Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005 Status: offline
|
You have no clue do you ? First of all if Obama really was a pro at this game he would let them say whatever they want. Then he can rightly accuse them of lying and back it up with facts. This is like a chess game with them bringing out a rook, and he warns them not to take his knight, but doesn't mention that his queen is poised to take the rook afterward. I would trade one knight for one rook, but not both. Let me give you a scenario. This odd website pops up, a REALLY wierd group gets enough money to get on TV. Let's say they alledge that Obama is a baby killer, a baby burner and all that, and that he eats his neighbors' dogs and cats. What would you do if you were he ? I would respond, not react. I would run an ad with my family and a couple of animals. "They say I'm a baby killer, [hold up a kid] do you see any burn marks ? Does he look burned to you ? See this dog, look close for teeth marks, satisfy yourself. At the very least I know this, if there are any teethmarks on this dog, they are not mine". However there is another contingency. What was cited would be evidence of warning. In a libel case, if the opposition had run false derogatory ads, especially right before the election so that nothing can be proven or disproved, and the election is within a scant few points, a close run, Obama would have a case in tort law. In some cases at tort law, the plaintiff must have warned the defendant at some point that continuing his actions would result in legal action. This is not extortion. The case has alot more merit no matter what, when there is solid evidence of a warning. Generally when you are dealing with an encroachment on property lines and things like that you give written notice. If part of their garage is already built and it is on your property a bit, if you didn't watch what was going on you would have a very hard time not allowing the easement. If you gave notice they would have to tear it down. Unnastan ? Tort law is funny, there are many aspects of it, but the part involved now is slander and libel. It would be interesting to see what price the court or jury would put on winning the election. Obama is a lawyer. He is a member of the bar no doubt and as per the real amendments should not hold office. But he is the lesser of two evils. That is not the point. They only recognize the laws that suit them at the moment. Why would anybody think that would change ? Now, when faced with an environment where you are not held to account for your actions from day one, what would you do, if you were playing the game ? T
|