Martin Bashir Implies GOP Too Racist to Have Marco Rubio as VP Candidate
MSNBC's Martin Bashir on Friday played one heck of a disgusting race card.
In the final segment of the show bearing his name, Bashir made the case without specifically saying it that the Republican Party is too racist for Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) to be its vice presidential candidate (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MARTIN BASHIR: It’s not difficult to understand why poor old Sen. Marco Rubio has lost his bearings over the last few days. After all, he was invited to address the major CPAC conference yesterday knowing that one of the plenary sessions was entitled “The End of Multiculturism.” Still, he forged ahead desperately trying to impress the baying crowd despite being a Cuban-American attacking the president for using a teleprompter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR MARCO RUBIO (R-FLORIDA): I wrote a little speech here. I brought it. I apologize. It's hard to get a teleprompter in this town. There's a guy that uses a lot of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASHIR: Well done, Mr. Rubio, but don't be deceived by the applause because you're going to have to go an awful lot further if you want to be on this Republican ticket as vice president.
Mr. Rubio has already displayed some flare in rewriting his personal history for the sake of political progress. You may remember that in his official biography, he said that his parents came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover. If this were true, it would clearly add grit to Mr. Rubio’s compelling life story, fleeing a communist dictator for the freedom and true liberty offered by the United States. But unfortunately, official documents suggest that Mr. Rubio’s parents left Cuba more than two and a half years before Castro took power in 1959.
And just two years ago, in fact at CPAC 2010, Mr. Rubio described how his father left Cuba after suffering many hardships, including the loss of his mother when he was just six years old. But just seven months later, Mr. Rubio said that his father lost his mother when he was just shy of his ninth birthday.
Now, I'm not picking fights over tiny details, but it does reveal the enormous challenge that confronts this young politician who wants to make progress in a party that says multiculturalism is dead. He's already had to embellish his personal history. One wonders what else he'll have to do to make himself acceptable to perhaps the most selective incarnation of the Republican Party that we’ve seen in a very, very long time.
As you can see in the video and transcript, Bashir never used the word racist or racism. But is there any other conclusion to be drawn from this segment, especially ending it with "the most selective incarnation of the Republican Party that we’ve seen in a very, very long time?"
What do you think Bashir meant by "most selective?"
But what makes this even more absurd is that Rubio is now one of the darlings of the Republican Party.
He so wowed the audience at CPAC 2010 that he shot directly to victory in his senatorial election that November placing him immediately on everyone's vice presidential lists whether he likes it or not.
The fact is that Rubio would be dearly welcomed on the ticket by the vast majority of Republicans.
It's only Democrats and their liberal media minions that are scared of this Cuban-American.
As such, maybe Bashir ought to point that accusatory finger at himself.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I just love him, but,
Submitted by ray johnson on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 6:46pm.
I just love him, but, unfortunately, the Constitution will need an amendment for this to happen.
yup
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 6:58pm.
but we're called racist and bunch of other stuff cause of this.
personally I'm not a huge Rubio fan (more ambivalent about him) but it has nothing to do with his heritage.
@ray Johnson
Submitted by FistsforLiberty on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 7:11pm.
+1
Nonsense
Submitted by lockestep on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 7:11pm.
OMG I am getting so tired of the crap, Rubio is completely eligible to be VP or President. The issue of if the child of immigrant parents is a natural born citizen was settles by by the Supreme Court in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. By the same arguments being used to say he is not eligible then neither are/were Mitt Romney, George Romney, Santorum, Obama, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover.
Get over it
Rubio, like Obama ...
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:30pm.
Is not a natural born citizen owing to the foreign nationality of his father.
This is what the Supreme Court said in 1875 in Minor v. Happersett. It is the same understanding of 'natural born citizen' held by Rep. John Bingham of Ohio and Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, authors of the 14th Amendment. It is the same understanding as held by the James Madison and the Framers who wrote it into the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark does not speak to natural born citizenship. It merely holds that Wong Kim Ark being born upon US soil of parents who were here legally, i.e. 'under the jurisdiction thereof', was a citizen according to the 14th Amendment.
Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson were eligible to the Presidency despite not being 'natural born citizens'. They fall under 'residents of these states at the adoption of this constitution'. That you include them in your list is testament to your ignorance.
Not Exactly
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:57pm.
There is NO law that the Vice President must be a natural born citizen. The only thing a non-natural born citizen VP cannot do is succeed to the Presidency, instead the office will go to the first natural born citizen on the list of succession. Several non-natural born citizens have been on the list of succession, even in modern times: Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright to name two.
The meaning of natural born citizen is still murky with too much wiggle room and should be explicitly defined by either Congress or SCOTUS. Don't look for it anytime soon as the Left wages a battle over immigration and illegal aliens.
This is true ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:17am.
But the Constitution does specify that the VP is the first succession to the Presidency in the event of the President's untimely demise, as has happened 8 times since the founding. Were the VP Constitutionally unqualified to be President, the Speaker of the House would succeed in his place, which more or less defeats the principal point of a Vice President.
Yes...Exactly
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 5:45am.
According to the law of the US Constitution, Twelfth Amendment, closing sentence:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Jer
Hmm
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:31pm.
They must have ratified XII while I was on vacation.
I suppose you'll be telling me next that the guy with the second most votes isn't the VP.
Rubio compared to Obama
Submitted by Mutantone on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:44am.
Following that logic then Obama is not legally holding the Office or President his father was not a Citizen of the USA. But Rubio was born here albeit his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth but under the Constitution since he was born here he Is a Natural born Citizen the only difference is he can prove his place of birth Obama still refuses to do so
Wrong.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:00am.
Rubio is a citizen naturalized by birth under the terms of the 14th Amendment.
The only extant legal authority defining natural born citizenship in the United States is Minor v. Happersett, 1875. That clearly defines natural born citizenship as having patents, plural, who are citizens and gives no other definitions.
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Minor alludes to other definitions but does not give them, indicating that the court did not accept them.
Ah. I get it now.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:51am.
NL207: Rubio is a citizen naturalized by birth...
So a citizen naturalized by birth, that is, a citizen that acquired his citizenship through birth, cannot be a natural born citizen, that is, a citizen that acquired his citizenship through birth just as a native born citizen, that is, a citizen that acquired his citizenship through birth cannot be a natural born citizen, that is.....
In other news, tortured logic cannot be the same thing as twisted logic which can't be the same thing as pretzel logic. Because, really, they are all different words and the Constitution never did define them exactly, now did it?
But you keep telling us all to shut up, mmmmkay?
NL...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:42am.
You post this excerpt from Minor:
"...These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..."
...which seems to equate natives with natural born citizens. If so, how do you reconcile it with your view considering the court's observation appearing a few paragraphs later [bolded below]? If not, how do you differentiate the two?
"...From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that NATIVE women and NATIVE minors were already CITIZENS BY BIRTH..." [my caps]
Jer
It can be argued that the
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 4:04am.
It can be argued that the native Indian alive at that time was born of parents who were also born in America as were their parents, and their parents, and so on. Except in the case of known parentage from a foreigner - such as a trapper of French citizenship -every native Indian (women and children from the quote) could logically be natural born because both parents were born in the country.
Because the quote, taken without further context, mentions only native women and native minors, the assumption being you can only be sure of who the mother is, the confirmation of natural born citizenship in a child could be construed when the mother is natural born regardless of the citizenship of the father.
But Jer knows this isn't the whole story.
I did on this very thread, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 5:00am.
which I am copying and pasting below. And I have done so on several occasions in the past with respect to this same topic as well. If you overlooked them, that's not my fault. But how about being a little less reckless with your potshots.
Times up, NL..
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:08am.
Minor does NOT define 'natural born citizen'. The decision also acknowledges the US Constitution does NOT define 'natural born citizen'. The court specifically notes the ambiguities associated with the term, and further holds it is not required to resolve the doubts since it is not called upon to do so, it is neither the determinative issue in the case nor the basis of the appeal--which is suffrage rather than citizenship--and therefore it will rule only upon the question presented.
The female petitioner's status as a citizen was unchallenged and presumed. The seminal issue was whether or not her citizenship entitled women an equal right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution to the same extent such right was enjoyed by qualified males.
True, the court preliminarily traced a general history of the nature and characteristics of citizenship for the purpose of showing why and how this petitioner was clearly and indisputably a citizen. But it did NOT, nor was it its intent to, establish comprehensive, encompassing and definitive boundaries defining and limiting who may be and who may not be a "natural born citizen" in any and all circumstances under the US Constitution.
It stated the obvious: That a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States to parents, both of whom were United States citizens, is unquestionably a natural born citizen. But that statement in and of itself does not rule out the fact that other parent/child place-of-birth scenarios may also qualify for natural birth citizenry. And therein lies your fundamental misconception and misinterpretation, NL. You perceive the reasoning of the Minor court to be along the following lines: "There is no doubt a lump of coal is black. There is, however, no such similar certainty about the color of a pair of socks. Therefore a pair of socks cannot be black."
