You always think you know what is “really” going on while the rest of us are, well idiots is the word I think you used once before.
I think the issue you now raise is in fact the spin to attempt to discredit the issue.
Once I pointed out to you thqt contrary to your statements SCOTUS has not thrown out the cases you reload with new trash to enlighten us rubes.
I know you won’t stop, but you’re an idiot.
Star Traveler, no matter how much you try to cloud the issue by writing six pages of gibberish in hopes of confusing someone, SCOTUS has not, repeat, not thrown out the cases. They will meet January 9, 2009 and again January 16, 2009.
You said — “You always think you know what is “really” going on while the rest of us are, well idiots is the word I think you used once before.”
I’m quoting from other detractors. I’ve never said that this is what I think. However, I do fully well recognize that this is what a lot of others do think, and I point that out. You have to be careful about attributing that to me.
And, for what I think is going on, I have given references that tie together Berg, Ed Hale and Chief Editor Korir — and — the Dark Socrates methodology that was used just recently.
—
You then said — “I think the issue you now raise is in fact the spin to attempt to discredit the issue.”
Ummmm..., I’m not the only one that has seen this. This Chief Editor Korir was followed by a whole bunch of people trying to get him to release the Michelle Obama tape where she admitted Obama was born in Kenya. They also know that Berg signed on to be the lawyer for Chief Editor Korir. They also saw how Ed Hale got involved with Chief Editor Korir.
If anything is discredited, it certainly is not by “the messenger” bringing you the details of what thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of others already know. It’s just that many — here — may not know it. It would serve them well to *know* those facts — which are *real facts* to be sure....
—
You said — “Once I pointed out to you thqt contrary to your statements SCOTUS has not thrown out the cases you reload with new trash to enlighten us rubes.”
I’ve said the same thing all along about the Supreme Court. It simply does not look like they have any inclination to undo an election or prevent Obama from taking office — and perhaps not even in giving Berg “standing” in his case.
I doubt that they will have anything to do with the retired officer who Berg is lodging a complaint for.
And, even if Berg does get his “standing” — it’s only going back down to the lower court. By the time everything winds it way all through the lower court and all the hearings and filings and then back to the Supreme Court again — Obama will already be in his second term (if he even runs again).
That’s why I’ve said that we need state laws to prevent Obama from taking office for a second term. But, that seems *way too easy* for many here... LOL...
It’s better to be perceived chasing this around (and have the Dark Socratic methodology hanging over you) than working for a state legislative solution to stop Obama from taking office again...
—
And finally you said — “I know you won’t stop, but you’re an idiot.”
Ummm..., just pointing these things out is making one an idiot? I mean, it’s not escaping a lot of other people’s observations either. I’m not the only one. Besides, when were we supposed to be resorting to calling names. I’ve certainly not done that. But, I have recognized that there are those who are calling people names — like look in that Dark Socratic methodology video and you’ll see it there (for example...).