I honestly can't think of much of anything.
Most of the birthers don't even get into the details. They just sling insults. DiogenesLamp is currently the main defender of the birther BS. I have a list of several dozen bogus claims made by him and a few of the other birthers. If the BS continues I will probably eventually get around to writing up all of the BS arguments and exactly WHY they are BS. So there's no direction for them to go except down.
His pattern is to make a bunch of fallacious claims and then keep repeating them. You debunk one, he moves to another. You debunk that, he moves to another. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually he comes back to the same ones, because he only has a limited set of BS. Fairly large, but still limited.
There was an incident in which he falsely accused me of deliberately hiding stuff because I didn't include all of a John Bingham quote that had all the wording he liked. The accusation was complete and obvious BS because earlier in the same thread I had actually included a quote from Bingham that said pretty much exactly the same thing.
He also complained about Rawle because he came from a Loyalist family. He also accused Rawle of being a liar. Fine. But like I say, there are other things about Rawle that haven't even been brought to light.
Well, I'll mention a couple. Rawle's grandfather once hired a young guy to do a printing job. The young guy wanted to get into the printing business, and the elder Rawle was his very first customer.
The young man's name was Benjamin Franklin, and that began a decades-long friendship between Franklin and the Rawle family.
In fact, DiogenesLamp has made much of the fact that Rawle went to England to study law. Ah, but do you know why? The US was so torn up with the War that opportunities to study there were limited, to say the least. And Rawle knew before he ever left for England that his plan was to go to England, study, and then return to become a lawyer in Philadelphia.
No matter which way the War went.
After about 7 months (I believe, I'm speaking from memory here) Rawle cut short his studies in England because the war was winding down, and he was eager to get back to Pennsylvania. On his way back, he bopped over to Paris to visit... guess who?
Benjamin Franklin.
Franklin's Society for Political Enquiries was an arm of the core group of Revolutionaries who started our country. They met in Franklin's house, which was THREE BLOCKS from the site of the Constitutional Convention, and they did so in preparation for that Convention. Rawle was there. He even served as the group's consultant on immigration in the runup to the Constitutional Convention, so he obviously knew something about citizenship.
George Washington and Franklin were members of the group, and it seems to be there that Rawle grew close to Washington.
The Society included at least 6 of Pennsylvania's 8 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, so it wasn't just Washington and Franklin that Rawle spent time with. I'd have to look it up again, but I'm pretty sure that all 6 of those signed the Constitution. So Rawle seems to have known at least about 1 out of every 6 or 7 signers of the Constitution.
I will add, though, that this plan doesn't seem to have been entirely set in stone. I think Rawle did at least consider the possibility of staying in England and becoming a lawyer there if the opportunities were better in England.
They weren't, though.
Jeff responds:
I honestly can't think of much of anything.
I am Shocked! Shocked! I tell, you to discover Jeff has never been refuted!
No Jeff. We reasoned with you. We showed you evidence. We asked you questions. We patiently took apart your misconceptions and goofy ideas. We GOT deep into the details. Do you know what happened?
You ignored anything and everything and kept repeating the same lying mantra over and over and over and over again until we were all finally fed up with you and so decided the only thing which could be done with you is to treat you like the psychotic figure of ridicule you so richly deserve to be.
DiogenesLamp is currently the main defender of the birther BS. I have a list of several dozen bogus claims made by him and a few of the other birthers.
No Jeff. You have a list of several dozen instances where you didn't agree, but assert that because of your role as MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE that they are wrong.
Jeff's delusion depicted below.
No Jeff, they are not Wrong, you just disagree with them because YOU are wrong. The 14th amendment is a prime example of this. You are so wrong in your understanding that it is painful to listen to you. It makes me feel dumber for having waded through that utter crap you try to pass off as reality.
I find it painful to see you deliberately chop of Robert Bingham's words where he explicitly TELLS US that the 14th amendment is not intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign parents.
The lies and deceit in you are so strong, that I can only conclude that they have metastasized from deliberate deception to the point of touching your sanity. I begin to believe you can't tell the difference anymore. You have become the victim of your own propaganda.
If the BS continues I will probably eventually get around to writing up all of the BS arguments and exactly WHY they are BS.
Yes, if we keep disagreeing with Jeff, Jeff is going to write up a bunch of arguments PROVING we are wrong because Jeff disagrees with us.
You simply have no idea how pretentious and psychotic you sound by asserting the notion that YOU can disprove anything by continuing to repeat your same lies and distortions.
His pattern is to make a bunch of fallacious claims and then keep repeating them.
Yes Jeff, tell us why we passed the 14th amendment again. Tell us how it says exactly the same thing as existing law, but we needed to pass it anyways. Tell us how NOTHING CHANGED, but we needed to ratify a constitutional amendment so that NOTHING WOULD CHANGE.
Tell us how George Washington is a "natural born citizen" of the United States Government, 44 years into his future!
Tell us again how RAWLE beats John Marshall and Bushrod Washington as an expert in the meaning of "natural born citizen"!
Keep repeating your crap Jeff, and then accuse everyone else of repeating crap!
There was an incident in which he falsely accused me of deliberately hiding stuff because I didn't include all of a John Bingham quote that had all the wording he liked.
No Jeff. I didn't object because you "didn't include all of a John Bingham quote that had all the wording he liked." I objected because you quoted it in such a way as to COMPLETELY REVERSE IT'S MEANING. You quoted him not to CLARIFY, but to produce a FALSE UNDERSTANDING of John Bingham's words.
You knew full well that John Bingham EXPLICITLY excluded children born to parents with foreign allegiance, but you cut off the part you quoted EXACTLY SO AS TO LEAVE OUT THAT PART. Then you asserted John Bingham AGREED WITH YOU!
This is the SAME F***ING TACTIC you use on ALL of your "authorities"! You simply disregard, cut out, or deliberately misconstrue their meaning beyond their words to support YOUR CLAIMS. You do so dishonestly, repeatedly, and without the slightest bit of shame, except when you get CAUGHT AT IT, and then claim it was just an "honest mistake".
I'm not dealing with the rest of your message. Rawle's personal history does not address the point that HIS interpretation directly contradicts that of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, and that of Associate Justice Bushrod Washington who explicitly used Vattel's definition for citizenship and further stated that it was the BEST DEFINITION which has come to his hand.
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: The Venus - 12 U.S. 253 (1814)
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."
My two Supreme Court Justices beat your Bloody English trained lawyer who had lunch with Washington and Franklin.