To: Non-Sequitur; All
But yet you can’t explain your ‘cracked the lack of standing’ comment. I’d be interested in knowing how you stumbled into that conclusion when the judge hasn’t even ruled on the defense’s motion to dismiss on, among other grounds, lack of standing. Can you explain that part at least? 
It's not that I can't — it's that I won't
|
657 posted on
09/09/2009 11:00:57 AM PDT by
BP2
(I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
To: BP2
Can you explain that part at least? NopeYou're right. He's fishing for info. Cut him off.
661 posted on
09/09/2009 11:08:40 AM PDT by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: BP2
It's not that I can't — it's that I won't No, I do believe it's the can't.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson