Skip to comments.Want to cancel membership!?
Posted on 05/01/2010 2:34:38 PM PDT by CourtneyLeigh
I tried accessing this address: email@example.com and came back "unknown". So how does one cancel their registration?
Have you tried not coming back?
Most websites don’t cancel ‘memberships’, unless it’s a paid membership site.
It’s usually—log out and don’t look back.
There’s always go crazy as a chit-house rat and get banned.
That’s about all I know about that.
If you want to be banned just post a lot of articles in News/Activism. :)
If you want your account deleted and posts scrubbed you will need to contact Jim Robinson and ask. He will probably ask why as that would be quite a bit of work.
On the other hand if you just want to leave or take a break I suggest that you simply sign out.
I had been searching for a more intelligent way of canceling my member ship.. Like a LINK?
Went to the FAQ Registration area, nothing there.
*sighs* For the longest time now, I just used the profile for my “website” when registering or connecting with people.
Now I am on FB and that’s good enough for me! HAHA for now
You can check out anytime you want.
But you can never leave.
The lines are busy right now. Everybody's at the Kentucky Derby. Have a mint Julep ... someone will be along directly. ;o)
“”I dont really have time for this website anymore... and just not a priority to keep up with.””
Does the TV in your house DEMAND that you turn it on and watch shows you aren’t interested in? Same here - good grief!
How about quietly disappearing in the darkness ? (which is the area outside of FR). Methinks this is attention whoring.
You can check out, but you can never leave.
Post something REALLY politically incorrect... multiple times.
Something like this:
Theres been talks about how horrible and disastrous Arizonas new immigration law, which has been described as making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant, but now theres something even more radical on the horizon. Representative Duncan Hunter has expressed his support of deporting the children of illegal immigrants. Yes, his solution is to get rid of all the so-called anchor-babies along with their parents.
I can hear the cries of people protesting this radical idea of enforcing our existing laws with the punishments already proscribed for them. Its truly amazing what a little lack of reading comprehension coupled with an inability to think in terms of logic can do to people. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which would obviously be brought up, says he following:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The capitalized portion is quite key here, the AND is a disjunction operator; speaking in the abstract notion of sets [think Venn diagrams] it is the intersection of two sets and NOT the union thereof. So, we must understand what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. The thereof is obviously referring to the United States, so the people in question need to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Jurisdiction means, simply, legal power. So we are left with the group of people that are both born in the United States and who are subject to its legal power
Are illegal aliens subject to the legal power of the United States? Some people would, in an attempt for humor or perhaps just to be jerks, say Only if they get caught. But lets think about this for a bit; if someone is not subject to the legal powers of the US then they could do illegal things with impunity quite literally getting away with murder. [And some do, that is perhaps the thing that most sparked Arizonas adoption of the aforementioned immigration law.]
But we have some illegal immigrants in jail, right? So that means theyre under the United States legal powers, right? Unfortunately not. Just because a jury acquits someone who is later found to be guilty of that crime does not give the government license to prosecute him again for that crime does not mean that because that individual got away with it does not mean that ALL future findings of guilt of that sort of crime are invalid. Likewise, just because one illegal immigrant gets away with it does not mean that ten, twenty, a thousand, a million, or more should also get away with it; to adopt such a position would utterly undermine any and all conception of the rule of law.
In a similar manner, just because one, two, fifty, or a thousand are caught does not mean that they are, as a group, subject to the laws of the United States. Especially if you talk to Border Patrol personnel and hear about people that have been caught multiple times and sent back; yes there IS a lot of repeat offenders in the illegal immigrant demographic.
So, as you can see neither determination of subject to the jurisdiction is intuitive; as neither work well at all. But lets look at the effects of the determinations thereof, if the anchor babies are determined to qualify as citizens then the state has two options when deporting the parents: either send the American-citizen child with them [to avoid breaking up families], or to make the child a Ward of the State [to avoid exiling American citizens who have broken no law]. Neither of those will be good on the political front; if you avoid breaking up the family you are [in effect] abandoning him and abridging ALL his rights as a Citizen. However, if you forbid the illegal immigrants the custody of their biological child you are cruel and heartless.
In the case of non-qualification then the whole family is deportable and can be deported as a single unit. This does contain the distasteful contradiction that the deportation thereof IS the subjugation of those involved to the legal power of the united states.
Is there a solution that doesnt involve a contradiction? Yes; but you wont like it. People will call the idea everything from fascist to heartless to insane to regressive. The answer is a simple reading of the Thirteenth amendment, which says in its first section, the following:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Thats right, make the punishment for being an illegal immigrant into slavery/involuntary-servitude for some definite length of time [unlike felons being disbarred guns for life, even after serving their sentence]. Perhaps the length of time in the US illegally or the amount of money and services received from the taxpaying citizen should be used to calculate the length of the servitude. This DOES solve the problem of either breaking up families or wrongfully exiling American citizens but many will find the idea too distasteful to bear.
Bend over. Implant your mellon. Blow your nose really hard.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
>Does the TV in your house DEMAND that you turn it on and watch shows you arent interested in? Same here - good grief!
It would if CNN had its way...
We don’t care.
A lot of Courtney Leighs on FB
I will look again for a contact link to Jim.
You can check in, but you can never leave.
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.