 inflatable dolls, His and Her matching tricyclces, and a 55 gallon drum of Crisco Lard, just inside the front door and a sling hanging from your chandelier.
Now, I submit, that even in today’s environment, you probably ain’t getting very far with Option 2.
Option one is probably your best bet.
The reason is that Option 2 requires a whole lot of energy and a willingness to go place where few have dared to go. Option 1, is natural, and in accordance with the Way...Tao, dude.
Courts are the same way. They can go that comfortable way, with language and decisions that are familiar, and American....or they can go with some dead Swiss dude from 17 something or nother, and a tortured line of reasoning that makes for a lot more work in the future.
parsy, who’s betting on Wong
ROTFLMAO.....
I disagree with your interp. of Wong, but DAAAAAYMN... that was funnier than hell!
You mean that Indiana state case where they punted as in writing obfuscations from their desk so they don’t have to see the NBC issue go to trial on the merits ....that case really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.