You think I didn’t know? You think there are people on this site who don’t know and don’t agree? You think I didn’t already answer this one? (I do, I don’t think so, and yes I did.)
The “natural born” crowd is trying to change the subject when called on their statements. That’s what politicians do when they don’t want to answer questions. I am not participating in that sort of thing.
This thread is about whether 0bama should have legally been deported.
The “natural born” crowd is trying to change the subject when called on their statements. That’s what politicians do when they don’t want to answer questions. I am not participating in that sort of thing.
This thread is about whether 0bama should have legally been deported.
It is a sub discussion of the overall discussion, which is about whether the man is in fact legitimate in serving as President.
You say that you are Pro-Life and that life begins at conception. I'm fine with that. I just want to know how you can argue a right to life at conception but you see citizenship as a consequence of birth. It is a puzzling dichotomy.
This line of discussion is it not just a good troll test, it is a means by which ideas can be tried by fire to see which one burns up. As the two ideas are philosophically incompatible, one will at some point have to chose which philosophy will dominate one's thinking. That of inherent rights, or that of conferred rights.
The Pro-Life philosophy is one of inherent rights, not "granted" rights.