You tried to pass off deceit as History. You know that the parents, according to the birther argument, need to be U.S. citizens at the time of the birth of the child, yet you tried to twist that into something to play your axelfraud games. You liberal scum are disgusting, and most disgusting when you try to lie your way along, claiming to be conservative. I’m just pulling your cloak of deception off, asshat, exposing you for the lying agitprop you are. If you really wanted to know more on the arguments both ways, you would read the numerous threads discussing the issues. But that isn’t your agenda. You are a liar at heart, an enemy of conervatism workign FR to cause as much confusion as you can muster.
Sir, I am not a liberal (except perhaps in the classical sense as an adherent to the philosohpies of men like Locke)nor have I ever been.
Again, all I did was cite history and you have yet to even try to refute it. I don’t mind being proven wrong if indeed what I have read and interpreted is wrong. Instead you throw names about and insult me when all I have done is point out that I believe requiring American citizenship was not intended by the natural born provision and if you look at the presidents I’ve cited that seems to have been the case historically.
“I’m just pulling your cloak of deception off, asshat, exposing you for the lying agitprop you are.”-— I thought I had to have intent to lie to be under a “cloak of deception”... I honestly just see holes in your view of the issue and have presented why I think they are there. I don’t get why you are so hostile about it and somehow make the leap that I am a “asshat” hiding in some “cloak of deception” simply because I disagree with you on one issue. I have provided support for my argument- citing history and dictionary definitions- where is your support AT ALL?
“But that isn’t your agenda.”- Despite what you may think, I don’t have an agenda. Just believe your intepretation of this provision of the Constitution is wrong.
“You are a liar at heart, an enemy of conervatism workign FR to cause as much confusion as you can muster.”-— that’s certainly news to me. I don’t see how citing history and definitions is intended to cause confusion. If anything you are the one causing confusion as, unlike me, you have seemingly refused to cite to anything specific to support your claims.