I don't know why you bother talking to her. Barking dogs make more sense.
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.
Your insults are becoming [even more] petty and juvenile. You would be right at home on DU; this is the level of discourse they seem unable to rise above.
Never having been on DU, I will have to defer to your obvious experience with that forum and what they do there.
People who rely on lies and childish insults to deal w conservatives are DUers in spirit if not in fact.
Again, I will defer to your experience in that area.
If it walks like a DUer and talks like a DUer....
Only a person with an ocean of toleracne could continue any “debate” with you, since your tactics at this point have whittle down to lies, insults and mindless repetition of same.
Your comments in support of 0h0m0’s legitimacy are as transparent as freshly washed glass. You’re not worth whatever you’re being paid; and if you’re a volunteer, you’re wasting your time.
Sheer blind idiocy.
Quid pro quo. Obama promoted Gonzalez to Chief justice of the bandruptcy court three days before Gonzalez committed fraud.
He isn’t the only corrupt Democratic Party judge out there either, and since Obama is going to lose the next election, a lot of people will be going to prison.
Who knows, maybe even you!
I know exactly how you feel.
The argument that Vattel is the basis for the Article II definition is not a fringe theory. There is a large trail of documentation to indicate that it is quite a solid argument. It is only asserted to be "fringe" by those people who hate it's ramifications. Rather than do the research and refute it on the basis of documentation, people simply form up into group-think herds and then screech at their common Apostatic predators.
We’ve seen over and over that when you get answers, you simply rule them incorrect and continue.
That is a reasonable thing to do when they are in fact, Incorrect.
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.
And you folks keep trotting out Black's, (1891) and Blackstone, (British Law) and Wong Kim Ark,(Citizen, not "natural born citizen") and the 14th amendment,(Granting citizenship to former slaves) to prove what something written in 1787 was supposed to mean regarding Presidential eligibility. You Ignore the letter from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay, which explicitly states the purpose of the resulting included article, (To bar foreign influence in the office of the Presidency) you ignore the fact that the founders rejected an alternative version of Article II, You ignore the fact that Vattel is specifically cited during the Constitutional convention, You Ignore the very intimate understanding of Vattel that the founders possessed, (and all evidence which demonstrates this intimacy) you Ignore Subsequent statements by contemporaneous Judges, Politicians, text books, and a whole host of historical documents, in truth, you are either not serious, or just plain dishonest. "Experts" will not make truth out of falsehood. They may tell you what the majority opinion is currently, but that does not make the majority opinion correct. We have only to look at the example of the last Presidential election to immediately realize the Majority made the stupidest choice humanly possible, and were therefore "incorrect."
I thought you did really well under the circumstances. I never bothered w that poster because at first I thought he/she couldn’t even spell Vattel. When I realized he/she can, but thinks it’s somehow cool, or is making some sort of statement, to relentlessly misspell it, I said, ‘uh oh; way too immature/petty/out of kilter for me.’
;)
I don't know why you bother talking to her. Barking dogs make more sense.
:)
My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, is here working on her brief, and she said the Indiana case was, "adjudicated on its merits" which she says means that it was NOT dismissed on the issue of "standing." She said when a case is dismissed on issues of standing, the court is usually nice enough to put something in the decision which says, "The Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the instant action." She said you will at least find the word "standing" in the decision.
She says the Indiana case DID INDEED rule on the "legal stuff", clearly holding that the "Vattle Birthers" [my words, she said "Plainitffs"]were completely wrong about the law and their interpretation of it. She said to cut and paste this part of the Indiana case:
"The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."
She said this part "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions" means that the "Vattle Birthers"[my words, she said "Plaintiffs"] did not present any legal basis for their claims---in other words, what they plead was just a "bunch of crap", not actual recognizable law. Fabia said the legal term for "Vattle Birther Law" is "Spucatum tauri."
She also said you are completely wrong on your analysis, and that you simply don't understand what you are talking about. The Court did not say the "case" did not exist---they said the "Vattle Birther" legal theories are what do not exist, at least in this Universe.
I thanked Fabia Sheen, Esq. for taking her time to explain this.
You requested: “Please do not address me any further.”
No problemo!!! However, I do reserve the right to write an Internet Article on my website about how my logic was too much for one of the Vattle Birthers to handle.
Ann Coulter is a vehement Anti-Birther, yet her argument in this article dovetails precisely with the birther argument. Funny how that works out.
Though I have no knowledge regarding George Will's specific opinion of the Birther issue, He too makes an argument that dovetails nicely with the birther argument.
Can you count two Conservative Intellectual giants as on your side if they are making one of your arguments?
In any case, your comment is nothing more than a combination of argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum. (An appeal to "experts" and an appeal to the "many") You seem like a knowledgeable enough chap to be aware of such fallacies, yet here you are using them. For a knowledgeable debater, it was either a mistake, or an intentional effort to be disingenuous. (deceive. You know better, but you hope the rubes don't. )
Are you not aware that facts are not proven because someone, or many someones says so?
Strange that you recognize ad-hominem as a fallacy, yet not argumentum ad verecundiam, or argumentum ad populum. Or as I mentioned earlier, perhaps you do, and are not above trying to pass a fallacy to the "rubes."
And that would be a true statement.
And that would be an ad-hominem attack against "birthers." What I will do is say Mark Levin either has more knowledge or less knowledge regarding this subject than does the Birthers who have studied it. Mark Levin may possibly have very good information regarding why he is correct and we are wrong. I would very much like to hear his evidence and argument, but given that Presidential eligibility is a small backwater cul-de-sac of constitutional study, I would be greatly surprised if he actually has enough specific knowledge about this tiny little aspect of the constitution to express an informed opinion. His opinion certainly contradicts the evidence of which *I* am aware.
The commonly used argument of "Shut Up! That's why!" is rather weak and unpersuasive, especially to people who recognize no betters among us, and revere the principle of freedom. Are you such a person?
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.