You somehow see the issue in absolutist terms while the very source you cite says otherwise.
Jer
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/10/martin-bashir-impl...
update. I notice you have removed your "pussyfooting...grassy knoll" swipes. Thanks.
Prior to strat's edit:
But even Jer knows this isn't the whole story. Quit pussyfooting around, Jer, and lay out your argument for a change instead of taking potshots from the grassy knoll.
Jer:
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:44pm.
I removed it because I continued to read this thread and came upon your subsequent post. Based on that subsequent post I edited my own to reflect your effort. You made sure to post your potshot update despite knowing otherwise. That's the difference. I changed my post to reflect additional information. You continued to be an ass.
Lame excuse, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 10:39pm.
The potshot you took was not only groundless and gratuitous, but rude as well. If you had simply acknowledged that fact, my response would have been entirely different--even conciliatory. Instead, you tried to conceal your inappropriate slam by deleting the comment in the hope no one had noticed your blunder.
I have been trying extremely hard to re-establish at least a semblance of the very nice relationship we enjoyed here until a year ago when you chose to sever it for reasons you never explained and remain baffling to me to this day. I had hoped and truly believed we were making progress toward that end, but this incident suggests my optimism was apparently and regrettably greater than circumstances actually warranted.
Jer
It is entirely possible, Jer, that on occasion, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 10:55pm.
your continual lefty take on things, coupled with your seeming inability to see yourself as a liberal type provocateur on a conservative site, can sometimes honk people off.
It has been mentioned enough times that I am quite sure you are aware of that particular penchant of yours; you just choose to ignore it.
MD
Matthew..I have been expressing a continual lefty or center/left
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 11:46pm.
take on things for going on five years now--having been initially impressed with and persuaded by the assurances that such views were welcome at NB--without my contrarian "take" causing any serious rift with numerous members whom I have considered and still consider website "friends" [including you]--and stratman being perhaps foremost among them.
Name me a lib who doesn't "honk people off" with his or her dissenting opinions here. Most of the lib posters I have noticed or known have either been banned or now rarely comment. strat and I were able for over thee years to maintain a wonderfully cordial relationship based on mutual respect in spite of our clear political differences. I have no idea what happened to change his mind, despite my pleas to him to tell me.
Jer
The banned libs, Jer, were liberal trolls who ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 3:29am.
came on board with guns blazing, looking to foment anger with, let's say, less than cordial verbal interplay.
While the fact that you remain, and remain as a most active poster with a considerable leftist bent, may be attributed to a number of things; the fact that other posters - conservatives - are occasionally going to get crossways with not only your ideology, but how you present it; shouldn't, after all this time, come as a shock to you.
"This isn't personal, Sonny. It's business."
Al Pacino as Michael Corleone.
MD
You're right, Matthew, it shouldn't and doesn't come as a shock
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 3:48am.
to me normally.
But in strat's case--which was a 180 out of the blue for reasons that remain a mystery--it did and still does.
Jer
MD....
Submitted by Timothy H on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 12:43pm.
And to be entirely honest, that sort of thing is exactly why I, after years and years spent on this site daily, stopped coming here regularly.
Because our own comment threads look more and more like a negative-image of those at the the Huff or DK. Because somewhere along the line it became less and less possible to have a legitimate debate with someone like Jer without our own conservative brethren embarrassingly acting like a reverse-Kossack.
The tone of the sight has changed gradually over the years and to be honest, there are quite a few regular conservatives here who would and should have been banned if we weren't hypocrites or if we followed any sort of honor-code that we despise the other side for not following.
This site has become less and less about intelligent discussion and more and more about spewing venom and acting like a bunch of Kossacks in the comment threads. We have become every bit as much a caricature of ourselves as they are and we continually play into their hands and make jokes out of ourselves by being exactly what we claim to hate....biased and venomous.
And as much as we complain about what happens elsewhere, those of us who've been with this site for so long should in many ways be ashamed. There was a time when I would have used this place to illustrate the difference between the way Liberals act on forums and the way Conservatives act. That time has passed, sadly.
And I honestly hate that.....
(Please note that I'm not personally attacking you, Bro. Just opening up a discussion with you.)
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
No problem, Timothy H, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 2:02am.
as I don't tend to take too many things rendered in the give and take / back and forth regimen around here, personally.
I just happen to dislike liberal trolls - not because they are trolls, exactly, but because I cannot for the life of me figure out how someone smart enough to type reasonably well on a keyboard can harbor such insane thoughts and weird ideology, and then top that off by having the gall to try and push that BS on me and subsequently react when I disagree as though I am the one with a problem.
Suffice it to say, Timothy - you believe conservatives do themselves a disservice by acting as nasty as liberals, and I believe that unless conservatives are willing to get down and dirty and fight guerilla warfare adherents with their own methods, the fight is already lost.
I believe, as well, because my personal experience has shown, that "making nice" with libs is tantamount to petting a rattlesnake.
That belief will never, ever, change; and I say that only so that you understand that "opening up" a discussion with me regarding possibly getting me to rethink my mores, beliefs, and standards reference dealing with liberals, would undoubtedly be a waste of your time.
A 'legitimate' debate would be viable only when both sides agree to the parameters set forth. I have yet to see anything from a dyed-in-the-wool liberal that makes me itch to debate them "fair and square". I see liberals (and Democrats), their desires, and their beliefs, as harbingers of eventual national desolation, and what has already happened to this country because of liberalism, i.e., Political Correctness and Affirmative Action nonsense, as being proof of the very possible demise of this once great country.
In a nutshell, then, as libs are not required by law to show up on NewsBusters, liberals who do so can kiss my ass. :o)
No offense meant, Timothy; as I respect both your ability to be articulate and your reasons for feeling that a kinder, gentler method of interaction would be more beneficial for you, personally, and for conservatives overall.
Hopefully, then, we can agree, amicably, to disagree.
MD
Oh, matthew, you have misread me, my friend.
Submitted by Timothy H on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 9:55am.
I neither believe in a kinder gentler approach nor do I believe in the idea of changing that liberal's mind. I believe in a civil approach. I never said a thing about kind or gentle.
I don't believe their minds can be changed any more than I believe ours can be. We have our determined goals and roadmaps based on our own ideology. It's nearly impossible to change the opinion of someone who forms their opinion based on ideology and theology. Not without some earth-shaking development to point to. And even then, the sky will still be red for some.
We form our opinion based on our conservative and religious beliefs. So do they (and yes, atheism is a religion, as is environmentalism in spite of their shouts otherwise). Those opinions are formed and aren't likely to ever change.
And my point is that I see no point in sinking into the mud to "beat" these liberals. What are you winning? Likely, they come out looking all "Bill Maher" and you come out looking like the butt of his jokes. If you manage to win, you've managed to do nothing more than look just like them, which, last I checked, wasn't too appealing.
I'm not trying to win a war for liberal hearts and minds. They've already lost their minds elsewhere. I'm looking to win the war for those in the middle. Those who haven't made up their minds or are still forming their opinions. And If we offer nothing more civilized than the opposition while being at a disadvantage entertainment-wise, then we lose. And we are losing and have been losing since we started trying to play their game.
I don't argue for civility for the liberals. I couldn't care less.
I'm arguing for us to be better than them for the undecided, something that becomes very easy to do when we're trashing the first lady while pretending we have the moral high ground.
They admit they aren't moral. How can we claim we are if we're acting like them? And it's why they come to sites like this and troll. So they can go to those undecideds and claim that we are just like them. It's why Clinton and Kennedy can be adulterous and it's OK but Newt better not. Because we claim a moral high-ground that they stake no claim to. It's why they're embarrassed by Gore's eco-hypocrisy but not Clinton's philandering. We don't care if Bush rides everywhere in a jumbo jet by himself. He never claimed moral high-ground on environmentalism. They don't care if Clinton rides everywhere on a jumbo intern by himself. e never claimed the moral high-ground on....well....morals.
If we're going to sink to their level, then we can continue to expect the current trend to continue. I've never said we can't defend our ideals. I'm saying you can't claim high moral standing while you're wallowing in sh!t with the pigs. Every time it happens, we just help them prove that we're hypocrites.
And that's were they've beaten us. That's where they will continue to beat us until we wise up. They never claimed to be fine upstanding moral people. They want fetal-murder, environmental churches and moral relativism.
But we claim to be the moral party, yet we wallow in the mud with them and say the same terrible garbage just because they do. Even as a child, we knew that two wrongs don't make a right, yet here we are, acting like them.
In the end, it comes down to this for me. I don't argue with liberals to prove anything to them. It's not going to work. I argue with liberals to create a contrast for those undecideds who may be watching. Its them I want to win over. And it's them we're losing as we pretend we can out-Maher the liberals.
A "legitimate" debate is not had to beat down or teach the opponent. I think that's where the difference lies in our view. I'm not trying to teach liberals. I'm not trying to make liberals feel a certain way. I don't care if they think they won because they called me more names or because they feel like they had the better jokes. I'm debating them because I want to win the debate itself. A debate is not had for the benefit of the debaters, but for the benefit of the observers.
