Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Congressional Record, Cornell University, and the Yale Review (just a few examples) are made up?
And none of them get you around your fundamental problem. That problem is that the Unoted States Supreme Court has defined natural born citizen, and it is not the definition that you are trying to foist off.
1. The sources generally do not actually back up your assertions. For example, you assert that none of Bingham's contemporaries contradicted hima and that this is supported by the Congressional Record. But in point of fact, many of his contemporaries did contradict him, and did so in that record.
Learning moment: A source does not support you if it either does not say what you claim it says, or if it actually contradicts you.
2. The sources are often deliberately misrepresented by you. For example, you repeatedly had to back pedal from your description of the Bingham quotation and the significance of his comment since he was not the author of the clause and not even talking about the 14th Amendment at all. Now... the mistakes you made there were not originally your own, but they were copied and pasted from Birther web sites. This is the habit that causes Birthers to replicate the same errors and lies over and over ad nauseam.
Learning moment: Do your own research instead of relying on copying and pasting sources you really don't have a good reason to trust.
3. You generally cherry pick your sources in the effort to misrepresent their actual positions and context. For example, you have repeated run screaming from the fact that Wong Kim Ark explicitly defines natural born citizen, instead trying to deflect attention to single sentence of the final ruling. This is not merely dishonest, it is pathetic.
Learning moment: Misdirection never works when your debate opponent knows the sources better than you do. You will always be caught with your pants down.
4. You often apply inappropriate sources to different arguments. This is because you yourself do not even really understand your own arguments and get them hopelessly confused. The most recent example is your complete garbling of the "Vattel definition" argument with the completely different "no dual citizenship" argument.
Learning moment: Sort out your ideas and make sense of them before committing them to cyberspace. If you are confused, it will always show.
Fundamentally though, I am not the slightest bit concerned about my credibility. It is well enough established that you keep coming back for more.
So yes... links to sources are still links to made up stuff if the sources do not say what you need them to say.
And none of them get you around your fundamental problem. That problem is that the Unoted States Supreme Court has defined natural born citizen, and it is not the definition that you are trying to foist off.
1. The sources generally do not actually back up your assertions. For example, you assert that none of Bingham's contemporaries contradicted hima and that this is supported by the Congressional Record. But in point of fact, many of his contemporaries did contradict him, and did so in that record.
Learning moment: A source does not support you if it either does not say what you claim it says, or if it actually contradicts you.
2. The sources are often deliberately misrepresented by you. For example, you repeatedly had to back pedal from your description of the Bingham quotation and the significance of his comment since he was not the author of the clause and not even talking about the 14th Amendment at all. Now... the mistakes you made there were not originally your own, but they were copied and pasted from Birther web sites. This is the habit that causes Birthers to replicate the same errors and lies over and over ad nauseam.
Learning moment: Do your own research instead of relying on copying and pasting sources you really don't have a good reason to trust.
3. You generally cherry pick your sources in the effort to misrepresent their actual positions and context. For example, you have repeated run screaming from the fact that Wong Kim Ark explicitly defines natural born citizen, instead trying to deflect attention to single sentence of the final ruling. This is not merely dishonest, it is pathetic.
Learning moment: Misdirection never works when your debate opponent knows the sources better than you do. You will always be caught with your pants down.
4. You often apply inappropriate sources to different arguments. This is because you yourself do not even really understand your own arguments and get them hopelessly confused. The most recent example is your complete garbling of the "Vattel definition" argument with the completely different "no dual citizenship" argument.
Learning moment: Sort out your ideas and make sense of them before committing them to cyberspace. If you are confused, it will always show.
Fundamentally though, I am not the slightest bit concerned about my credibility. It is well enough established that you keep coming back for more.
So yes... links to sources are still links to made up stuff if the sources do not say what you need them to say.
And that is your biggest problem.
I can't rep you again right now, but at a minimum, this post deserves this:
what i'm curious about from the people that still believe in the obama ineligibility theories is which one(s)..... and why ??? :
A): COLB: not an acceptable document.
B): COLB: a falsified statement document.
C): COLB: a forged document.
D): mother too young to pass on citizenship.
E): mother too young to pass on citizenship for foreign birth.
F): loses US citizenship
G): adopted by lolo and loses US citizenship.
H): mother marries and loses US citizenship
I): relinquishes US citizenship.
J): becomes dual citizen: US UK
K): becomes dual citizen: US kenya
L): becomes dual citizen: US indonesia
M): CIA agent
what i'm curious about from the people that still believe in the obama ineligibility theories is which one(s)..... and why ??? :
A): COLB: not an acceptable document.
B): COLB: a falsified statement document.
C): COLB: a forged document.
D): mother too young to pass on citizenship.
E): mother too young to pass on citizenship for foreign birth.
F): loses US citizenship
G): adopted by lolo and loses US citizenship.
H): mother marries and loses US citizenship
I): relinquishes US citizenship.
J): becomes dual citizen: US UK
K): becomes dual citizen: US kenya
L): becomes dual citizen: US indonesia
M): CIA agent
You left out:
N) Didn't meet the "Vattel Definition"
O) Born in Kenya
P) Born in Canada
Q) Traveled to Pakistan on Indonesian passport and loses US citizenship
R) Registered at Occidental as an Indonesian and loses US citizenship
S) Got a Connecticut SSN and that does something weird to his citizenship
T) Dodged the draft making him ineligible for Federal employment
U) Is a commie/bastard/Muslim/traitor/drug-using/murderous closet gay guy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
