Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Question About Presidential Eligibility.


DM72

Recommended Posts

Google doesn't return hits by date, unless you ask for most recent, which I didn't do.

Yes I got the dates from the postings which I went back and reread. And Pete.. in the handfull of posts you associated with me saying pedantic, you messed up. You demonstrated that in any thread I post in where the term pedantic is used regardless of how it's applied your google search will return a hit. Which is just one way the google hits metric is a useless one for how you are trying to use it.

I find it pedantic that you just can't admit that you were wrong and move on.

Wrong where? I won this thread. The insilar cases clearly show folks born outside the United States getting citizenship at birth but not having the rights of natural born citizens.

Which refutes Predicto's central premise... Lombardi's argument has shifted in this thread, but I've refuted him like three times. Techboy isn't really in the discussion rather just hanging out correcting punctuation and syntax. You haven't really weighed in here either other than to call into question the use of the term padantic, and shown that I've used it mostly correctly.

more frequently than everybody else here (excluding when people use it when discussing the arguments that you said were pedantic) and that you've used at on many more people than 2 or 3 (or even 5).

Accuracy is important... in the thread you posted Techboy wasn't using it against one of my arguments... he was using it against himself in addressing one of my thoughts which he also said he mostly agreed with.

Over several years I've used the term several times... I think you are being too sensitive. I don't think I overuse or misuse the term. I think you've proven that I've mostly used it correctly... but if you want to have another thread on that I will be happy to further investigate my use of the word with you.

That you can't admit that you use the word pedantic more frequently than everybody else here (excluding when people use it when discussing the arguments that you said were pedantic) and that you've used at on many more people than 2 or 3 (or even 5).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMS' date=' please indulge me. I am going to ask one question at a time. And I want to see your one sentence answers.

1. What is a natural born citizen?[/quote']

Don't do it man! You got out clean. Life is worth living...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMS' date=' please indulge me. I am going to ask one question at a time. And I want to see your one sentence answers.

1. What is a natural born citizen?[/quote']

That is not a one sentense question. As I have said there is no definition in the constitution for that phrase. I will grant you today it is used interchangeable with someone who was born with US citizenship. That has not always been the case as I have proven.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 01:45 PM ----------

:doh:

Not to revisit the entire thread.. But the gist of our discussion was somebody who does something like denying service against an Israeli suporter is not discriminatory or against the law. Somebody who denied service along religious or racial lines obviously would be both discriminatory and against the law.

The point was Israel is a temporal state and as such makes controversial decisions which people justifiable can object too without being prejudiced or discriminatory. That was the gist of the thread and you were making the case that discrimination against an Israeli supporter was equivalent to discriminating against Jews. Further you were saying that because the article didn't expressly say she wasn't discriminating against Jews it should be understood that she was.

I said your position was pedantic. Now rereading it years latter, I don't think it was. In hind sight I was wrong. I don't agree with the position you gave several years ago, but I don't think you were being too detailed oriented or evasive. I think we just disagreed on it. I would say erroneous, as your suggesting the lack of evidence is proof of your premise. I think your position was based upon your personal thoughts and insight which I don't share and disagree with not on a empirical evidence, but on a logical discussion line of reasoning.. I think we often come at points of discussion from different lines of reasoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong where? I won this thread. The insilar cases clearly show folks born outside the United States getting citizenship at birth but not having the rights of natural born citizens.

Which refutes Predicto's central premise...

No, it really doesn't. The Insular cases say that people born in US territories like Puerto Rico may be citizens, but the constitution is not fully incorporated into those Territories unless and until those Terrirtories formally become states. That does no refute my premise, it doesn't even have anything to do with my premise.

My premise remains: someone who is an American citizen at the time of birth is constitutionally eligible to run for President under Article II, section I, and the meaning of that constitutional provision has not changed over time, not since James Madison, the Father of the Constitution himself, said in 1789 that "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

.

I'm not going to waste any more time picking nits with you, when 1) you talk so definitively about things you don't really understand, 2) you never concede even the most minor of points about anything, 3) you clearly don't want to learn anything or find the correct answer, but instead you want to "win" the thread by fighting forever, and 4) you dismiss opinions from people who are experts in the field as "pedantic," "delusional," "ludicrous," "obfusticating," and "meaningless" just because you don't really understand what they are saying or someone on the internet said something else, or in your mind, it "should" work differently.

This whole situation reminds me of an event in my past. I used to teach Legal Writing and Research at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (where our friend Prosperity is currently a student). I had one student who was extraordinarily stubborn. She was sure that she understood the real meaning and nuances of the First Amendment better than the US Supreme Court. When a newspaper publishes something, gets sued for defamation, and wants to assert the defense of freedom of speech, the analysis starts with the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, which set forth the relevant standards that every court in America will apply. You have to start there. Well, she didn't think the Sullivan case made sense. It wasn't how she would address the subject. So she refused to cite the case or apply it in her legal writing. It didn't matter what the courts would do, it didn't matter what the other published decisions said, it didn't matter what I said to her - she knew what the First Amendment SHOULD mean, and that was all that mattered.

She was going to be an utter failure as an attorney, but she might be a pretty good philosopher. So enjoy your victory. You have "won" the thread because I have given up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong where? I won this thread. The insilar cases clearly show folks born outside the United States getting citizenship at birth but not having the rights of natural born citizens.

Which refutes Predicto's central premise... Lombardi's argument has shifted in this thread, but I've refuted him like three times. Techboy isn't really in the discussion rather just hanging out correcting punctuation and syntax.

Well, now, that's not strictly true. While my posts have largely been jokes, due to the fact that I don't pretend to be knowledgeable enough on this topic to discuss it, I have made a few contributions here and there. For instance, you made this statement:

I'll bet you of the thousands of folks on this board, I have not used that term with more than five.. outside of this thread probable only two or three. I don't find that all that frequent even if that is a consistant comment on those posters discussion tactics.

and I conclusively refuted it here, providing examples in the double digits, not even including the ones in this thread. Your response, funnily enough, was to attempt to go post by post (though not through my more extensive list) and argue whether or not you were right, and wouldn't you say that's

Overly concerned with minute details or formalisms?

;)

Be that as it may, it's way more than two or three, or even five, whether or not you feel you were justified in any particular case.

That is where you were wrong, and where PeterMP couldn't believe that you wouldn't just admit it.

You are also apparently wrong about the primary topic, but as you say PeterMP and I aren't really involved in that.

It's been fun to watch though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...