OK, let me get this straight, I quoted from Liberty & Tyranny, you came back & quote from Men in Black...
then you do go on to quote from Mark's conservative manifesto in the back of L&T that has nothing to do with the quote I took from pg 154 of Chapter 9: On Immigration...
You never specifically respond to the quote from Erler that Mark uses in L&T and how Mark omits very important legislation(1868 Expatriation Act) Erler says is vital to defining 14th Amendment citizenship...
Thus I don't see how this a problem on my part. May I suggest you actually study the art of debate and the importance of a direct & pointed response rather than the leftest tactic of changing the direction & subject matter of the debate which is Mark's obfuscation of citizenship laws for his personal political leanings, US Constitution be damned as long as the lies he proffers support his political agenda.
And about that credentials thing again...I am taking this as you saying that only lawyers can write & thus interpret the laws. This would be news to all the common folk who have ever served & wrote laws, including our 1st President who was a farmer!!! Knowledge does not come by way of a classroom or degree, it comes from self discipline and self determination, regardless of setting. So you can take your leftest logic & stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. I'm done with you, obot drone with no brain of your own. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
"OK, let me get this straight, I quoted from Liberty & Tyranny, you came back & quote from Men in Black..."
WRONG!
Again, you
intentionally get it wrong. But to distort the facts is your S.O.P.
Did you find the subjects I mentioned in "Liberty & Tyranny" on the pages I referenced?
You certainly didn't find them in "Men In Black" on the pages I referenced.
Lets take a look again at what I posted:
You know, I really shouldn't waste my time, responding to you.
You intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.
Post #126 you wrote "If you are going to respond, at least respond with the correct book."
In post#124 I had wrote: "I've read it, and listened to it a couple of times, although that was sometime late 2009.
I dusted it off again, and I find pages 200-201 about Judges to be something we need to do.
Page 202 about Immigration is what we're fighting about with the "Establishment Republicans", right now.
Pages 204-205, hits the nail on the head, and must be done.
But I'm not going to sit here and transcribe Mark Levin's book.
Somewhere around here, I've got his book on "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America".
But I've got to find it again, and I just can't lay my hands on it, right now."
You didn't even take the time to see what I was talking about.
You just intentionally misrepresented the second paragraph's book as being the subject of the first paragraph.
It was a test, and you failed.
And credentials, ... credentials are important, and obviously, you're ashamed of what you don't have.
At least I made my position and lack of credentials clear.
BUT ... at least you're consistent about Obama not being eligible under the same law.
And about the credentials ...
"And about that credentials thing again...I am taking this as you saying that only lawyers can write & thus interpret the laws."
I didn't say that. I didn't even imply that.
It's a simply question, so I can understand your background and your logic.
"Mark's obfuscation of citizenship laws for his personal political leanings, US Constitution be damned as long as the lies he proffers support his political agenda."
Lie? Says who?
Mark knows of what he speaks, and he speaks it well.
Political leanings? We all have leanings, we're human.
I say again, maybe the Supreme Court DOES need to address this issue, or maybe the Congress needs to clarify it.
But me, with leftists leanings? I've never been accused of that before, and I've been around here a while.
Now I'm NOT young, not by a long shot. And I presume you're not young, maybe old and in constant pain.
But I'm not the one trying to intentionally twist things into something they're not.
So, go deceive someone else with your
H. Michael Sweeney's tactics.
You've exposed yourself.