OK, I will grant that given the question posed by the original article to this thread, the way I phrased that was deficient. Better to have said:
"He claims (agreeing with the article) that the original intent of "natural born citizen" required citizen parents."
To that claim I say "No." (The site owner here also says "No.")
Other posters (AV, John Valentine, Freepersup) seem to say "Yes.'
So those I've interacted with have addressed the thread topic either "Yes" or "No." That's the question: does the Constitution require that to be President a person be born to citizen parents? The thread isn't taking a straw poll of still largely undeclared candidates.
So on the thread topic, everyone has weighed in. Except you.
So I keep asking: "Do you agree with DL and the others who read Vattel into Article II or do you agree with Mr. Robinson and me that such theory is a bunch of historical and Constitutional hooey?" That's the keep-on-topic question.
You remind me of Bill Clinton. Whenever he makes a bad golf shot, he takes a mulligan.
How you phrased it stands. In light of that phraseology, as explained above, it opens the door for a crucially pertinent and important question. Namely, would you/do you support Ted Cruz for POTUS? Would you be delighted if he wins?
This is coercion from down the barrel of a gun, and it demonstrates what a piece of scum you are. Why resort to facts and reason when you can use arm twisting?
That demonstrates exactly the sort of person you are. You don't want the truth, you want compliance. I believe the Nazis called this "Gleichschaltung ".
Best proof ever that you're a Liberal. Punishing dissent is their goto tactic.