That's a rather odd statement, coming from someone whose arguments have been repeatedly shown to be fallacy after fallacy, addressed to someone whose argument have not been shown to be fallacious.
And when people aren't impressed by that, you lie by omission (and commission I suspect) with a good dose of ad hominem thrown in in an attempt to brow beat.
That's a rather odd statement, coming from someone who omits the entire record of what early legal authorities said "natural born citizen" meant, and who attempts to paint those who present the historical view, which is agreed upon by every substantial conservative Constitutional organization in existence, and by conservative Constitutional experts like Mark Levin, as a "troll," an "Obot," a "liberal," and worse.
No Jeff. It is only in YOUR MIND that my arguments have been "repeatedly shown to be fallacy after fallacy." In the real world, you haven't scratched them at all. You probably don't even believe this yourself. If you did, you wouldn't likely be so worked up about them.
That's a rather odd statement, coming from someone who omits the entire record of what early legal authorities said "natural born citizen" meant, and who attempts to paint those who present the historical view, which is agreed upon by every substantial conservative Constitutional organization in existence, and by conservative Constitutional experts like Mark Levin, as a "troll," an "Obot," a "liberal," and worse.
Jeff, every statement you make is odd, especially those in which you keep imploring the spirit of Mark Levin to come and save you. I have not been debating Mark Levin, and frankly I think he would come off the worse for it if I were, but Mark Levin's offhand agreement with you does not constitute proof of anything. George Will and Ann Coulter happen to agree with me. Does it prove me correct?
Again, this is the fallacy of false authority. (since you don't like the original Latin names, I thought I would make it simpler for you.)