100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: How about a Real Negro American for President? Yes! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The real truth of the matter is that this is just another slap in the face of the constitution just to show what they can get away with.
That nonsense remark makes me want to ... 
... but I will try to maintain my composure. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Tue 05/20/14 05:31 PM
|
|
my my, me thinks thou dost protest too much,,,, who mentioned anything about a 'black sambo'? debauchery? because I would like to see cornel west run? interesting. You did!!! Not interesting at all just another twist, just how does Allen West become some figment you portend? And the debauchery is the belittlement of Allen West. Imagine, one that takes no personal responsibility trying to belittle one that is very responsible for his actions. Protest too much, I don't protest just point out things, like the total fallacy of the entitlement crowd and truth, the item they work very hard at ignoring. Imagine having finally conceived of work by trying to ignore the facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 05/20/14 06:32 PM
|
|
my my, me thinks thou dost protest too much,,,, who mentioned anything about a 'black sambo'? debauchery? because I would like to see cornel west run? interesting. You did!!! Not interesting at all just another twist, just how does Allen West become some figment you portend? And the debauchery is the belittlement of Allen West. Imagine, one that takes no personal responsibility trying to belittle one that is very responsible for his actions. Protest too much, I don't protest just point out things, like the total fallacy of the entitlement crowd and truth, the item they work very hard at ignoring. Imagine having finally conceived of work by trying to ignore the facts. dude, hilarious,,,,its better than Oswald Bates 1st. NO, I NEVER said anything about a 'black sambo' 2nd, I stated a preference for one candidate over another with NO Character assassination whatsoever 3rd, I didn't 'portend' any 'figment',,,lol 4th, continuing to point at the 'entitlement' crowd as the scapegoat for any political ill or thread discussion,,,,, may 'portend' an unhealthy obsession,, just saying,,, try not to 'ignore the facts' in the future when alleging a 'figment' of what someone actually posted,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would appear, prima facea, that your definition of a "real negro" has more to do with having conservative beliefs than with the colour of their skin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would appear, prima facea, that your definition of a "real negro" has more to do with having conservative beliefs than with the colour of their skin. Huh? Don't Democrats say that a real African-American sides with the Democrats on issues? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
none that I have read in these threads......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, President Obama is the first mixed-race POTUS. Also, President Obama is an American by birth. He was born in the state of Hawaii. Link? Dude, President Obama's place of birth has been talked about by the media for the last 6 years. His birth in Hawaii has been confirmed over and over. Where has it been confirmed? If it is so obvious, why are the records still sealed? All there has ever been is a document of dubious authenticity. The brain dead accept that without having to have it proved. If there is no problem, then why are the records not available? But that is really immaterial anyway, with his mother American, he has the right to claim citizenship but that does not bestow "natural" born citizen as his father was a British subject and so was Odumbo until his eighteenth birthday when he could accept being a US citizen after denouncing any loyalty to England, period. shouldn't that be "Renouncing"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no duty for anyone to prove who their parents were beyond what is on their birth certificate I cant recall a president in my lifetime who has been required to do so. That's because there was no question of their parentage. Not clear about Obama's past. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no duty for anyone to prove who their parents were beyond what is on their birth certificate I cant recall a president in my lifetime who has been required to do so. That's because there was no question of their parentage. Not clear about Obama's past. lol,, I wonder why there was 'no question'...that's kind of my point, birth certificate has stood as legal documentation of parentage my whole life,, regardless of who 'questioned' it or not, not much else a person can do to 'prove' their parentage BESIDES produce a birth certificate,, is there? certainly, can you 'prove' where you were born? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh wait, I forgot there were some questions about Bill Clinton's paternity. He was really Billy Boy Blythe. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Wed 05/21/14 09:30 AM
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court defined "natural born citizen" in the SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. According to that SCOTUS decision, President Obama is indeed a natural born U.S. citizen because he was born in the USA. The Supreme Court declared Odumbocare unconstitutional and legislating from the bench in the same breath declared it a tax based on unconstitutional clauses. So I could care less what the Supreme Court has decided outside the landmark decision of Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law. Clearly he said that for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other law and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law. And for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from a date so branded in an open court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or as a fiction of law. But as to the quoted case, no it did not: The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This decision is replete with misrepresentations throughtout that have been misentrepted: The later modifications of the rule in Europe rest upon the constitutions, laws or ordinances of the various countries, and have no important bearing upon the interpretation and effect of the Constitution of the United States. It is evident from the proviso in the act of 10th February, 1855, viz., 'that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States,' that the law-making power not only had in view this limit to the efficiency of its own municipal enactments in foreign jurisdiction; but that it has conferred only a qualified citizenship upon the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and has denied to them, what pertains to other American citizens, the right of transmitting citizenship to their children, unless they shall have made themselves residents of the United States, or, in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, have made themselves 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof... The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Note that within the opinion that the fact that a father was not resident within the country is clearly stated. And a student here on a student visa is not domicile, but here on a temporary basis. But the most important part of this decision keeps getting ignored but is the controlling statement on "natural born" citizen. "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Therefore saying this case resolved the issue, it didn't but instead left no doubt that was still a matter left open to doubt. This is but another distortion of law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no duty for anyone to prove who their parents were beyond what is on their birth certificate I cant recall a president in my lifetime who has been required to do so. Is that another entitlement rule that applies to the entitled? And their is a duty for the president to prove he is entitled to the office, otherwise there would be no restrictions. But that's right, the entitlement crowd believe theft is a moral right. BS, just a total misconstruction of both morality, law and rights. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. I know most entitlement people have a problem with comprehension, especially when it's things they don't want to be true, but there it is just as the founders defined it. You want to be president, you must prove eligibility. This is just another slap in the face of the constitution both by the owners and their political puppets and the idiots that believe it is not a duty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 05/21/14 09:48 AM
|
|
lets repeat for clarification:
there is no duty for anyone to prove who their parents were BEYOND WHAT IS ON THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE residency is easy to prove,, : with documents like leases or employment records,, etc,,,,, age and citizenship are easy to prove : with documents like BIRTH CERTIFICATES(which would determine AGE and CITIZENSHIP) and passports (which would establish citizenship) all these things have been verified , although not personally to 300 odd million americans,,lol so those seeking FURTHER PROOF are unlikely to ever find any that is to their liking ,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The real truth of the matter is that this is just another slap in the face of the constitution just to show what they can get away with.