You made a analogy above to "playing nice" and rattlesnakes. I'd argue that trying to out-Maher a liberal is the perfect way to get bitten by that snake, and I think you can look at the current state of things and see that we have, in fact, been bitten. And I don't advocate "playing nice". I advocate civility. There is a difference. Reagan didn't play nice. But he played in a civil manner. And he won far more than an election. He won minds.
You are making a legitimate point in arguing that Liberals aren't going to play fair. But then, neither are you if you take the high road. They cannot possibly stay on that road with you and still argue their points, so they have to bring you down into the mud with them, where they can level the playing field. When you're making points and their throwing mud, you come out on top. When they throw mud, and you throw it back while trying to tell everyone that you have the moral high-ground.....you lose. Even if you think you win, you still lose. You might have succeeded in pissing off a liberal. But you also stripped away you moral standing to do it, and thus you turned off the undecideds that were watching. What's worse that an honest pig? A pig, all covered in sh!t, that tries to tell you they're an elephant. Sure, it might actually even be an embarrassed elephant that's covered in sh!t, but he's hard to distinguish from the pig sitting next to him.
That is how it often looks to someone on the outside, though. You, for example, have great point to make and can intelligently do so. But you're delivery can leave those looking on believing that they are watching a reverse images at war. I'm not trying to attack you personally. You're not even close to being the worst offender. But think about how many of the "undecideds"....those centrists that could go either way...that you've heard say that there's really no difference in the sides. I hear it all the time. I'm sure you probably do, as well.
And, of course, every discussion you and I have will be amicable. We agree on far, FAR more than we will ever disagree on. But just like any other debate I have, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You've, as you wrote, already closed your mind to the argument. But others watching may yet be undecided. It is them I'm trying to reach.
As for us and agreeing to disagree: Our disagreement won't end either of us and, tomorrow, we'll still agree about 99% of the time.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
Very well done, Timothy, and I applaud your ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/14/2012 - 1:15am.
good conscience and consciousness.
I have but a short reply - not to be considered in any way a rebuttal, because as you said, we will ultimately agree on more than we will disagree upon:
I have no patience for, nor would I attempt to convince the fence-sitters (or as you put it, the 'undecided) - because if they cannot determine on their own that my words, actions, and efforts in wrestling with a liberal pig in the mud are done for defensive purposes against a litany of inane liberal thoughts and practices; then those same undecided might be just as likely to deem me as some morally relativistic type looking down on them from my position on the "high road" - if that were my preferred position.
It could well be that my upbringing had a lot to do with my being far more desirous of "mixing it up" and "fighting fire with fire', than to try and exist on a moral plane that I do not believe can be lived upon for any extended length of time without being viewed, by the undecided types, as someone who considers himself better than they are. I am not saying that either way has been more effective than the other; just that I know which venue is the most comfortable for me.
If the undecided cannot look at the mud-slinging by liberals and note that return mud-slinging from me was reactive rather than proactive; then I don't see the point of concerning myself with the thoughts of those who may well be too simple minded to discern between righteous reaction and egregious initial efforts.
MD
Just a short rebuttal, Matthew.
Submitted by Timothy H on Tue, 02/14/2012 - 9:10am.
If we don't want those fence sitters....more-so, if we don't get those fence-sitters, then you might as well get used to having people with the current administration's views in high office.
And I would completely agree with your premise....if we were claiming to be the same type of people the liberals are. But as long as we continue to point out how nasty, uncivilized and immoral they are by acting the same way, then we will lose far more of those undecideds than we ever would have lost by taking the high road. In fact, I'd argue that those who see us as looking down on others for taking the high road weren't likely going to see it our way. If arguing civilly for what's right or moral turns the reader/listener's thoughts in that direction, the that person was likely predisposed to liberalism anyways. Isn't it liberals who make that argument? I can't think of too many conservatives who would think that someone acting civilly and attempting to act morally "thinks their better than me!" It just doesn't jive with our way of thinking.
Here's a thought I'd like to leave you with: I thought we wanted to be considered better than those liberals. Now it's bad if someone might view us in that light?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
Timothy, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 2:47am.
I have no desire to be either "considered " or viewed" by others as being better than a liberal - I just firmly believe my conservative outlook makes eminently more sense than anything liberals promote.
I have no problem with being polite until such time as I realize that my views and opinions have no effect on the overall discourse and are not going to sway the opposition - at that time it is easy to disengage and walk away.
If, however, a liberal starts out with sneer, I delight in returning in kind; and if an undecided, fence-sitting neutral happens to be watching and listening, and is prompted to go liberal after observing the exchange, then chances are that person was fated to end up as a lib anyway.
Liberals are going to believe in liberalism, and I am going to believe in conservatism and being conservative; and as far as I'm concerned, any 'undecided' adult who cannot see the profound difference between the two concepts - regardless of the dialectics involved - is not only too stupid to spend time on trying to convince to come over to my side - I wouldn't want him there in the first place.
MD
I don't recall being converted to conservatism...
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 3:10am.
...by the nicey-nice words of conservatives. Nor do I know anyone that was converted to conservatism by the nicey-nice words of conservatives. I read an article one day that described the beliefs of conservatives and said "hey, I am a conservative".
No troll, liberal, of wishy-washy fence sitter has been turned ever on this site by anyone ever. Not by sweet talking. Not by presenting facts. Not by troll bashing. Either you will come to it on your own or you won't. In the meantime, driving trolls nuts by either discouraging them to return or encouraging them to pop off and get banned keeps the site a little cleaner and neater for people that want to express an opinion. Playing nicey-nice with the trolls encourages them to stay and irritate and never leave and more and more just keep coming in and making a home.
Sorry Mr H. I would give your argument more weight if I had seen one liberal or fence-sitter turned in the 5 years I have been here. Just one. But I haven't.
Vet....
Submitted by Timothy H on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 9:57am.
Funny enough, in my six years here, I have seen fence-sitters who have changed their minds on individual issues, but never by the blunt force some of you show, not have I seen any liberal slink away due to that blunt force.
But you're argument revolves around the idea that the majority actually post comments here. Truth is, the VAST majority of hits on a page never comment on that page. Most don't even register.
I'm a paid sportswriter for a major sports website, myself. I can tell you that I average nearly a quarter-million hits a quarter and just around 500 comments. Sports and politics have a lot in common on the interwebs....they generate a ton of hits and quite a few comments, but the only people commenting are your most passionate and most bold and sure of themselves.
In other words.....your fence-sitters aren't the ones who are predisposed to start commenting on threads. Regardless of ideology, few people want to look like an idiot. Which means the less confident you are in your opinion, the less likely you are to put it out there for the world to crucify.
Sorry, Vet, but your logic only washed if everyone were of the same percentage likelihood to comment. But that isn't the case. the reverse argument, of course, is that while I have een minds changed with logical, civil conversation, I've never seen one changed with blunt, brutal insults. Not. Once.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
So then. I have to impress ghosts.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:14am.
Ghosts that never post.
What are you trying to accomplish then, Vet?
Submitted by Timothy H on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:58am.
Not sure how I screwed all that up and got two posts where I was trying to edit one (and it even allowed me to edit the old post, as you can see by the other one) but just skip on, Vet, and read the next one. :)
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
What are you trying to accomplish then, Vet?
Submitted by Timothy H on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:43am.
I asked Matt the same thing and I'll ask you, too.
I've been here for six damned years. What is the point of this place if not to try and expose bias and change minds? What's the point of exposing that bias if we don't care if votes change?
And why do you engage liberals in the first place if you think no good can come of it? What is your end goal?
What is your purpose when you engage a liberal here? What are trying to make happen if it isn't about bringing more people into our mindset?
I've been on this site a long time, and I believe we've been on the same side of nearly all, if not actually all, arguments, have we not? We've been on each other's "buddy" list of half a decade or so. So you know that I'm not speaking as someone who is a liberal in conservative clothing. I'm far more conservative than the vast majority of the "conservatives" on this site and you know it.
I'm asking a simple question. What is possibly gained by acting like a liberal? By deciding that taunts and shout-downs and wallowing in the mud are better debate tactics than civility and facts? I never said a damned thing about kindness. I'm talking about people like me disengaging from the whole process because the side that I agree with is getting to be as petty, ugly and vicious as the side I disagree with.
How wrong is it, honestly , to believe that we should be acting more like Ronald Reagan than Alan Grayson? Funny enough, Reagan reached a hell of a lot more people and got a hell of a lot more done by treating people civilly than Grayson has done acting like an ass.
And finally....you complained of having to impress ghosts. What, exactly, is wrong with persuading those people? Aren't those the people who decide every single election? Do you think any of our conservative friends voted for Obama? Or any of Kerry's die-hard lib supporters jumped ship to vote for McCain? I'm pretty sure not.
So yes, I would suggest that impressing your views positively on those undecideds might accomplish more than throwing Mjolnir at trolls.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
We are just gonna have to disagree.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:55am.
