Replies

You are just so full of it. You have no way to defend your Constitutional position, because it's indefensible. So you come up with all these stupid insinuations and ad-hominem attacks.

Jeff, you're insufferable, and nothing more than a motor-mouthed jabberwocky who turns out pages of text to try and silence those you disagree with. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have the capacity or analytical aptitude to make (or comprehend) a reasoned argument.

I asked you a very simple hypothetical question about a month or so ago, regarding what sort of citizenship would be most preferred for the office of President, by a body of people framing the constitution for a new government.

I laid out four or five common circumstances of birth, and asked you which of those would produce a citizen most likely to remain true and loyal to his countrymen and their founding compact.

It was a very simple exercise in reason, and you could have answered correctly in short order, but you didn't because you realized that the most logical and correct answer to the question would deflate your entire anti-birther argument.

In fact, you made me demand an answer to the question over the course of half a dozen exchanges or more. That showed clear evasion and intellectual dishonesty on your part. The clincher was when you finally replied, "I haven't really thought much about that."

Incredible. You've probably posted more words on the NBC subject than any poster in FR history, yet I'm supposed to accept your feigned inattention to the very core of the issue? Please, don't insult my intelligence.

You backed down and pretended that you didn't notice you'd been checkmated.

Well, I noticed it, Jeff. It's why I've written you off. You blinked at the most critical moment in this long and winding argument, which shows that you have nothing when it comes right down to it.

Personally, I'm convinced that you're working for Team Obama. No one invests the sort of time and energy into an issue as you have, unless they're being paid for it, they're fighting for their very life, or they've got an unhealthy obsession of some sort.

I don't think I ignored your question.

But before I respond further, I want to point out the double standard here.

I've pointed out literally DOZENS of fallacious arguments by the Constitutional conspiracy-mongers and Constitution-twisters here.

Just in the last day or so I listed 3 different things that DiogenesLamp said, that are clearly, absolutely FALSE.

The first was when he falsely accused me of being a "liar."

Ah, we can dismiss those. And the dozens and dozens of other bogus arguments I've pointed out.

Oh, but if someone in the course of months asks me some question, and I don't answer it to their satisfaction, oh my! I've "lost the argument."

Bull.

I don't think I ignored your question then (although I might have, I get so much stuff directed my way that it's hard to keep up with it at all times). And I answered it today, above.

The answer is that it's NOT "the most critical moment" or "the core of the issue," as you maintain.

You can justify literally just about anything by asking, "What would the Founders do?"

The measure of "what the Founders would do" is NOT your idea or mine, or Billy Bob Sampson's speculation about what he thinks, or imagines, or hopes the Founders would do.

The measure of what the Founders "would do" is WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID.

That's it.

The measure of what the Founders "would do" is our HISTORY and OUR LAW. The HISTORY and the LAWS that they put in place.

That's why I've never tried to approach the question by asking theoreticals from a distance of 225 years away.

I ask not what the Founders "would" do, but what they actually DID.

Now you don't like what they did. I understand that.

It doesn't change what they did.

Did you found the United States of America? Or did they? Did you write the Constitution and set the rules for citizenship? Or did they?

So that's the approach I've taken. It's to ask: What did the Founders do?

And THAT is why I find myself at odds with the birthers. Because when push comes to shove, they really don't care what the Founders actually did.

Oh, if it happens to agree with them, then they'll accept it. If it doesn't, they'll pretend the Founders did something else, whatever it is that THEY like. And they'll pretend to give lip service to the Founders while denying those same Founders' actions and words.

I'm not here to give lip service to the Constitution.