That nonsense remark makes me want to ...
... but I will try to maintain my composure.
Ah, poor thing, does the truth make you mad? It normally does because truth in and of itself is belligerent. But the real moral of the story is the manner in which one reacts to the truth. Those that wish to remain totally ignorant will just ignore. Then there are those that fear the truth and will remain ignorant by not only outright denying but will refuse to verify and fight anyone that does. Then there are the skeptical that will accept the fact that it warrants finding and will do their own research to determine the matter on their own. And lastly, there are those that have done the work and know the statement for what it is. Sadly, the largest majority of the world fit into the first two categories but it is the third category that is the salvation and the later category that is the light. The choice is to either remain ignorant and in the dark, easy pray for the predator or do you face the light and become enlightened that only accepting truth can provide, a selection of slavery vs freedom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, children
the 'truth' is whatever I Say if you ignore it, you agree with me and if you 'fight it',, you are in fear,,,,,,, and if you laugh, well, either you have no clue (f you are Asian/american pacific) or you just think the logic being applied is beyond hilarious and irrelevant to what is being discussed,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I get some time, I will post his voting record on important issues and his political experience.
I'll wager, he's much more experiencd in management than Hoosein and more level headed than Hitlary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Wed 05/21/14 10:29 AM
|
|
The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."
at the end of the last chapter of Atlas Shrugged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dude, hilarious,,,,its better than Oswald Bates 1st. NO, I NEVER said anything about a 'black sambo' From your standpoint, I agree with you. There seems to be no concept whatsoever of what you say can mean anything as evidenced by the constant denial of not accepting responsibility for what was said. And in this instant, you attempted to denigrate Allen West was so intentional but so dishonest that to deny the intention makes it even more so. 2nd, I stated a preference for one candidate over another with NO Character assassination whatsoever I love the way, that when called on something, it didn't mean anything but again you didn't make a preference for a candidate, it was just another slap in the face of Allen West by denigrating to one of the most bigoted and racist a$$ this side of Sharpton, Jackson and Odumbo. 3rd, I didn't 'portend' any 'figment',,,lol Really; "por�tend - verb (used with object) 1. to indicate in advance; to foreshadow or presage, as an omen does: The street incident may portend a general uprising. 2. to signify; mean." "fig�ment - noun 1. a mere product of mental invention; a fantastic notion: The noises in the attic were just a figment of his imagination. 2. a feigned, invented, or imagined story, theory, etc.: biographical and historical figments. 4th, continuing to point at the 'entitlement' crowd as the scapegoat for any political ill or thread discussion,,,,, may 'portend' an unhealthy obsession,, just saying,,, The entitlement crowd are not scapegoats, they are the cause, period. And they are truly unhealthy. They have reduce most of mankind to not forced but consensual slavery. They are the lowest form of scum on this earth and the total premise of it's destruction. I can honor a thief in front of me with a gun, at least he is honest enough to declare his being but the entitlement crowd hides in their holes and gets the government to do it for them, their entitlement. So it is not my obsession that is unhealthy, I accept my responsibility and will bring the truth to light at every opportunity. try not to 'ignore the facts' in the future when alleging a 'figment' of what someone actually posted,,, And I never ignore facts, but I do so enjoy exposing BS. And I would suggest that when one posts BS that it will be challenged. Of course just as I expect, it is never defended, just denied with some feeling of outrage or innocence, just more BS. In my almost six and a half decades, I have traveled all over this planet selling. I was not always number one, but when not I was close enough to shake their hand. I have heard BS of every size, shape and description. If you can't recognize BS and get to the root of the issue, forget sales, you spend too much time buying to succeed. So I have spent my life reading between the lines, hearing what was not verbally stated, and seeing the picture that was never painted and delivering to those desires. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would appear, prima facea, that your definition of a "real negro" has more to do with having conservative beliefs than with the colour of their skin. Just what is a "real negro"? Is this someone that is supposed to be a slave but we try to pretend they aren't? On this planet, man is created equal, too bad they don't remain that way but that is due to choices they make, not their creation. The color of the skin does not define a man but is an indication of genetics provided by nature that was meant as a protection and adaption of that man. But what does being conservative or liberal have to do with skin color, nothing. Skin color is a physical attribute that a person has no control over, it is instilled by the parents. Living one's life in a liberal or conservative manner is a choice a person makes as is their right. The only fallacy is when another person believes they have the right to tell another how they must live their life. That is forced slavery, normally at the point of the governments guns, a form of the lowest scum on this earth. But the real worse scum are those that submit to voluntary slavery and insist that the government steal for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
none that I have read in these threads...... Would the real key words be "I" followed by "chose to ignore"? |
|
|
|
|