I don't act like a liberal. Or a troll. So I would hope you were not talking about the actions of MD or me. The feedback I get is generally positive and when it is negative, they are usually pretty disagreeable users to start with that never manage to say anything at all to trolls.
See you later Mr. H.
Vet
Submitted by Timothy H on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 9:08am.
Of course I'm not speaking of specifics. I believe I covered that above. But we appear to have taken two different sides of the argument, so I'm trying to do this in debate format. But if it makes you more comfortable.....
What should be the end goal of that style of contact?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
And thus you make my point....
Submitted by Timothy H on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:19am.
Thank you. You have managed to perfectly illustrate exactly what I mean.
So if a person looks at an issue and sees decent arguments on both sides (say, for example, the legalization of drugs, which has plenty of reasonable arguments on both sides) but is then turned off watching someone act like a complete ass, that makes them stupid? Have you ever ran into someone that acted like such an ass that you just didn't want to hear what they had to say? Same concept.
I'd call that short-sighted and exactly why we, as a movement are increasingly turning off young people. Because we pretend that the logic of the argument is the only part that matters while emotionally responding to the opposition. It's hypocrisy at it's core and it diminishes your footing and your arguments. And in turn, you savage the "undecided" for not believing you when you say to trust logic and reason in a (metaphoric) voice as shill and as emotional as your most fervent tree-hugging, fetus-hating liberal.
The two wrongs make a right argument has never held much water for me.
And one last thing.....if you are no better than them, then what makes your argument more credible? Because, let's face it, the average person can be overwhelmed with statistics, so pointing to straight logic and "facts" only holds water if the purveyor of those thoughts and facts is actually credible. So why are you more credible than say....thoughtpolice?
And if you don't see yourself changing minds or persuading the undecided, whom you view as stupid, then why are you arguing in the first place? What are you winning? What's your purpose? What's your point? I mean, come on. Logic and reason, right? Little victories over internet trolls and back-claps from like-minded individuals that you will never meet and can't help you change anything, since they're already voting the way you are, are really logically fairly petty and meaningless goals, correct? So I don't get it. I'm not being snide, here. I'm confused. I mean, what is gained? You got dragged into the muck for nothing then, right? So what's the point that I'm missing?
I'm being honest here. I'm trying to see it from your side. And ti just isn't coming into focus. Why do you engage them if you have no desire to change minds or change votes? What are you trying to accomplish then? Maybe I'm in the wrong place (and I've strongly suspected this for a long time) but I was under the impression that MRC and Newsbusters were places meant to do just that. So what am I missing?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
One thought to consider....
Submitted by Timothy H on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:34am.
One of those stupid undecided people (considering he changed his mind from liberal dem to conservative republican icon) was Ronald Reagan, who was a liberal democrat who supported FDR, the New Deal and was president of the screen actors guild (a union!) in the late '40s. His views didn't start to shift until after he married Nancy and became the public speaker for GE (who, believe it or not, was headed by conservative business types back then).
Apparently, even a smart guy can be led down the wrong path, but can be persuaded in the right direction with the right arguments. It's a good thing that whoever changed Reagan's mind didn't think you had to be stupid to not have formed an ideological compass by 18.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
As The Vet said, Timothy H., same as I ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:19pm.
did; we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Or not. :o)
MD
Timothy H, Big changes in here on NB
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 3:40pm.
Matthew Sheffield, has a tiger by the tail. Those 6 threads and 10 posts per/day are gone.
What I liked about the them early days was the folk that pop on and post some very interesting stuff about their work, or what politicians were doing behind our backs...
Some would stick around for a while, then bail whether trollerized, or not.
NB did more climate science way back when there was a need for it, now there is the WUWT site.
Seamed like the Engineers, Science guys were more plentiful, and willing to unload data. On those science threads. The business threads still get some eye opening data.
Of course there are still folks that come here and upload their very readable stuff.
Finding the random post is a problem kuz, NB is bigger more threads per day, and many more posts.
I signed on when a poster Named Karl Rove and Jack Bauer were whacking a troll, man oh man that was a classic thread, now electron dust. I think Jack posts about as much as he always has (so many posts so little time), I don't see him as often.
NB has in the past placed newbies on the controls, to purge the cussers. I think the blow back from those forays into censorship, created much more work than what was ever dreamed of.
Now it seems it's up to just us posters to call others out... don't get any of it on you, heh, heh.
You Didn't Build That.
Both Obstinate AND Illiterate
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 12:16am.
This is what the Court said in Minor :
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents."
It contains two salient points. (1) The Court clearly defined one and only one condition that constituted Natural Born Citizenship. It gave no other. (2) The Court said 'some authorities go further', without naming them and referred to that as 'citizenship' but not natural born citizenship. The only thing we can be certain about these authorities is they were NOT SCOTUS and therefore not authoritative.
Since you claim Minor does not define Natural Born Citizenship, show me other case law where SCOTUS has affirmed some other definition also applies. I am waiting ....
Then we have the matter of Originalism. It is clear from the collected works of the Founders, the authors of the 14th Amendment, and the ratifiers of both that they intended NO DUAL CITIZEN should ever become President of the United States. That is exactly who Barack Obama is, a dual citizen.
" the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961."
You don't just turn that off at age 21. Evidence of Obama's divided loyalties abound in his book, 'Dreams of my Father'. It was this divided loyalty the Founders sought to exclude from the Presidency. The Founders even talked about this very issue when they were debating Article II.
I am going to guess your ancestors were Confederates. You are as stubborn about defending Obama's claim to the Presidency as the Confederates were their 'peculiar institution', and just as wrong.
Here you go Mr. H.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 8:31am.
We have been more than kind with NL207. More than kind. He once again brings a case that speaks to parents in the plural but makes no mention of dual citizenship parentage. As it did not speak to dual citizenship parentage, it cannot be cited as a supporting case. He has been told that again and again and again.
And he continues to demand someone show him court cases that have been adjudicated when there has been none. It is why we tell him he has a tiny tiny tiny sliver of an argument. An argument so tiny that what he is arguing HAS been before judges and dismissed. And a higher court refused to let the appeal go before it because there is nothing there there.
So you show us Mr H how you are going to convince NL207 with kindness and nice words. Because I am finished.
Give it up, NL...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 02/20/2012 - 2:20am.
You state:
"The Court clearly defined one and only one condition that constituted Natural Born Citizenship [child born in America to parents, both of whom being American citizens]. It gave no other."
If that were true, the issue would be deemed already resolved and ruled upon by the highest court in the nation, and that it must be (and therefore would be) considered settled law and binding precedent; and a multitude of constitutional scholars would have pointed out such fact
the momentwell before Obama declared his candidacy.The fact that the foregoing did not occur should tell you something about Minor v. Happersett, NL. And it should further tell you something about your own obstinacy. [Inasmuch as the "illiterate" crack is just another instance of your long-standing penchant for calling anyone who disagrees with you a "moron", "idiot", "imbecile", etc., I'm unable to even muster a yawn over it].
Jer
Hi Mr. stratman.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 5:36am.
The Supreme court case in question was in 1875. Native refers to natives not native indians. Indians from the gitgo were excluded from citizenship. I don't think even the 14th amendment granted native Indians citzenship. They were granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924.*
The indians were never considered native in the sense of birthright. Remember, there were still Indian nations at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
A native is different from a native Indian.
native: 4: belonging to or associated with one by birth**
Or so I believe. I am not a lawyer and I hate it the way NL207 drags us into this every single time.
*http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
**http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/native
All I Can Say The Vet Is
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:46pm.
I answered based on the text that was posted.
Thanks for correcting assumptions.
Wow. Thank you NL207. You really opened our eyes.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:51am.
NL207: ...not a natural born citizen owing to the foreign nationality of his father.
Too bad that law was not in force in 2008, huh? Cuz then that would have stopped the election of President Obama that had a foreign nationality dad. Funny, why would a man that had a foreign born, foreign nationality, foreign passport holding dad sign a law that invalidates his running for a second term. Odd.
Or wait.... Does your argument hold so little water that the entire issue was pretty much ignored in the 2008 election? Why, I think it does. Not a living soul cared about it at a time when, really, they should have. Not one damn soul including you was talking about Kim of Ark being burned at the stake in 2008. Sorry. But, please, do continue to push this issue with your every post. Not boorish at all.
Too bad the extant law ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:15am.
was not enforced.
Show me a Supreme Court decision that defines natural born citizenship in any way that includes Obama or Rubio an I will concede your point.
Otherwise, you shut up an sit down.
No. I don't think I will.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:02am.
I will mock you and laugh and giggle and point and say "Nah nah, we did it anyway. Too bad. So sad."
I agree, but as democrats
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 7:13pm.
I agree, but as democrats vette Rubio they are also vetting their P.O.S.
Why?
Submitted by syvyn11 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:06am.
Senator Rubio is a natural born citizen.
By whose definition?
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:22am.
???
Cite your authority for this statement. Or kindly shut the h*ll up.
