Astonishing.
The guy accuses others of being a LIAR for supposedly not posting all of what Bingham had to say (specifically, the "not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty" language) when he had already posted it a bunch of times to present his spurious claims - so it was clearly already out there - and when I actually HAD posted a nearly identical quote from Bingham upthread.
So THEN, he goes and edits Madisons quote - selectively eliminating a whole passage that is absolutely relevant to the meaning without even providing an ellipsis to show he's deleted stuff.
Here's the full quote, with the part that he selectively eliminated highlighted:
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.
He also stripped the entire quote of its context by failing to include the complaint it was a response to:
There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the people secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common-Law which stands here upon no other Foundation than it's having been adopted by the respective Acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.
Then, when you call him on his dishonesty, he calls you a "Pr*ck!!"
Man. You just can't make this stuff up.
Once again, for about the 10th time in this thread, he has revealed his own dishonesty and hypocrisy. I could hardly say it better than you did:
Look, it's clear that your only standard for the quality or integrity of an argument is whether you agree with it.
There are obviously two sets of rules: those that anyone who disagrees with him must abide by, and a completely different set of rules for him.
Of course, he's in a lose/lose situation. He can either sit by and watch his nutjob claims being taken apart piece by piece, or he can actively participate in the destruction by continuing to make fallacious argument after fallacious argument and have himself revealed as an ass again and again and again. So far, he's chosen to actively participate.
I'm not sure what he gets out of being repeatedly and publicly outed as a jackass, but hey, it's kind of entertaining.
And you have the nerve to name yourself after Diogenes!
A couple of years ago, in one of my early encounters with this loon, I was darned near mowed down by shrapnel from an exploding heavy-duty industrial irony meter due to that name. The guy creates a screen name that implies he's looking for an honest man. Then, as soon as he finds one, he says he would cheer if he were to be taken out and shot.
The comment unfortunately no longer exists on FR because it was in a thread that became so acrimonious it was deleted. However, there is still some reference to it that was made after the fact.
In any event, it's interesting to watch him spin, spin, spin. Maybe instead of DiogenesLamp he should rename himself DiogenesSpincycle.
Somehow you didn’t get the courtesy ping to my last post.
The bizarre thing is, he and I tangled on some birther issue a while back without either of us becoming insulting, and at the end of the conversation we acknowledged each other's civility. So when I pointed out his edited quote, it was meant almost in a teasing fashion--like "Dude, you just did the very thing you complain about." I didn't really think he was trying to deceive, but if you're going to make a huge issue out of someone else's treatment of quotes, you better damn sight make sure you treat them properly yourself--a Caesar's wife kind of thing. The violence of his reaction now makes me wonder if he knew full well what he was doing.
AND YOU ARE STILL DOING IT!!! The SALIENT ASPECT of the quote Is:
"born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens."
PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,
PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,
PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS, PARENTS!
THE ENTIRE F****** ARGUMENT IS ABOUT PARENTAL ALLEGIANCE!!!!
It has ALWAYS been about Parental ALLEGIANCE. YOUR argument has always been "IT doesn't matter!" The Point in contention was whether or not Bingham supported YOUR interpretation that it doesn't matter at all, or whether Bingham insisted that the Parents owe no allegiance to anyone else.
Bingham SPECIFICALLY, and EXPLICITLY informed us that the ALLEGIANCE OF THE PARENTS does matter, Meaning his understanding is with US, not with you.
Here are your exact words again. First you quote Bingham.
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”
Bingham clearly states that natural born citizens are those who are CITIZENS BY BIRTH.
And here is the rest of the quote which completely rebukes your claim regarding what Bingham meant.
There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
You Quoted a piece of what Bingham said while claiming it supported you, but you KNEW that the rest of the quote completely disproved your claim, yet you did it anyway thinking no one would check on you.
You demonstrated intellectual dishonesty (actually I would say it is a hallmark of your arguing style) and you demonstrated to everyone that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth. If you deceived about this, what else could you have deceived about? (In my opinion, pretty much everything.)