Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.
You said: “The Minor v Happersett court didn’t decide the issue of NBC because it was outside the scope of the case. . .”
Well, you are right about this but you better tell the other Vattle Birthers because they just swear this case is the one that proves their whole theory. But, I think you are wrong on all the other stuff you said.
This thread probably has text book examples of all the dirty “debate” tactics; all on the pro-0bama side; not that they will openly admit that’s what they are but a first grader can see what they are and whose side they’re on.
You said it! The downfall of liberals is to assume conservatives are stupid. No matter how many times they burn their hand in that fire, they can’t resist sticking it in just once more. It’s like Rush says. Set a bag of manure anywhere in the vicinity of a liberal, and they’ll find a way to step in it. But as the old insanity saying goes, they just keep doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. If they could learn from their mistakes, they’d be conservatives.
I speak from experience. ;)
Too funny!
Exactly!
“The claimant is not entitled to a legal remedy” is a denial of standing. That IS the ruling, period.
I don't think so. Dr. Taitz kept getting thrown out for standing and they didn't even rule on her legal stuff. These people lost because their law stuff was all screwed up wrong. I bet that is why they discussed the Vattle Birther legal theories and then said they were wrong. I will double check with my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. tomorrow but she may not take the time to look at it because she thinks all this stuff is stupid. If you know a lawyer, you might want to ask them too.
OH Plus, I have been working on a easier to read version of Wong Kim Ark. It is like torture, but just putting the quotes in indents helps a lot.Here is a linky thingy:
This court is claiming there isn’t a case, that the claimant didn’t file anything for which they were entitled to a legal remedy. There was no ruling on “the legal stuff” because the court denied there even WAS any legal stuff. They said there was no case. Period. Everything else the court said was just bloviating about a case they had already said didn’t exist.
Differences Standing and Failure to State A Claim
I will still try to get Fabia to explain it tomorrow when I help her type and put together her brief.
“You think conservatives are stupid rubes.”
You tell not the truth. I know of only one arguably prominent conservative who is a birther, and that’s Alan Keyes who is famous mostly for losing.
“No sore loser. Gonzalez committed fraud by changing testimony of a witness.”
That was among Donofrio’s arguments that the Circuit court found “utterly frivolous” without dissent.
Now where is your evidence that Obama made some deal with this judge to get the case thrown out? You made the accusation.
“Oh, geez. Have you looked at what Donofrio has shown on that judge?”
Oh yes, it was fascinating to see him turn his intellect against himself and become convinced he had a case when he so obviously did not. The Professional poker player kept raising the stakes when anyone could see he was beat. Now they’re taking all his chips.
“Shall I go on?”
Go on misrepresenting what the Courts held? Can I stop you?
“I can’t imagine you would. It’s a mere question. All you have to do is answer.”
Well, that’s not my recollection. Your first question, I answered directly: I’ve posted on just a few other subjects, and yes, I’m here on the birther issue. It was your continuing focus on me, rather than the subject at issue, that I took as an ad-hominem attack. It was certainly ad-hominem, directed at the person rather than the argument, but maybe I went to far in describing it as an attack.
“A common thread among all the anti-Vattel conservative intellectuals is that their explanation of their position always seems to be:
‘Shut Up! That’s why!’”
Unless they want to make a hobby of fringe theories, that’s what they have to do. We’ve seen over and over that when you get answers, you simply rule them incorrect and continue. If you want the answer, you can simply go to /Black’s Law Dictionary/ and look it up. Don’t expect the real experts to devote their time to novices who think they know better.
Just because I'm less than impressed with you and your friends? I should think you would be used to that by now.
No "Us" meaning "people blubbering about being harassed" simply because someone asks them a question. It's really pretty amusing.
You’ve graduated from repeatedly lying about me to serially insulting me.
You, and you alone, are the one making this personal.
In doing so, you’re acting just like a true conservative.
NOT.
How is the question, ‘have you ever criticized Obama’ directed at you as a person? It’s directed at your your opinions and attitudes, specifically re: Obama. He is literally destroying the country. It would be a herculean feat for the average conservative to belong to a conservative site for a year and never utter even a mildly critical thing about Obama. Yet when I ask about it, this sets off red flags for you?
The first half of your screen name seems to describe your view of the world to perfection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.