A citizen because he was born here
Submitted by Mutantone on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:39am.
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida,[5] the second son and third child of Mario Rubio (1927–2010)[6] and Oria Garcia (born 1931). His parents were Cubans who had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.[7]
ipso facto
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:03am.
"His parents were Cubans who had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975"
Therefore Marco Rubio, born May 28, 1971, is NOT a natural born citizen.
Ipso Facto your......... an idiot
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:38am.
Generally speaking, a person can become a U.S. citizen in one of four ways.
1) by being born in the United States or one of its territories.
2) if you were born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.
3) you can be a citizen through the naturalization process, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.
4) you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. This is called "derivation" of citizenship.
Birth within the United States is the current common usage in law to define a born citizen.
And as this is also the currently used measure for defining a "natural born" citizenship for the proposes of determining eligibility to hold the office of President......
Ipso Facto......... your an idiot.
"Birth within the United
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:43am.
"Birth within the United States is the current common usage in law to define a born citizen"
Yeah? well that needs to be changed! Otherwise the spirit of the law is meaningless!
Change Birth within the US as measure of citizenship..
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:50am.
I actually agree with you as I do believe that it does violate not only the spirit of the law but the intent of the framers as well.
However it is one of the current lawful means to gain "birthright" citizenship.
According to your reasoning ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:33pm.
Anwar al-Awlaki, the Al Qaeda terrorist leader recently slain in Yemen was Constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States, being born to foreign parents upon US soil.
Further, you also implicitly claim that ANY person born on US soil is automatically a citizen of the United States and a natural born citizen. This implies that children born of criminal invaders, outright enemies of the United States, are voting members of the US body politic and fully qualified to assume the Presidency. This means that anyone who can transgress our national boundaries can seize by force right of citizenship in our country for their progeny and ultimately themselves. The absurdity of your argument should be obvious. And you have the nerve to call me an idiot?
You claim that jus soli is the "currently used measure for defining a "natural born" citizenship ". This is BS. The ruling precedent is Minor, which clearly specifies jus sanguinis. Jus soli is by itself not even sufficient to insure citizenship, something about 'and under the jurisdiction thereof'. What do you suppose those words in the 14th Amendment mean? We know what Jacob Howard thought they meant, and that is not jus soli.
You show me where SCOTUS has overturned Minor. Otherwise, you also must shut-up and sit down.
You don't have to shut the hell up syvyn11.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:58am.
Nor do you have to cite authorities. It will just be ignored anyway. Has been for years now.
Again, this argument about the foreign nationality of one parent is reed thin and holds so little water, no one of any import whatsoever was raising it in 2008 at the exact time it would have mattered.
Yes. Rubio is just as eligible now as President Obama was in 2008. Ignore the naysayers and their insistence you research this topic every other month so they can dismiss anything you find because it don't fit their reed thin, leaky bucket nutball theories.
That's right,. Chief.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:03am.
Just ignore the Constitution and all existing legal precedent.
All legal precedent...
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:03am.
Excepting of course current Federal Law that that states that those being born within the United States are citizens by birth.
No other caveat....no silly ...only if, or meeting of other criteria.....If you are born within the United States you are considered a citizen "by birth"....in other words they are "Natural Born Citizens".
While you may want to argue the constitutionality of this law the fact remains it is the existing law of the land and it is what is currently being used to define eligibility (along with several other scenarios list under the current law) to hold the Office of President.
The Founders clearly intended to exclude .....
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 12:22am.
dual citizens from the Presidency. That was the whole point of the Natural Born requirement.
Obama is a dual citizen. He is exactly who the Founders sought to exclude from the Presidency : those who in their judgment would be subject to divided loyalties.
Why are you so insistent upon seating an unqualified citizen in the Presidency and babbling about 'currently used to define' when that is clearly in conflict with both the word and original intent of the Constitution?
Must suck. Someone ought to tell him he can't be President.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 8:59am.
Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401 of United States Code of laws.
Oh, and I guess they oughta tell someone to change the law as well.
NL207, So, my when son and
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:02am.
NL207,
So, when son and daughter were born neither my wife nor I were yet citizens of the United States. I was born in Venezuela, my wife in Mexico, my children in the United States. I also held a Spanish citizenship through my father and grandfather at the time my children were born.
Are you honestly saying that both of my children, born inside of the United States, Chicago, Illinois are not natural born citizens? Are you saying that my children should not have the full rights AND duties of an American citizen? You do know that there are MILLIONS of Americans just like my kids, right? Are you saying these millions shouldn't be considered natural born citizens?
Oh c'mon, GIVE IT A REST already. The Birther argument will NEVER hold up in ANY court, Conservative or Liberal.
By the way, given the scenerio and your personal beliefs, what would you say is the legal citizenship of my children? Mexican, Venezuelan, Spanish, United States?
That is what I am saying
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 11:54am.
Your son and daughter are, according to the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the 14th Amendment, citizens from birth. That is what the authors of the 14th Amendment intended. You and your wife were, I presume, LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, an important distinction, since the 14th Amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". Wong made no reference at all to the distinction 'natural born citizen' or Article II. It was concerned exclusively with whether Wong Kim Ark was actually a citizen of the United States or not. Ark's parents were Chinese laborers who had been imported into the United States during the post Civil War Railroad building boom and although they had not been naturalized, their child, Wong Kim Ark, was born to them while they were [legal] residents of the United States. SCOTUS ruled that he was indeed a citizen even though the Emperor of China still regarded him as a subject.
That birthright citizenship is not what the Founders meant when they wrote 'natural born citizen' in Article II section 5. We know from their debates and writings they meant to restrict the Presidency and only the Presidency to citizens whose parents were both citizens. That interpretation was explicitly affirmed by Minor in 1875.
We also know from the writings and speeches of John Bingham and Jacob Howard that the 14th Amendment was not written or understood by its ratifiers to change the definition of 'natural born citizen' for purposes of Article II. Its explicit purpose was to make all slaves born on US soil prior to its adoption free citizens, something no mere statute could do because such a statute would be an ex post facto law explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. Notice the 14th explicitly excludes Indians not taxed.
The Modern Left has been misusing Wong to grant Citizenship to the children of tourists, invaders and temporary guests of the United States. Wong's parents were none of these. They were permanent legal residents of the United States.
Regrettably, this all means your children, like Marco Rubio and Barack Obama, are citizens of the United States but not eligible to become President. Our framers understood exactly what they were doing when they did this and it was hotly debated at the time.
NL207, 1) Thanks for the
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 4:02pm.
NL207,
1) Thanks for the detailed response. You gave me some names, cases, etc. to research.
2) You and I both know that this will never go anywhere.
3) My children, since they were born inside of the USA, have a right just like all Americans, since these is what my children are, to run, if this is what they wish, for the Presidency of the USA.
4) I know immigrants, children of immigrants that are much more patriotic, love this nation much more than countless of Liberals who fit into your narrowly defined Natural Born citizens. I rather have one of these individuals be our President than Clinton, Obama, Carter, etc. I know quite a few children of immigrant who have served in the military as a thank you gesture for taking care of his/her family. Again, i would prefer one of these individuals to be President of the USA than the Natural Born Citizens on the Left who hate with a deep passion this great nation of ours.
A never-ending drumbeat of
Submitted by cristo on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 7:04pm.
A never-ending drumbeat of lunacy from the quacks at NBC. Resist we much . . .
What's with the British accents?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 7:07pm.
Why all of a sudden in the last year or so did the Big Cable outfits start to add a bunch of Brits? Piers Ploughman, Martin Bashir Aside, that Kitty Katty or other babe who shows up on the pundit shows from time to time (and, btw, isn't a Stepford Lib-talker like all the rest). What's with all that? Adding a little flair and panache with the accent to give the patina of sophistication to cable networks whose other big stars are Chris the Wide Mouth Frog, Ed Schmutz, Larry Albedo Forehead O'Donnell, Run-down Ricky Sanchez (oops, he's gone), Keith the Departed Sports Boy, Racial Madcow, etc.?
CO2M, The lefty BS propaganda pushers like British accents
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:07pm.
...because they think they make the person sound more intelligent and sophisticated than those of us that speak plain old Amurrican.
They are so arrogant they figure we idiots in flyover country (actually, I live in fly through country) we'll be so bowled over by their superior intelligence that we will buy into what they are "reporting."
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
actually its expats that are
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:12pm.
actually its expats that are fleeing national healthcare:)
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
TM,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:20pm.
You are probably correct.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Stuart Varney
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:59pm.
I guess they figured since conservatives believe all of Stuart Varney's bs, you'd fall for it.
Speaking of bs, butthead gwinnett, yours---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:21pm.
is most tiresome.
You probably won't last long around here, as most of your ilk quickly get tied up in their own ideological knots and resort to either nasty language or really nasty language which hastens their demise.
You are definitely a liberal punk; but I mean that in a purely constructive way.
Well, sort of.
MD
The only nasty language being
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:27pm.
The only nasty language being used around here has been against me not by me. I forgot that facts are to conservatives what kryptonite is to Superman.
