Posted on 01/21/2016 2:35:32 PM PST by Biggirl
The Legacy Lives On!
Mark’s Lost Dog & Cat Rescue Foundation
“Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.” --Mark Levin in Liberty and Tyranny
Welcome to “The Levin Lounge”… Step in and have a virtual FRink.
Welcome all, to the most FUN LIVE THREAD on FreeRepublic.com!
You can call Mark’s show: 1-877-381-3811
I don’t like Trump at all.
But these news guys such as Rush and Levin have their styles as do some sports personalities.
Some of them talk about wives and families until you want to scream and some of them never mention much about their personal life. You’re always okay talking about dogs.
So I’m very disappointed in the thread.
I came here for safe harbor. I came to get away from Trump supporters. But they’re like mosquitoes... they’re everywhere. Pesky too.
If it’s posted again, I’m going to ask about it. Perhaps they just nabbed it from somewhere and didn’t notice that, otherwise I would like an explanation of why it’s there.
If the words “Canada” and “Goldman Sachs” were removed from Trump supporters, they would have nothing.
And since there’s nothing wrong in those two words, they still have nothing.
I am old and tired of always having to fight my government. If Trump wins, I will enjoy his nasty bully comments as the nation burns.
He is not wrong about the GOPe preferring Trump.
They know that Trump can be ‘reasoned with.’
They know that Cruz will stick to his principles even if he has to call McConnell a liar.
Yes he would have. Piss off.
Sometimes Fox & Friends promise puppies and don’t deliver for 3 segments.
Strange things are happening.
Sorry about that. I like dogs too.
nothing to disclose
no one that listens to Levin believes that would be the reason he might support cruz
“We don’t elect an El Presidente.”
Ahem. Yeah, we did. Twice and we’re frantic to elect a blonder one.
I’m beginning to hear quite a few people say something similar, as in:
I know Trump is an egotistical mono-maniac, lowlife scum who will change his mind and position on a whim and do whatever it takes to get what he wants ....
But I don’t care. By God, I am voting for him anyway.
Why do you birthers always ignore the 14 year Residency requirement?I keep asking this question and not a single birther can answer it. If the founders were so concerned with the Chief Executive of the USA being influenced or having conflicting loyalties to foreign powers, then why did the founding fathers require ONLY a 14 year residency requirement? 14 years sounds very low. Someone can be born on US Soil to two US Citizen parents, and if they live 60 years in Russia or Saudia Arabia, as long as they live in the US for 14 years, they can be eligible for President using the birther standard. A person like that, the Founders under the birther definition have no problems with becoming President. But someone born to an American mother in Canada who has lived in America virtually their entire life, well, that’s a problem.
Well first of all, knock off the "birther" crap. I know what a Bircher is, and I know what a Truther is, and I know the intent of this word so that makes your insult a not-so-clever attack, and I don't take well to attacks. Not to mention that attacks are against the rules here. If it isn't an attack, then it must mean you think the Constitution is a laughing matter, and I assure you it is not to me, and many others.
All right, Residency. You could very easily research what all those clauses are for, but I'll take the time here to type out what Joseph Story annotated in his 'Exposition' ...
... But even a native citizen might, from long absence, and voluntary residence abroad, become alienated from, or indifferent to his country, and, therefore, a residence for fourteen years within the United States is made indispensable, as a qualification to the office. This, of course, does not exclude persons, who are temporarily abroad in the public service, or on their private affairs, and who have not involuntarily given up their domicile here.
He is saying that the Founders were thinking about both ambassadors and such, and plain natural born citizens striking out on their own outside the United States, but purposely excluding involuntary ex-patriots ( those kicked out ). I would interpret it as an attempt to ensure they simply remember where they came from and not be acclimated to a foreign land. It goes to loyalty IMHO.
You know that by bringing up the geographic residency requirement that you literally undercut the main argument that geography did not matter to the Founders. I'm saying that it shows that the Founders were fully able to write plain english literal references to geography when they felt it was necessary, so it means that they could have literally written the first clause as a citizen born in the United States rather than the actual phrase: a natural born citizen. Note the difference here is subtle but significant. They added extra density to the actual requirement above and beyond what would now be called an anchor baby. Therefore the President is required to be native according to heritage and not just geography ( what I'm saying is that they could have easily just said 'born here' but didn't and that adds dimension to the actual word native ).
So what is it that you are going on about? Why the wisecrack? The Supreme Court left it for We The People to decide for ourselves, you and me. Yet you toss out an insult as if pointing your finger and saying: You're weird for considering either where he was born or who he was born to. That is inexplicable to me. It actually reminds me of those saying we were strange for considering High Crimes and Misdemeanors twenty years ago.
P.S. This is clearly getting off-topic from this Levin thread, so I beg the moderators indulgence. If you want to discuss these things in substance just ping me from one of the thousand other more appropriate threads.
Sometimes Fox & Friends promise puppies and don't deliver for 3 segments.
Is that a defense of Hannity's little tactic to string along listeners? Seriously, why would anybody defend audience manipulation?
FYI, he's been doing it since he started. He also has done the talking over each other thing since the very beginning. Very annoying.
OMG. Grow up. It was a little joke.
Tell me who is making you watch Hannity and I will come over and show them what’s for
I don’t watch him.
OMG. Grow up. It was a little joke.
Okay, got it. Sorry.
Wish I was young enough to grow up though.
Let me help you. Levin is taring Trump with the Neo-Nazi guilt by association brush.
Wikipedia:
Association fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Guilt by association” redirects here. For other uses, see Guilt by Association.
An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
Me, too. But I think it’s too late for me.
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.