Posted on 12/13/2015 1:10:09 PM PST by Patton@Bastogne
Nevertheless, the last two successive presidents started by winning the Iowa caucuses as non-incumbents. Meanwhile, rejecting Iowa’s GOP choices resulted in two humiliating defeats. Who has the worse record?
Iowa *isn’t* all that important, but it’s also a very long way from being meaningless.
I am bookmarking your post, and will respond after super Tuesday. Until then it is fruitless to argue.
please, at least do SOME homework before spouting off like a democrat
I provided the actual relevant text of the actual Constitution. You provided nothing but your own ignorant opinion.
Regardless of what your silly Venn diagram says, there are only two categories of Citizen: natural-born and naturalized. All the Birther nonsense in the world doesn't change that.
Democrats like to pretend that the Constitution doesn't say what it means. You're suffering from the same delusion.
you posted nothing. yes, you posted the A2S1 line about the qualification, but nothing that states what a natural born citizen is or why the founders used that specific term at the time. (i suspect you omitted anything that may support your claim due to a lack of information... as your claim is baseless)
seriously, you need to stop posting. you’re single-handedly diminishing the quality of content on these boards. at least TRY to do the bare basic amount of background reading before spouting off.
here’s a local post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713937/posts
which refers to the ‘Law of Nations’ (1757) which the founders would have referred to during their efforts.
in particular:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” - p.176
in short, a ‘natural born citizen’ is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES. this is the reason the founders used the phrase... thereby insure, at least by birth, allegiance to the country.
seriously, you need to stop posting. you’re single-handedly diminishing the quality of content on these boards.Seriously, this is a thread about getting together at a tavern to watch the debate. Or, at least it was until you came here and peed all over it with your Birther nonsense.
Irregardless of the merit of your argument, your posts here are off topic. You owe an apology to everyone who's read this thread for your effort to hijack it.
Seriously, you need to get your OCD meds re-balanced.
ping
ROFLMAO
you flatly lose the back & forth and now you shift. typical... for a democrat.
and yea, that bunny pic was quite the intellectual response ... if this were tumblr. grow up.
Bttt.
5.56mm
you flatly lose the back & forth and now you shift. typical... for a democrat.Only in your delusional mind.
Actually, you are exhibiting many symptoms of Delusional Democrat syndrome:
You insist on "re-interpreting" the plain text of the Constitution, just as Dems do to justify their claims of Constitutional "rights" to such things as abortion and same-sex marriage.
Your primary source is a misinterpretation of a mistranslation of "Les Droit des Gens". From this link:
Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his work Les Droit des Gens (Law of Nations), taking out of context the words from Book I:You ignore the consensus opinion that Ted Cruz, specifically, is a Natural Born Citizen, and thus eligible to be President. Just Google "Ted Cruz eligible to be President" for lots of examples. Any one of them is more credible than you and the rest of the Birther nutjobs.§ 212. ... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.But this is not a precise translation from the French, which has no exact equivalent to "natural born", and the French word word "parens" can mean close family, not necessarily biological parents. He was writing of a modified form of the rule of jus sanguinis that was municipal law (not the law of nations), and only for some countries on the European Continent. A little further down, he explains:
§ 214. ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.However, "naturalizes" is also not an exact translation, which in Anglo-American law has come to mean a statutory or administrative process, but which for Vattel meant "makes one a citizen", which could include natural circumstances.
You continue to ignore the fact that you rudely interrupted a thread about people discussing getting together to watch the debate in order to insert your obsession. That's just rude. I wouldn't expect a obsessive compulsive Birther nutjob to understand common politeness. Indeed, your rude behavior is also typical of Democrats.
Finally, the best example to ignore you and completely disregard anything you say: You are on the same side as Democrat crazy person Alan Grayson. Maybe you should hang out over at Democrat Underground with the rest of the nutjobs who agree with you and him.
One final question: Are you planning on coming to the gathering that was the purpose of this thread? The reason I ask is I am considering going, but I don't like to socialize with idiots or a$$holes, so you can certainly understand why I would want to know if you are going to be there.
yes, obviously i must be ‘re-interpreting’ the original text available to the founders... written in plain english, 20 years before they met in philly.
seriously, get over it. TCruz is a democrap trap. they want him to get the nomination so they can disqualify him.
as for finding stuff on google... really? you need lessons in how to buy google rankings? it’s all part of the astro turf so favored by the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.