Wrong, butthead gwinnett, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:40pm.
the reference I made was to nasty language that you will likely be forced to resort to so as to make conservatives on this site aware you are even here.
Your liberal snark, smarm, and talking points are just so old hat, so trite, so passe', that you will have to go off like a Roman Candle to arouse any definitive interest in either your posts or what they contain.
Only reason you have been responded to so far is because dealing with trolls is a reflexive action, much like swatting mosquitos or any other offensive pest.
Putz.
MD
Fascinating. You're concerned
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:19am.
Fascinating.
You're concerned that I'll resort to the childish tactics that you've used in the preceding post.
Mmmmm. Childish tactics. Mmmmmm.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:04am.
Like taking an antithetical smearing tack on a website just to arouse emotions. Like that?
gwinnettman30045: If you were to eliminate...Fox, you would effectively eliminate 90% of the bias in television news.
Not antithetical. Not trolling. No. You is not childish at all. Not stomping your feet and telling mommy how much you hate her. No. Uh-uh. You is adultish nah.
Not in the least concerned, troll, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:49am.
about anything you have to say - except to use it as material for pointing out your lib stupidity.
MD
You must be from Gwinnett Co., Georgia, troll
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:15am.
As the zip code 30045 is smack ass in the midst of said county.
LOL - So just how many illegals without insurance have you been rear ended by?
Or should I ask just how many Americans you have rear ended?
Gwinnett County is the anus of the northern burbs of Atlanta - Sugarloaf being the lone exception.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Sugarloaf
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 10:09am.
That's funny. Nene said the same thing to me the other day when we had lunch with Jane Lynch at Atlantic Station.
Huge fan, but I am white....................
Submitted by Tomorama on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 7:07pm.
FACTS ARE that Rubio is superior in every way to the 4 candidates we have, if you actually looked at his life story, listened to him speak and looked at his record he IS the total package with new ideas.
No amendment needed here and not even sure why............................
I would have killed for a Cain/Rubio ticket, just to watch PMSNBC totally explode......
Bashir may eat his words
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:55pm.
Rubio would be a great choice to be VP.
But if Romney gets the nomination, I believe there's a 3:1 chance that he'll tap SC Gov. Nikki Haley to be VP.
⇒ Bashir may eat many things
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:02pm.
Chief among which are Ed Schultz's oozing pustules.
Rubio is ineligible to the Presidency ....
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:34pm.
However, in time, he will make a great Senate leader. I wish he represented my state.
All current and future members of the SC owe Justice NL207
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:06pm.
a tremendous debt of gratitude for his rendering a final decision on the definition of "natural born citizen" and alleviating the necessity of their wading into that ominous constitutional thicket. I hope Rubio doesn't take the news too hard.
Jer
Speaking of complete jerks ...
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:39pm.
Minor v. Happersett provides the only authoritative definition of 'natural born citizen' and Rubio, like Obama, does not qualify. Show me a Supreme Court ruling that says that any man or woman born on US soil of foreign national parents is a "natural born citizen" for purposes of Article II section 1 and I will concede your point. Otherwise, you get to shut up and sit down.
Since you can't, I plan to enjoy your silence.
I'm not a lawyer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:45pm.
but I can extrapolate. If Obama and Rubio are equally unqualified and Obama is president, then Rubio can be president too.
Why do you want to violate
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:43am.
the Constitution?
Each violation invites successive an more egregious violations.
Accept it's not, now is it.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:13am.
You rely on the reed thin argument that "natural born" and "native born" are not referring to the same thing when they are. Just as the term "nut", "loon" and "psycho" refer to the same mental condition natural born birthers exhibit.
But thanks for playing.
We did it in 2008. It sucks for you. We will do it again should another second rate natural born citizen with a foreign born father will run in the future. And we will laugh and point at you then too.
If this issue counted in 2008....
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:14am.
...then you can shut up and sit down.
There is one thing to argue a case, there is another telling your critics to shut up.
The facts are, your theories are reed thin, full of holes, never fully tested in a court of law, and generally ignored by the public at large. And precedent has been set. A man with a father of foreign nationality has ALREADY been elected President.
So the snottiness in dismissing your critics with constant calls to shut up is wholly uncalled for. Kindly, for the last time, kindly knock it off.
Again ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:39am.
Produce legal or Constitutional substantiation for your position binding in all 50 states or shut up and sit down. In essence, overrule Minor. That is the bar you must clear.
Just because a man who was constitutionally unqualified to occupy the Presidency was erroneously permitted to occupy that position does not justify his qualification. Obama is illegitimate according to the definitions used by the Framers, by the authors of the 14th Amendment and by the Supreme Court in Minor.
That Obama is a citizen in accordance with Wong Kim Ark is not in dispute here.
Nah. Think I will continue on.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:21am.
In fact, I just sent off a love missive to the White House thanking the President, then Senator, for flouting this issue of the Constitution in 2008, just so I could have the chance to giggle and taunt NL207 at 0019 CST Saturday, Febuary 11th, in the year of our lord Two Zero One Two.
We did it in 2008. We will do it again in the future. Nothing you say or do, one hundred friggin zillion times in one hundred zillion friggin posts can change it. Must suck to be you.
Times up, NL..
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:08am.
Minor does NOT define 'natural born citizen'. The decision also acknowledges the US Constitution does NOT define 'natural born citizen'. The court specifically notes the ambiguities associated with the term, and further holds it is not required to resolve the doubts since it is not called upon to do so, it is neither the determinative issue in the case nor the basis of the appeal--which is suffrage rather than citizenship--and therefore it will rule only upon the question presented.
The female petitioner's status as a citizen was unchallenged and presumed. The seminal issue was whether or not her citizenship entitled women an equal right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution to the same extent such right was enjoyed by qualified males.
True, the court preliminarily traced a general history of the nature and characteristics of citizenship for the purpose of showing why and how this petitioner was clearly and indisputably a citizen. But it did NOT, nor was it its intent to, establish comprehensive, encompassing and definitive boundaries defining and limiting who may be and who may not be a "natural born citizen" in any and all circumstances under the US Constitution.
It stated the obvious: That a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States to parents, both of whom were United States citizens, is unquestionably a natural born citizen. But that statement in and of itself does not rule out the fact that other parent/child place-of-birth scenarios may also qualify for natural birth citizenry. And therein lies your fundamental misconception and misinterpretation, NL. You perceive the reasoning of the Minor court to be along the following lines: "There is no doubt a lump of coal is black. There is, however, no such similar certainty about the color of a pair of socks. Therefore a pair of socks cannot be black."
You somehow see the issue in absolutist terms while the very source you cite says otherwise.
Jer
NL207 again takes over with boring stupidity
Submitted by Tomorama on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:24pm.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Time to move on to something relevent.
Smash him with a crumpet over and over
Submitted by Tomorama on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 7:09pm.
By the way, the camel jockey is at the bottom of the rung with Rubio looking down on him................
Tea Party Stars...
Submitted by BurnInHellObama on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 7:12pm.
Rubio, West, Cain, Ted Cruz (TX), Haley, Susana Martinez, etc. The Tea Party would LOVE to have one of these people as the nominee. If there are racists in the Republican Party, it is with the country club set, led by Romney.
Romney Bashing
Submitted by Dirjj on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:12pm.
What's with the Romney bashing? I like Rubio, but there's no way on earth that he's more qualified for the Presidency than Romney. When it comes to qualifications, I'd say that Romney is the BEST guys to run for office in my lifetime. Yes, I know that his credentials are a "Conservative" are suspect, and believe me, there aren't many out there who are more conservative than me, but really. He get's batched because he's Rich. For pete's sake, he's the only person that I can think of in my lifetime who has run for President, and wasn't a lawyer. Kudo's. He's a real businessman. Not like W, who I liked. His whole career has been about turning around businesses and making successes out of them.
I will admit that I'm not a fan of the GOP Establishment leadership, but this time ( unlike with tha idiot McCain ), the have it right. Romney should be running for a second term, instead fighting for the GOP nomination.
ab
Romney gets bashed
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:52pm.
because of his policies. Romneycare is a big one.
The benefit of this process is that more states and more people are being allowed to have a say in selecting the candidate.
The only thing I've decided is ABO.
Poor Martin Bashir
Submitted by WarEagle01 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:16pm.
He's completely oblivious to the fact that his best buds in the Democrat party founded the KKK. Yes, that's who he's thrown in with: Kluckers, the party of Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, and Orval Faubus. And this guy is on A Mess NBC's A-team? They are going to have a really tough time come November if dimwitted Bashir is the best they've got..
dont forget the current
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:14pm.
dont forget the current democat political plantation still going strong
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Racist?
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:29pm.
It's not all Republicans that are racist, it's mostly just conservatives.
Way back when, most conservative were Democrats, until Storm Thurmond began the migration of conservatives to the GOP.
Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves.
Conservatives opposed women's suffrage.
Conservatives opposed civil rights.
