Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
None forced you to come to this place.
None forced your fingers to type your reply.
None will halt your departure if you so desire.
None shall miss you upon your goodbye.
And the same applies to me. I'll be forgotten in less time than it's taken to make this reply.
You guys have made this thread not only interesting, but probably more informative than any I have seen on the subject in recent memory. Keep it up - kinda like watching “Breaking Bad” - can’t wait till the next episode. :-) There are a few other great posters involved in this Battle Royale also. Much appreciated (at least by me anyway).
“I have listened to Rush a total of perhaps one hour in my entire life.”
So, you think yourself to be an expert?
“As far as I can tell the man dances around the edges but when the shtf he ducks for cover. He certainly doesn’t do any thinking for me.”
Actually...NO. Had you bothered to listen to him, he doesn’t “dance around the edges”, as you said. He criticizes all of the candidates when they deserve it, and praises them, too.
“You do know what they call someone who sells their principles for a buck don’t you?”
You are really showing your ignorance here.
Great Idea!
:D
But, I either need a much larger pic (pref. *.Png), or, I could make something with the same idea..
:)
“Absolutely not. All one needs to do is listen to those who do put him on a pinnacle and read what they write to determine what he has done and said. My perspective was validated back in ’08 during the run up to the election.”
So............you got nuttin’.
You would rather take the word of someone else who listened, and wrote about what they heard, instead of listening yourself, and thinking for yourself.
Got it.
"How a Retread Tire Troll is Made"
Priceless. Tell you what, first time I get a Lifecycle of a Retread Zot Ping, FR gets another Jackson for the server fund drive. :)
I've already had to dabble in basic HTML because of FR, now I'm supposed to do Photshop, too? Sheesh!
Mendokusai, na?
One last thing: Your FR profile page rawks!.
If he wasn’t embarrassed about his other statement, I guess he wouldn’t—though he really should—be embarrassed about this one.
NO, it’s that I don’t need Rush, Hannity or Levin to tell me what to think.
“Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”
Patrick Henry: Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Keeping this in mind.
Well how about that! You’re right here in the Golden Triangle too!
The stuff on this forum is getting pretty pathetic, frankly.
...you might be better served in keeping your opinion to yourself.
How about from James Madison:
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
Nice ancient history - too bad the 14th amendment blew all that away.
Only in the eyes of someone who is not intelligent enough to understand what it says. As is Mentioned in the Landmark Supreme court case of Marbury v Madison:
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. ~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
Your interpretation of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" results in those words being without effect. Therefore Your understanding is wrong.
In any case, it conspicuously omits the words "natural born" so you are doubly wrong. (Wrong on TWO SEPARATE POINTS.)
If you want to argue he has 14th amendment citizenship, we can go that direction too. Show me proof that he was actually born *in* a state that happens to issue birth certificates to the children of Hawaiian residents regardless where they were born.
Even if we could see ACTUAL proof that he was born in Hawaii, this does not make him a "natural citizen" it makes him a citizen by operation of the 14th amendment. (Citizen by statute. 14th Amendment AND the Cable act.) "Natural citizens" existed prior to the 14th amendment, and did not require it's operation to be "natural citizens."
Looks like little Obama was ok.
Yes, a "conservative" declaring that Obama is perfectly legitimate has always felt peculiar to me. One that goes out of his way to argue the point even more so. One that rejects evidence, and twists everything he can find against it's proper and correct meaning can only be described as suffering from some sort of pathology.
Neither Ann or George seem to support a two citizen parent rule.
There you go again. You could just as well say they didn't seem to support a male/female parent rule. The one thing is axiomatic and obvious of the other. The Two parent thing is automatic. During the time frame of the 14th amendment, (discussed by both) it was not possible to have a split marriage. Women were regarded as being of the same nationality as their husbands. (We covered this. You were apparently asleep.)
"For CNN, or MSNBC, or you, Geraldo - the liberal on Fox - bringing this out as if it's an issue, you know, it's just a few cranks out there. It's like when the networks bring on the three remaining Klanners in America."
http://www.breitbart.tv/ann-coulter-birthers-are-wrong/
George Will:
Huckabee, now a Fox News host, was asked by Steve Malzberg, a talk radio host, this:
“Don’t you think it’s fair also to ask [Barack Obama] . . . how come we don’t have a health record, we don’t have a college record, we don’t have a birth cer — why, Mr. Obama, did you spend millions of dollars in courts all over this country to defend against having to present a birth certificate. It’s one thing to say, I’ve — you’ve seen it, goodbye. But why go to court and send lawyers to defend against having to show it? Don’t you think we deserve to know more about this man?”
Huckabee should have replied, “I’ve seen paranoia, goodbye.”
But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-2012-field-is-down-to-five/2011/03/04/ABsEwuN_story.html
I don't think either is on your side. Why would they secretly embrace the two citizen parent argument while publicly saying Obama is eligible?
I’m not the first and I won’t be the last to say it.
Your profile quote, not mine.
Levin has for obvious reasons scrubbed that 2010 comment to the best of his ability, although I will find it. While I am looking, take a listen to this. His 2011 feeling about We the People who question O’s eligibility is stated Loud and Clear by Levin himself and I don’t appreciate it. Remark starts at 4:26 and runs through 4.34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_XYBlq3gQ
Just wanted to be Post #500 :-)
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.