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.
Is not NATURAL BORN CITIZEN - thanks for displaying your lack of understanding on a simple issue.
Talk about twist & spin. Another Jaywalking Allstar makes their debut in this matter clearly showing how an IQ can be measured using a 'fraction".
The simple fact of the matter is that you and Mr Titus and Steve McG and TeaParty Ted, are all asserting a special definition of natural-born citizenship that has never been expressed legally.
While you may wish that there were three kinds of citizenship in the United States, there are only two. Those born citizens (ie, natural-born citizens), and those who become citizens via naturalization. Do you ever wonder why it's called naturalization?
1. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. In this case there is direct relevance between the specific area of insanity for which Mr. Titus is being castigated. It is his general nuttiness regarding his unique, anomalous and universally rejected ideas about the Constitution that renders his opinion on the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen suspect.
2. I note that you do not also point out the OP's fallacious appeal to authority (what is called an "Ad Verecundiam" fallacy) by pretending that Mr. Titus's (poorly represented) resume is somehow a reason to consider his unique, anomalous and universally rejected opinion on this definition as true.
3. Your leaping on what you believed to be an "ad hominem" while ignoring the "ad verecundiam" is a special logical fallacy of its very own. It is called "special pleading."
The assertions of Mr. Titus have been repeatedly refuted on this forum, as well as in more than a dozen court cases in just the last three months. To call Mr. Titus a nutcase is not an argumentum ad hominem at all. It is an appropriate label.
I'm assuming you are being intentionally obtuse.
You define an Ad Hominem Fallacy, then state that Titus'past statements regarding Obama's citizenship proves that he is a nut case. This in no way, shape, or form addresses the argument in question, and is an example of a purposefully disingenuous Ad Hominem fallacy.
As for any other fallacies contained in this thread, they are irrelevant to my post that stated the tactics/rhetoric used by liberals to stifle debate. I am sure there are many more fallacies contained in this thread. My post was intended to raise the awareness of the tactic used to "attack the man" instead of debating the assertions put forth by said man.
I also assume that had his mother not divorced his stepfather, that he would have continued to live in Indonesia. I don't know what that means in regards to citizenship.
Indonesian Citizenship Requirements:
* being the age of 18 years or older, or being married. obama was 10 and unmarried when he left indonesia
* when applying, having resided in Indonesian for a minimum of 5 consecutive years or 10 non consecutive years obama had lived there 4
* physically and mentally healthy
* can speak the Indonesian language and acknowledge Pancasila and Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945
* never convicted of a crime for which the punishment is imprisonment for one year or more
* if having Indonesian citizenship will not give the person dual citizenship obama had US citizenship at could not renounce it at that time (see below )
* employed or have fixed income obama was unemployed
* pay the citizenship fee
.......................
the US state department does not allow minors to renounce US citizenship nor does it allow a third party, including parents, to do it for them.
from the US state dept:
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
Liberals label people as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, nutjob, etc. because it allows them to avoid the actual discussion.
Avoid the discussion, you mean like you are doing right now? Red herring. Nice try though. Some of us figured out this "logic" stuff you talk about a long time ago, we don't need to google it.
Avoid the discussion, you mean like you are doing right now? Red herring. Nice try though. Some of us figured out this "logic" stuff you talk about a long time ago, we don't need to google it.
I have not made any statement pertaining to the validity/invalidity of Titus' article. I have raised awareness of the fact that liberals who attack the man instead of his argument are committing a logical fallacy. I have not read the article in question, therefore I cannot logically come to a conclusion in regards to its contents. When I get home from school and actually synthesize the info presented, instead of dismissing the man as a psycho, then I will offer an opinion in regards to this issue.
Is not NATURAL BORN CITIZEN - thanks for displaying your lack of understanding on a simple issue.
Talk about twist & spin. Another Jaywalking Allstar makes their debut in this matter clearly showing how an IQ can be measured using a 'fraction".
MY lack of understanding? That's pretty funny.
"Originally Posted by SityData Natural Born is to be: born naturally to two citizen parents that are married to each other. Illegitimate children are not eligible. i.e. Bastards need not apply."
So let me ask you, if the President had been born BEFORE his parents married, or, had his father died before he was born, would he or would he not have been a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
Keep in mind that his mother was born here, her parents were born here and so on all the way back to the time of the Revolutionary War.
You do realize that your claim about the president allegedly finding a birth certificate without his father's name actually gives your argument even less credence because, if there is no father of record, all that matters is who his mother was. And, there is absolutely no question that his mother was a U.S. citizen.
Again? You really believe this is a liberal tactic only? No wonder you are a birther, you believe anything they say.
1) I am not a birther
2) Any human, regardless of ideology can commit a fallacy.
3) Liberals habitually claim racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, etc., to dismiss arguments. No other ideological group commits these fallacies at the rate liberals do. If you disagree with that statement, I am open to logical, respectful debate.
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.