Conservatives to this day employ what is referred to as the "Southern Strategy" in elections to appeal to the inherent racism in conservatives.
another sleeper account gets activated.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:37pm.
Here 4 years and you only start posting 6 days ago?
Replace the word "Conservative" with "Democrat" and your list is accurate.
Now back to you bridge.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
gwinnettman really ought to ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:47pm.
button it.
MD
i knew democrats would begin
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:09pm.
i knew democrats would begin to press some sort of apologist 'conservative migration to the GOP' crap on these subjects - i'm kinda surprised it took this long...
AfAms to this day still live on the democrat plantation
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
⇒ And gosh, Truth!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:11pm.
Who would have thought trolls would have signed up at NB 4 years ago, just like sleeper jihadis, waiting for this election.
yes cool - just like our
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:18pm.
yes cool - just like our manchurian president
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
If you believe that, you are
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:51pm.
If you believe that, you are living proof that prolonged exposure to Fox "News" rots one's brain.
Oh wow, you mean Fox News
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:55pm.
doesn't report the truth? Gee I've never heard that before from a troll. What a harsh remark, I'm sure Truth Monger is crushed.
ah yes a fox news insult -
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:09pm.
ah yes a fox news insult - good one - but i'll take it back if you stop blaming Bush for creating hurricane katrina, global warming-cooling-climatechange, torturing criminals, fighting wars for oil and any other msnbc "news" brain rot
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
MSNBC?
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:09pm.
I don't watch MSNBC.
Who blamed Bush for creating hurricane Katrina? He can be blamed for appointing an incompetent horse show manager to head FEMA (Heckuva job, Brownie!), but not for creating a hurricane. That's about as stupid as the whole birther thing.
Cheney directed the shadier things that happened under Bush.
i'll take that as a 'no' and
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:23pm.
i'll take that as a 'no'
and i dont watch fox news either
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Bush didnt appoint
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:39pm.
Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin, dimwits did.
Cheney? Oh please let us hear your conspiracy's.
You dimwits really have no use for the truth, do ya?
Dimwits
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:24am.
Governors and Mayors are elected, not appointed.
The plural of conspiracy is conspiracies. Even if conspiracys was the right spelling, words that end in an s do not automatically receive an apostrophe before the s.
The truth is used to drive conservatives nuts, since it is usually in opposition to what they are told by the conservative media.
Make sure you don't look like a dimwit before you start lecturing.
As if you have room to talk?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:51am.
Every point that you make in your posts comes directly from Democrat propaganda. Almost as if you simply cut and paste them, they are verbatim what we have read on other sites or in the larger venue media. None of your points is original, supported by data or properly cited. In essence, you are either a very lazy researcher who cannot be bothered to support points of contention with direct data or you are simply another parroting troll that is, as one of our hallowed members here describes in southern lingo, a "sto' bought troll". That you call someone else a dimwit for a spelling error or two is ludicrous, considering your lack of proper support in your posts.
I have a feeling that your brain works in a very avian manner, Parrotman. There is absolutely nothing in your posts that suggests you have any original points to make or anything original to say. Garden variety liberal regurgitation is your chosen medium of expression, so this conservative website membership will respond accordingly.
In case you are wondering, I am a psychiatrist/neurologist and more than capable of discussing any psychoblab you might try to deploy against our membership. I am hardly deterred by your overuse of liberal stereotypes about conservatives, in fact I might add that you seem to be addicted to them much like a common alcohol or drug dependent patient. The Fox News denigration is just more evidence that your last original thought escaped with the bowel movement that coincided with your mother deciding your potty training was finished.
Well?
Paging Dr. Frist
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 9:59am.
It would seem that your abilities in diagnosing people is on a par with Bill Frist's diagnosis of Terri Schiavo. Of course, your inability to acknowledge the blatant bias of Fox "News" certainly casts a great deal of doubt on your capabilities.
If i've copied and pasted something, please provide the link.
Nice deflection, Gwinnie.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:00pm.
Is your reading comprehension as bad as your poor scholarship? I said, "Almost as if you cut and paste them...". Two items that do appear to be condensed from Wikipedia are already in your posts: 1) the "southern strategy"; 2) Bill Frist. Your bias towards Fox News confounds your contention of their bias. One wonders if you even watch Fox News, because the tone of your animus towards them sounds suspiciously like the reporter who told the author of the book on the Obamas that she had not read the book but she knew the general tone. My that's strong intellectual analysis--don't bother reading the book--just parrot all of the garbage said by other talking heads and expect it to sound intelligent. Sounds a bit like you.
Bill Frist's analysis of Terri Schiavo, similarly with my analysis of your presence on this board, does not rise to the level of diagnosis. He expressed an opinion on the case based upon a clinical presentation. The medical ethicist who made an issue of Bill's observations on the case is NOT a physician. Bill was quite within his rights as a physician to make comments on the case, and those not in the medical profession often forget we have the same right of freedom of speech in a non-diagnostic context as the rest. Bill's comments did not rise to the level of diagnosis, nor do my comments concerning your inadequacies on this board. As for your comment concerning Fox News and its "blatant bias", rule #1 of psychiatry is never agree with anyone's uninformed opinions--we don't wish to enable those types of bad behaviors. Demonstrates how little you know of the medical profession and how much less you know about the constitutional freedom of speech. But of course as a liberal, freedom of speech is something you only support if the speech agrees with your viewpoint. Sorry to burst your bubble, dude, but again, I don't suborn uninformed opinions and I certainly don't suborn your bad scholarship.
Nice try. Go back to your perch and have some more birdseed, parrot.
⇒ Drsam
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:11pm.
My religion expressly forbids me to talk to the deceased.
Gwinneth is ACCESS DENIED
That was quick!
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 4:53pm.
I could easily have certified him as being brain-dead.
I swear, doc, that even though I knew ol' gwinnettman was ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 9:58pm.
not gonna make it for long around here - the rapid demise of his posting capability was a surprise.
That said, I have seldom seen a more masterful put down than the one you laid on him with your last post.
Most impressive; plus, it made me grin.
MD
You present pure drivel, butthead gwinnett, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:02pm.
just like every other lib troll before you who slimed it's way onto an NB thread.
Programmed, puerile, pathetic, and predictable.
MD
Sorry about leaving slime on
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:25am.
Sorry about leaving slime on the floor. I fell into Fox Nation on the way over here.
Which one of these guys is you?
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:32am.
http://www.city-data.com/soz/soz-30045.html
NL 207---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:44am.
Like button engaged for smacking ol' butthead button gwinnett upside his head.
MD
MD, ol NL is a linkster, MAN HE MADE ME JUMP with a
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 1:30am.
link that looked like a hijack link, where you must pay to get your computer back.... had all them red scary red bar graphs and blinking lights....OOH crap back there in NB-1 land.... NL,Sure can shell out some serous smack lol, something about g forces and fuel burnt up per minute... way more than a dragster...he's in the .01% that did stuff like almost like this like this Just a little extra oxygen, he would be in orbit
NL Question: What is the angle of attack on that, soo high tech.. Chinese J20 @ 53, near stall . lolollol ,these guys are going to land on the moon.lololollohahahaha
You Didn't Build That.
⇒ He's dead, Jim
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 1:35am.
We had his "ACCESS DENIED" funeral yesterday.
dang it
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 6:02am.
delete
You Didn't Build That.
Conservative Migration
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:56pm.
How funny that you would respond to documented historic facts (the conservative migration) with a completely untrue conservative code phrase such as "democrat plantation".
But then again, conservatives believe that facts have a liberal bias and as such should be replaced with whatever Rush tells you to believe on any given day.
you sure have the talking
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:05pm.
you sure have the talking points down i'll give you that:) but im sure you must do what ed schultz tells you to on any given day
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
I wonder if NewsBusters will
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:09am.
I wonder if NewsBusters will ever go through the accounts and cancel those that have not posted in 6 months?
That should take care of about half the troll infestation. Now that is a genocide I would not mind seeing happen. Anyone have popcorn?
Racists are racists
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:46pm.
Conservatives are conservatives. Conservatives -- GENUINE conservatives -- uphold the Constitution and equal protection of all Americans; race is irrelevent unless someone advocates differential preferences.
Good liberal parrot, gwinnie.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:47pm.
Now you get an extra scoop of bird seed for getting all of that right!
Do you really believe all of the crap that comes out of your mouth or are you just too intellectually challenged to think for yourself?
When you actually come out with original analysis that you are not regurgitating from Wikipedia, let us know.
In the meantime, back under your bridge as your were told. That third billygoat is waiting for you.
Welcome to NewsBusters, troll
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:53pm.
And please try and keep your troll fleas to yourself, as we are having a really difficult time dealing with all the camel fleas mullah Bashir has been spreading around here of late.
Have you met the Vet yet?
If you haven't, don't worry, because you will.
It's as inevitable as white on rice, plastic on a bumper, stink on shi....
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
⇒ Gwinneth
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:59pm.
Your party continues to exercise control in that area. How racist of you to come in here playing the part of the patronizing, condescending, oleaginous, plantation master.
