Debunking the birther claim (Christmas, country, Christ, corrupt)

[bc42gb43]

Originally Posted by Watchman57

CNN couldn't debunk anything their handlers would not allow, Informed Consent has made a strong "legal" argument while the rest have merely offered personal opinion or off the hip remarks.

You sure about that? Did you notice the egregious error of basic formal logic that he used as the entirety of his support for the assertion that there are currently members of Congress who agree with his interpretation of natural born citizen?

[wrecking ball]

Originally Posted by Watchman57

... Informed Consent has made a strong "legal" argument.....

one that has yet to be shared by any congressman ( current or former ), supreme court justice , judge or constitutional scholar.

[lucknow]

Why don't the birthers just give it up. It would give them more time to flog some other dead horse.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Smash255

And so is the context of the actual discussion, which was about being eligible for President if you weren't actually born in the U.S.

Words have meaning. Leahy and Chertoff could have said abroad, or outside the US. They did not. They very deliberately said "anywhere in the world."

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by bc42gb43

That's rich, coming from somebody who made an error of logic that a fifth grader would be ashamed of.

You're merely stating your opinion.

I've stated facts with citations.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Words have meaning. Leahy and Chertoff could have said abroad, or outside the US. They did not. They very deliberately said "anywhere in the world."

Yes, because it encompasses more than just those lets say born on Military bases outside the U.S.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Yes, because it encompasses more than just those lets say born on Military bases outside the U.S.

Yes, it literally encompasses "anywhere in the world."

[bc42gb43]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You're merely stating your opinion.

That denying the antecedent is a basic error of formal logic is not my opinion. I'm sad that you apparently did not take the time to read the wiki.

You are taking the statement:

If you have American parents, then you are a natural born citizen.

And saying that it means the same thing as:

If you do not have American parents, then you are not a natural born citizen.

Let me show you (again) how your mistake here leads to absurdly false results.

If you are in New York, then you are in the United States.

If you are not in New York, then you are not in the United States.

If you think I have committed any logical errors here myself, please let me know, because right now by continuing to defend this you're making yourself look very foolish.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by wrecking ball

one that has yet to be shared by any congressman ( current or former ), supreme court justice , judge or constitutional scholar.

We have a very closely knit power structure in this country.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Yes, it literally encompasses "anywhere in the world."

They were NOT talking about those born in the United States. The context of the whole conversation was McCain not being born on U.S soil. Nowhere in that conversation did they suggest those born in the U.S must have citizen parents to be considered a natural born citizen. You really are making things up as you go at this point.