Replies

This is an interesting thread. I generally stay away from them, but you've provided me reading material for a week.

But what's really interesting are the visceral reactions to your citations. In that week's worth of reading, I might find some holes in your reasoning, or I might not. But these people are like members of a cult.

If I wanted to go after you, I'd start with your assertions about Rawle. That would appear to be the shortest route. But these people can't be bothered with it. It's all "lies." And I'm a "troll" for pointing it out. Like I stated, a cult.

But what's really interesting are the visceral reactions to your citations. In that week's worth of reading, I might find some holes in your reasoning, or I might not. But these people are like members of a cult.

If you do find some holes in my reasoning, let me know. If I find they're legitimate holes, I will of course correct them.

If I wanted to go after you, I'd start with your assertions about Rawle. That would appear to be the shortest route. But these people can't be bothered with it. It's all "lies." And I'm a "troll" for pointing it out. Like I stated, a cult.

There are still some things I know biographically about Rawle that I've never even gotten around to writing about. He was an even better source than I've even written about.

Like I stated, a cult.

Exactly. I have tried to avoid using that term, but it's clearly true.

I am noticing the development of a similar kind of cult among folks who believe that Zimmerman was guilty, that the Zimmerman jury was wrong and that some court must remedy the jury's error by reversing the jury's decision and enter its own finding of guilt. They just cannot accept that no court has the power to reverse the jury's acquittal. They believe that there must somehow be a judicial solution for every action they view as a "mistake."

At what point will these Vattel fans accept that the voters and their electors have decided these eligibility issues and will again in 2016? At what point will it dawn on them that our Supreme Court knows that it has no power to disqualify candidates, to select presidents or to overrule the decisions of the voters and their electors? In 2008 and again in 2012, the Chief Justice volunteered to administer the oath of office to Obama. He's not required to do that. In 2008 and again in 2012, most of the members of our Supreme Court volunteered to attend the inauguration ceremony for Obama. Shouldn't that be enough evidence for anyone not in a cult to conclude that the members of the Supreme Court either do not agree with this cult's exotic views regarding "natural born citizen" or recognize that it is not a proper judicial function to second-guess the decisions of voters and their electors?

If Ted Cruz runs in 2016, he will have my support and I will work to convince other voters that he is very qualified to serve as our next president. I pray that they agree with me.

Ted Cruz - 2016

Writing to Jeff, 1rudeboy said:
This is an interesting thread. I generally stay away from them, but you've provided me reading material for a week.

Circular reasoning can be pursued for infinity.

But what's really interesting are the visceral reactions to your citations. In that week's worth of reading, I might find some holes in your reasoning, or I might not. But these people are like members of a cult.

We are like people REACTING to members of a cult, to which they have been exposed far too long. Jeff is a crack pot. If you want to find out, just FIND one of those "holes in his reasoning" to which you referred.

At first he'll politely disagree. If you keep insisting that it is a hole, eventually the crazy will come out in him.

Here, i'll even help you out in finding one of those "holes" in his reasoning. Ask him how George Washington is a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America, rather than a "natural born subject" of King George III.

When you're done with that "HOLE" in his reasoning, ask him why the 14th amendment was created.

Jeff's sanity will not withstand scrutiny.

If I wanted to go after you, I'd start with your assertions about Rawle. That would appear to be the shortest route. But these people can't be bothered with it. It's all "lies." And I'm a "troll" for pointing it out. Like I stated, a cult.

Already did that. Massive numbers of threads are LITTERED with arguments about his "authority" Rawle. I probably know more about Rawle than Jeff does.

I've even kept some of my research on Rawle. A sample:

Rawle LOST that case, by the Way. The High Court of Errors and Appeals(Predecessor to the later named "Supreme Court") found UNANIMOUSLY against Rawle's arguments that English Common law made citizens of Slaves born here.

Rawle was undeterred. When he wrote his book, he got the last laugh.