There are still too many of you extant, buying the dignity of others to inflate yourselves.
Apologies
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:17pm.
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have tried to usurp your job on the plantation.
When John Lewis becomes a Republican, I'll believe that conservatives aren't racist.
BUT..you do get credit for perpetuating the plantation meme. You reBorglicans are nothing if not consistent.
Isn't Allen West black enough for you?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:20pm.
Now who's racist?
Rad ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:29pm.
butthead gwinnett is lying; he will never believe that conservatives aren't racist.
butthead is just another lib troll with a sleeper account who has fallen from the rafters.
It is a presidential election year - time to stir the pot - use smoke, mirrors, and deflection to camouflage Obama's hideous record.
MD
MD
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:33pm.
And he's now boo hooing because you're being mean to him. How could anyone live with these whiny children?
Mea culpa, Rad, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:45pm.
as I do find it difficult to make nice with sociopathic, ideological, liberal idiots.
MD
MD
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:47pm.
I can't wait to see him implode when The Vet shows up. It's so reminiscent of when my kids were two years old. I didn't like them much then, but at least they grew up.
The Vet will be along, Rad, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:09am.
once he has finished off the ndorfman dork.
Hate to be a copycat, but the stupid is huge in that one.
Then again, this butthead button gwinnettman may turn out to be a real challenger to the dorkman fer stoopid stuff n' all that there.
MD
I would say something to this troll but I am busy.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:39am.
I am currently trolling on Hostess.com as TheVet12445 telling them twinkies suck and the only reason they are gooey is because the germs are holding hands.
And I am trolling at cocacola.com as TheVet33657 telling them coke sucks and the only reason it is brown is because of all the bug poo.
And I am trolling at charmin.com as TheVet27668 telling them their toilet paper sucks and why do they have a baby's picture on it, no one uses toilet paper to wipe a baby's butt.
And I am....
Am I getting it right gwinnettman30045 ?
OMG Vet
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 9:37am.
ROTFL!!
This is the best you got?
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 10:05am.
Wow, what a letdown.
Yeah. I know. I know it is hard on the trolls.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:23pm.
The monkeymen are so confusing. They say and do things that trolls just don't understand. Let me help you out a little here troll. Here is what I am paid to do on this site.
1. Entertain, enlighten, and inform the boys and girls. --- See my posts on the natural born citizen issue here on this page.
2. Make the ladies laugh. --- I get paid double if I can make the ladies laugh. I get paid triple if they laugh out loud and roll on the floor.. I get paid a whopping four times my base pay if I can get them to laugh and roll around on the floor until their tushie pops off. Oh look, I made one of the ladies happy above. Cha-ching.
3. Fact check trolls. --- Sad day today. I ain't seen any attempt at any kind of information from you, wrong or otherwise. Vitriol. Smears. Insults. Plenty of that. But actual information. Sadly, none. So I guess I will just have to concentrate on the boys and girls and the ladies.
******UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE ********
Awwwww. Access Denied. Already. What a letdown. Looks like it will be a slim payday today. Oh well. Time to hit the highway and collect the aluminum cans. Sigh.
Troll issy doomboo, Vet
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:25pm.
This one was an awful troll, too. Not one iota of originality. On a score of 1 - 8, the South Florida Judge awards a .075.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I want to report an assault
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:34pm.
THE VET hit me in the ribs so hard with cocacola and bug poo story that it now hurts when I breathe.
Now, a few moments of silence for Gwinneth Trolltrow
Holy cow! This just in boys and girls.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:40pm.
The Closed Circuit camera at NewsBusters captured the exact moment the troll bit the dust
Here
Not so, VET!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:05pm.
I have it on good authority, Gwinneth is on sabbatical
This one might be
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:54pm.
A tough one to crack sir. His hard head has caused a severe case of cranial-rectal constipation. The Farce is strong in this one.
Edit: Seems the anti-Farce hammer came down. But don't worry y'all, it'll be back.
And The Vetinator will be ready. : )
We owe The Vet*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:58pm.
Besides bashing trolls and calling out their lies,, The Vet has this amazing sense of humor that knocks us down. The Vet deserves reward but he is priceless.
Sorry Vet, in this terrible economy I can only afford a smooch
I will take that.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:18pm.
And here is your change.
It was a 1979 day on Casey Kasemss Top 40 replay from the 70's. Always a happy day
Oh and I found this on the floor.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:01pm.
I get fed up with the same ol' same ol' from the classic rock radio stations. Hey, Bob Seger made more than just "night moves" people. So I tune into an uber uber uber soft radio station and heard this gem on the way to work last week ---
. Hot Time In The Town Of Berlin by Bing Crosby with oh hold me steady the Andrews Sisters.
Giving you the benefit of the
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:02am.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trolling...
There were plenty of conservatives (Whigs) who opposed slavery but believed Southern states had Constitutional rights, and plenty of conservatives (Goldwater) who supported civil rights but opposed federal civil rights legislation.
But what you said is pretty similar to saying -- Its not Democrats who were Marxist, its just progressives. And then rattle off a list of progressives who supported wealth redistribution (Huey Long), eugenics, and so on... while ignoring those who didn't. Then complaining that whenever progressives talk about "a fair playing field" its a dog whistle for Marxism.
Liberals are mesmerized by Brits and things British
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:33pm.
Here in the Washington DC area, our PBS TV station -- WETA -- carries some much Brit programming you'd swear it was the BBC. Saturday evenings are wall-to-wall British sitcoms from 10 to 30 years ago, and every weeknight, it airs 30 miunutes of BBC news.
But the British voices they air are always libs like them: Bashir, Kay, Andrew Sullivan, Morgan, et al.
⇒ Martin Bashir
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:53pm.
Ah yes, Martin Bashir. You probably remember he's the fellow who told Michael Jackson he almost wept when he saw how tender Michael was with his children (said not much at all about Michael and other people's children).
Yeah, Martin, that was your ticket to the big time. Slobbering all over Michael Jackson.
And you pass judgment on a conservative because he's what? Not a loser like you?
Reminder
Submitted by In Excess on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:03pm.
It was liberals that forced Hermain Cain from the presidential race, not conservatives.
When did Karl Rove become a
Submitted by gwinnettman30045 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:13pm.
When did Karl Rove become a liberal?
Actually...
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:12pm.
I prefer Allen West after watching him speak at CPAC today. Taking names and kicking butt.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Basher!
Submitted by GigglingGoogler on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:38pm.
This guy proves once and for all that liberals don't and will never understand Conservatives!
WOW! Just when I think Martin can't get any lower
Submitted by syvyn11 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:07am.
He proves me wrong again!
Got That Right.
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:59am.
I call it "Doing the Limbo Under a Slug"....just when you think they can't get any lower they tuck them ankles under their butt and sink to a whole nother level.
according to the law Rubios is a citizen
Submitted by Mutantone on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:54am.
s of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. According to that law, the following acquire citizenship at birth:
"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"
[edit]
This is a total copy and paste job from Wiki, but it's a
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 6:02am.
decent summary of what appears to be the majority view regarding
'natural born citizen' qualification:
A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states:
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[21]
According to an April 2000 report by the CRS, most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.[22] Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, however, believes under the current law not all persons born outside of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are eligible to serve under the natural born citizen clause.[23][24]
[edit] Academic opinions
In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "there is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".[25] In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American citizen parent. In a footnote he explained that "based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen'." He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the "conventional view".[26] Although Professor Solum stated elsewhere that the two-citizen-parents arguments "weren't crazy", he believes "the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen."[27]
Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, stated, "There's some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law."[28] Polly Price, Professor of Law at Emory University, added, "It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the [United States]."[27] Professor Chin concurred with that assessment, stating, "there is agreement that 'natural born citizens' include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment."[29] Similarly, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found "quite persuasive" the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had ruled "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."[30][31] Daniel Takaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate's parents is irrelevant.[32]
Cliffs Notes edition of Uncle Jer's post.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 7:22am.
*** Scholars, educated scholars of law, educated professors of law, people whose very livelihood depend on their research of the law are still arguing this. But the heaviest heaviest brick weight of the argument comes down to arguing persons born on United States soil and persons born to ONE OR MORE parents that are United States citizens are natural born citizens. And look up, floating... floating... floating down just like that feather in Forest Gump is the argument that both parents need to be United States citizens. ****
End cliffs notes.
So, NL207, we have been nice to you, respectful to you, saying you have an argument but it is thin reed, the tiniest of thinnest of reeds thin. But instead of returning the respect, you continue to spit in our face by bringing this up time and time again. The barn door is open. The horse had done run out. You will not catch this president on this EVER. And stopping future presidents on this argument is again, AGAIN, reed thin.
And don't think I did not see that Indiana court case mentioned there. I did. And I remember the last time I put that out there and you shit on my hand as I did.
Drop it.
Martin Bashir is an
Submitted by RogerCfromSD on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 9:22pm.
Martin Bashir is an Anti-American Racist who should not be on TV. Who care what the twat thinks?