To all you Anti-Birthers who said we have to defeat Obama at the ballot box...

today | DiogenesLamp

[Jeff Winston]

So you are sticking with this theory, eh? Well the typesetter for the Alexandria Herald must have also got it wrong because he printed the same dates.

Of course he printed the same thing as appeared in the Enquirer. Did you not read the note in the Alexandria Herald that said the article had been taken from the Enquirer?

Could we consider the possibility that the dates are correct, and that it is your theory regarding them which is in error? No doubt demonstrating you to be incorrect is a waste of your time.

Even if the theory should be incorrect (and rereading the article, it's ossible that it might be) it doesn't matter.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right, and that it took the Madison administration a year and a half to help McClure. So freaking what? Being right about how long it took the Madison administration to help McClure would only show that they took a long time. It wouldn't show why.

This whole conversation is a great example of what birthers do. They decide what they want to claim, and then they twist or stretch or make up evidence to support it.

You claim that McClure was found to be a citizen on the basis of his father's naturalization. But that simply isn't the case. The letter from the US government cited simply the fact that he was born in the US. If his father's naturalization had been the important thing, they would have sent a letter instead that said, "Mr. McClure is a US citizen because his father naturalized in such-and-such year, and he received automatic naturalization along with that." And in fact, they could not and would not have said, "McClure is a citizen because he was born in the US," because in that instance, he would not have been a US citizen until his father naturalized.

So, any time birthers are confronted with evidence against their claims, they simply ignore it and move the goal posts. "Well, he had to, like, not be a citizen because the governemtn took so long to respond. Yeah, that's it."

And it's all BS.

In fact, it is so much BS that I really don't know why JimRob tolerates it. I guess there must be some decent donors who are birthers. I suppose that would be a significant enough reason for most folks.

[DiogenesLamp]

Trying to follow your logic makes my head hurt. I’ll get back with you some other time when i’m more in the mood for it.

[Jeff Winston]

That’s because (assuming you’re sincere in your beliefs, which you may be) you’re not a terribly logical person.

Just because you and a bunch of other people really want Obama to be ineligible, doesn’t make it so.

Just because it’s possible for you to twist facts, the Constitution, and history to make them seem to say what you want them to say, doesn’t mean they actually say that.

And just because your fellow FReepers disagree with your beliefs doesn’t mean they are trolls, closet liberals, or agents of Obama.

If you and the rest of the birthers had been right, I’m sure that pretty much everyone you’ve come into conflict with here would have supported you wholeheartedly.

You use a handle here that implies you are “looking for an honest man.” And then, when you find honest men, what do you do? You portray them as “trolls,” agents of Obama or useless fools, and in general do everything you possibly can to assassinate their character.

[Jeff Winston]

I’m going to qualify something I said.

You may be “logical.” But if you are, your “logic” is misapplied.

“Logic” can always be used to justify a false conclusion.

Honesty doesn’t decide what to believe and then go looking for ways to prove it. Honesty asks what the truth is. Period.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s because (assuming you’re sincere in your beliefs, which you may be) you’re not a terribly logical person.

Oh, i'm extremely logical. I do electronic engineering and computer programing. If my logic doesn't work, neither does my projects.

And just because your fellow FReepers disagree with your beliefs doesn’t mean they are trolls, closet liberals, or agents of Obama.

And this is the part that I find hard to understand. I take it for granted that it is true, because I see so many people who are arguing on behalf of Obama's legitimacy that in commentary on other issues display a solid conservative position. Why they chose to defend him is simply bizarre to me.

If you and the rest of the birthers had been right, I’m sure that pretty much everyone you’ve come into conflict with here would have supported you wholeheartedly.

Not at all. People had been taught wrong for so many years, that they simply can't conceive of it being any other way. People simply overlook the fact that their definition is silly and serves no purpose, allowing such absurdities as "Anchor Babies", non-citizen Indians, Non-Citizen slaves, and Ignoring thousands of British Loyalists born after the Revolution yet considered British Subjects by both the Americans and the British.

Further information on the subject.

[DiogenesLamp]

Honesty doesn’t decide what to believe and then go looking for ways to prove it. Honesty asks what the truth is. Period.

So tell me about the thousands of children of British Loyalists. (born after July 4, 1776.) Did the founders consider them Americans or were they British?

[Jeff Winston]

I take it for granted that it is true, because I see so many people who are arguing on behalf of Obama's legitimacy that in commentary on other issues display a solid conservative position. Why they chose to defend him is simply bizarre to me.

"Taking something for granted" means assuming it.

Your assumption is wrong.

And your understanding of the entire situation is wrong.

I can't recall having seen a single person here defend Obama.

I have seen people defend the truth.

I have seen people defend the Constitution.

I have seen people defend the law.

And I have seen people defend reality.

If you don't defend the truth, the Constitution, and the law, even when you may not particularly like what they say, and even when you may not particularly like their implications, then you are not defending the truth, the Constitution, and the law at all.

You are only defending what you would like those things to be.

[Jeff Winston]

So tell me about the thousands of children of British Loyalists. (born after July 4, 1776.) Did the founders consider them Americans or were they British?

You tell me about their parents.

If people who had been British loyalists remained in America after the Declaration of Independence, and remained in America after the Revolutionary War, and chose not to remove themselves to England, but to stay and participate in America, were such people British, or were they Americans?

[DiogenesLamp]

You are only defending what you would like those things to be.

And that is an assumption on your part. There is plenty of evidence in the Historical record that supports my understanding of what is a "natural citizen." There is also evidence that supports yours. I just happen to perceive that your definition serves no purpose, and therefore violates my basic belief that the founders were not idiots.

Your understanding is based on endless repetition of mostly what uninvolved legal people have subsequently said. (Misinterpreted Precedent.) My understanding is based on what the founders said were their intentions and in regards to the principles they put forth while establishing this nation.

On a separate issue, there is a lot more to the story of Captain James McClure than I think you realize. From what I have learned so far, it sounds like it would make a great movie.

[DiogenesLamp]

You tell me about their parents.

If people who had been British loyalists remained in America after the Declaration of Independence, and remained in America after the Revolutionary War, and chose not to remove themselves to England, but to stay and participate in America, were such people British, or were they Americans?

You first. :)

[Truthsearcher]

You still don’t get it.

The problem is not Obama, the problem is that we have 51% of the population would vote for him. That’s the real problem, and it goes far deeper as is far more troubling.

Removing Obama will do nothing to solve the real problem, as long as you have a population like that, removing him will only bring in someone else who will play the same “redistribution for votes” game.

[Jeff Winston]

There is plenty of evidence in the Historical record that supports my understanding of what is a "natural citizen."

Not that I've seen. And like quite a few other people here, I've actually looked. And not just once. Birthers have brought up all kinds of stuff here. You go and check it out, and the reality just doesn't match the hype.

As for the founders being idiots, they most certainly weren't. But that doesn't mean they did things according to the way you or I, more than 200 years later, think they "ought" to have done them. They did them as they did them, and they had their reasons. Some things they cared a lot about, and some not so much.

On a separate issue, there is a lot more to the story of Captain James McClure than I think you realize. From what I have learned so far, it sounds like it would make a great movie.

If they make a great movie out of it, I'll probably watch it.

[Jeff Winston]

The problem is not Obama, the problem is that we have 51% of the population would vote for him. That’s the real problem, and it goes far deeper as is far more troubling.

Removing Obama will do nothing to solve the real problem, as long as you have a population like that, removing him will only bring in someone else who will play the same “redistribution for votes” game.

BINGO!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

[Enduro Guy]

Therein lies another problem. How do we know that there truly is a 51% that voted for him?