jakee

It seems to me that guy's entire point hinges on the political allegiance of a baby. Babies don't choose to ally themselves with anyone. He says; "Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike." Whereas it appears that he erroneously believes that anyone born of foreign parents has "subjected" himself "to the jurisdiction" of that foreign state. If the parents don't choose to make the baby a citizen of a foreign state it won't ever owe allegiance to or be subject to that state. He even references the Wong Kim Ark case saying it only holds that permanent residents qualify - but that still counteracts his argument, since permanent residents are still citizens of somewhere else. Finally, it is hilarious that Trump, the public face of the Birther movement, is now standing up in public and stating that it is insane to think that citizenship can be governed by place of birth Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's not really what he said. That is exactly what he said. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Because he was being negative. So again, we're back to wondering why anger is the only emotion you can imagine being associated with that? You can't have it both ways. Then why are you participating in, and contributing to the foolishness? Again, how does it make you feel to jump into this thread and point out what you think are Franco's failings? Sure, but Ron was bitching about pretty much everything else, and you were joining in. Why did you need Wendy to point out your hypocrisy in the first place? If you're so concerned with anger why didn't you call Ron on it immediately, instead of agreeing with his assessment? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No reasonable observer could look at the last election and claim that the Republicans were the unified party! If Trump hadn't won it looked like there was a real chance that you'd have seen the first genuine party split since the Southern Democrats defected. And yet in your first post you said that Democrats could win just by talking about normal working and middle class concerns like jobs and healthcare. Leaving aside the absurdity of the suggestion that they're not doing that already, isn't that an idealistic vision of how to counter the Republican propaganda machine? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I have read his posts for the last decade. Good luck with that request. You do remember that you've just stated you're posting esoteric cryptology, right? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And apparently the only thing she considered bad was my response to Ron. That's an unwarranted conclusion. Your original post also considered 'liberals' as a whole to be a homogenous block with only one set of aims, strategies and tactics. It's overly-simplistic, factually incorrect, ignores the possibility that people can do two things at once, or that two or more groups within a wider movement can be doing different things at the same time, and simply cherrypicks the good you want to see within one movement and the bad you want to see within another. Consider the statement that the right is fostering racism and white supremacy within it's own organisations, yet you blame the left for not tackling it strongly enough. Consider the statement that republicans and conservatives were running around egging on a bunch of socialists and killing people over a stupid god-damned fucking statue and you think it makes the left look bad. Consider that the liberal candidate had the most clear, comprehensive, costed and well thought out election manifesto in memory available for everyone to look at throughout the election, and you think the other guy who said anything and everything whenever it popped into his head was the one who demonstrated the capability for tackling middle class concerns. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Nope, So why did you assume Franco was being angry? Why go straight in with the most negative assessment of his motivation? Then why do you assume that only for some people? Ron writes tracts on how every liberal is mentally defective, America is in a civil war, the Clintons (and possibly the US government as a whole) are evil, and you can't see any reason to think he's bent out of shape about anything. Franco writes that he can't understand how US school boards keep ignoring science and you diagnose him with an addiction to anger. Explain? Probably the same way it makes you feel. Ok... so how does it make me feel? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I didn't say they did. But you do know what you posted, right? You remember that's why we're having this conversation, right? You were criticizing Wendy for only responding to the bad stuff you posted, I said that the 'good' stuff you posted wasn't actually that good, and that's why no-one can be bothered to talk about it. Honestly, you can go back and check the conversation thread and it's right there in black and white. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You're very keen on telling people what their emotions are. I was simple asking a question. If we don't care, then why do we continue to post? That's a false dichotomy. Caring about something doesn't automatically make you angry about it. If that's the only emotional connection you can imagine with posting on the internet, then I think you're doing it wrong. And again, my simple question is how does it make you feel to point out those other people's failings? What addiction does it serve within you? It could be that you're the one special person here who is able to engage purely on a rational basis with the forum. But that sems unlikely, especially since you gave up your sleep just so you could respond to that last post immediately. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Would have? If what? They've had control of all branches of government for going on 2 years and all they've done so far is wage rhetorical war on everyone who isn't them. If you're saying you thought they would have tried to unite the country after the 2016 election, then yeah, that's incredibly naive. No, appearing to agree with him when he says all liberals are mentally ill children means you're bashing everyone else. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You're very keen on telling people what their emotions are. How does it make you feel to do that? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Not so much anger, more despair that humanity keeps repeating the same mistakes agin. I know, what a miserable life Eeyore. What are we ever going to do about all these stupid humans? What would you be doing with your day if you weren't so intent on telling Franco how silly he's being for responding to posts on here that don't materially affect him? You see where I'm going with that... right? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Honestly, it's because you're not as clever as you think you are, and your insights aren't as accurate as you think they are. I'm a bit groggy this morning, what insights are you referring to? You don't know what your own point was? If you don't know, you're probably less qualified to tell people how to talk and what to talk about than you think you are. You agreed with Ron's entire post. There's a difference between simply not bashing him, and supporting him in bashing everyone else. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

It continues to beggar belief how supposedly patriotic people can support a guy who does nothing but tell them how shitty their country is, day in and day out. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Honestly, it's because you're not as clever as you think you are, and your insights aren't as accurate as you think they are. If you think the rest of what you've written is good enough that people should overlook the deliberate provocation and hypocrisy you've thrown in, then I'm sorry to disappoint you but it's nowhere close. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Or you just need to get better at it. Funny though, since you brought up the language requirement in the first place and then made that response to it... seems like a really clumsy set up for a bad one liner if you didn't really mean any of it Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Here's a tip: if you want anyone to be able to figure out what your 'overall point' is, choose your words more carefully. At least carefully enough not to completely contradict yourself in the space of two posts. People might think you were more concerned with playing a game of 'gotcha' than stating a serious opinion. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So it's easier to become a citizen here than in Norway. Oh come on. Do you want to have a serious discussion or do you want to keep pretending to be an idiot? I know you're too smart to think that competency in language is the only requirement for citizenship in either country. So please, act like it Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Are they returning? But again, jobs were increasing under Obama at the same rate as under Trump. What is Trump doing to the jobs market that Obama wasn't? How many, and for how long? But you've got that backwards. It's supposed to be, he's done everything he said he would do - and on that score he's falling far, far short. To be honest though, even making the claim your way around is, quite frankly, crazy. He's done a heck of a lot of things he either didn't say he would do, or said he wouldn't do. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Which is a statement that applies to those giving the orders. (BTW, are you saying that the role of the US military is not to safeguard US citizens?) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think you just answered your own question Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Does that make it better? I would say that not being considered a person at all is worth less than being 3/5 of a person, just as being 3/5 of a person is worth less than being a whole person. So really, I'd agree that the 3/5 thing is a red herring, but only because it distracts from the fact that what the constitution says is actually much worse. Anyway, are you putting any of this effort towards figuring out what argument can be made about the 14th? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh yeah, I know those cynical bastards don't have a shred of honesty between them. I meant what am I doing in there? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Err, whut? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Speaking of which, you said you could make an argument about the 14th, but you haven't yet attempted it. Can you, or not? I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. I did... No, you didn't. You said the argument would involve a certain concept, but you haven't stated any part of what that argument would be. It's like claiming an argument could be made that the second doesn't protect gun ownership, then saying only that the argument would involve the concept that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Has any argument relevant to the 2nd amendment itself just been made? No, of course it hasn't. In the same way you have not made, nor attempted to make, any argument regarding how the 14th amendment could be limited from soli to sanguinis. If you can, I'd like to hear it. If you can't, just say so. Do you want to have an ideagasm?