kallend 1,623 #76 June 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Avoidance. You're credibility suffers yet again. This surprises you? That is his MO. That is how he rolls. Still struggling with intellectual honesty, I see. Still struggling to answer the question, I see. From the forum rules, post #1, thread#1, this forum: When discussing in this (or any) forum, a good rule of thumb is the one we learned in 2nd grade soccer--play the ball, not the player. If you find yourself directing things at a person rather than at what they say, chances are you are out of line. Of course you have never directed things at a person rather than what they say. You are funny. Are you directing that at me?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #77 June 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Avoidance. You're credibility suffers yet again. This surprises you? That is his MO. That is how he rolls. Still struggling with intellectual honesty, I see. Still struggling to answer the question, I see. From the forum rules, post #1, thread#1, this forum: When discussing in this (or any) forum, a good rule of thumb is the one we learned in 2nd grade soccer--play the ball, not the player. If you find yourself directing things at a person rather than at what they say, chances are you are out of line. Of course you have never directed things at a person rather than what they say. You are funny. Are you directing that at me? Yep just like you. But I'm not the one quoting the rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #78 June 7, 2010 and he still neglects to answer the question.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #79 June 7, 2010 Quoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #80 June 7, 2010 Quoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Rather than let this go on forever without resolution, just quote him from May: "I came in 1977 on a visiting scientist (J-1), and switched the following year to an E1(2)." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #81 June 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. You do like to quote the rules when they are convenient for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #82 June 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. You do like to quote the rules when they are convenient for you. Kallend's status, irrelevant though it may be, was made clear enough up-thread. So was his role as a lawful, productive, tax-paying member of American society for the past 3 decades. And even then the smokescreen ad hominem BS still continued. Do you have the same problem with JP's repeated refusal to simply explain the relevance of his original inquiry? No? That's what I thought. The thread is about right to US citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Any time the babies want to join the adults in discussing that topic on an adult level, they're welcome to do so. Until then, maybe they should just stick to sucking their thumbs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #83 June 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. You do like to quote the rules when they are convenient for you. Kallend's status, irrelevant though it may be, was made clear enough up-thread. So was his role as a lawful, productive, tax-paying member of American society for the past 3 decades. And even then the smokescreen ad hominem BS still continued. Do you have the same problem with JP's repeated refusal to simply explain the relevance of his original inquiry? No? That's what I thought. The thread is about right to US citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Any time the babies want to join the adults in discussing that topic on an adult level, they're welcome to do so. Until then, maybe they should just stick to sucking their thumbs. You may want to re-read my post in this thread before you direct such a response to me. Does not apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #84 June 7, 2010 QuoteThe thread is about right to US citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Any time the babies want to join the adults in discussing that topic on an adult level, they're welcome to do so. Until then, maybe they should just stick to sucking their thumbs. I don't mind the thumb-sucking all that much, but in this case they are throwing turds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #85 June 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe thread is about right to US citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Any time the babies want to join the adults in discussing that topic on an adult level, they're welcome to do so. Until then, maybe they should just stick to sucking their thumbs. I don't mind the thumb-sucking all that much, but in this case they are throwing turds. It's times like this we miss Walt Appel. He'd be turd-sucking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #86 June 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. Thats your opinion. I find that the answer would have to have distinct relevance and could be telling.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #87 June 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. Thats your opinion. I find that the answer would have to have distinct relevance and could be telling. (at the risk of coming down to your level of "argument" ...) I completely disagree; but you know what? If it is relevant, who better than Diablopilot, who asked the question originally, to come out of hiding, man up and explain for himself why he thinks it is relevant? His silence is puzzling - or perhaps telling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #88 June 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. Thats your opinion. I find that the answer would have to have distinct relevance and could be telling. (at the risk of coming down to your level of "argument" ...) I completely disagree; but you know what? If it is relevant, who better than Diablopilot, who asked the question originally, to come out of hiding, man up and explain for himself why he thinks it is relevant? His silence is puzzling - or perhaps telling. That could be. Anything is possible. If you choose the reality well enough.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #89 June 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. Thats your opinion. I find that the answer would have to have distinct relevance and could be telling. (at the risk of coming down to your level of "argument" ...) I completely disagree; but you know what? If it is relevant, who better than Diablopilot, who asked the question originally, to come out of hiding, man up and explain for himself why he thinks it is relevant? His silence is puzzling - or perhaps telling. That could be. Anything is possible. If you choose the reality well enough. And your reality is quite apparent in Bonfire.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #90 June 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. Thats your opinion. I find that the answer would have to have distinct relevance and could be telling. (at the risk of coming down to your level of "argument" ...) I completely disagree; but you know what? If it is relevant, who better than Diablopilot, who asked the question originally, to come out of hiding, man up and explain for himself why he thinks it is relevant? His silence is puzzling - or perhaps telling. That could be. Anything is possible. If you choose the reality well enough. And your reality is quite apparent in Bonfire. If you would take the time to look at the pages that you are on, you would notice that this is NOT Bonfire. Next.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #91 June 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. Thats your opinion. I find that the answer would have to have distinct relevance and could be telling. (at the risk of coming down to your level of "argument" ...) I completely disagree; but you know what? If it is relevant, who better than Diablopilot, who asked the question originally, to come out of hiding, man up and explain for himself why he thinks it is relevant? His silence is puzzling - or perhaps telling. That could be. Anything is possible. If you choose the reality well enough. And your reality is quite apparent in Bonfire. If you would take the time to look at the pages that you are on, you would notice that this is NOT Bonfire. Next. Reasonably perceptive of you. But you completely missed the fact that I didn't write "in here". You get a D+ for powers of observation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #92 June 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand he still neglects to answer the question. Not neglecting anything. The question is both irrelevant AND out of line according to forum rules. Thats your opinion. I find that the answer would have to have distinct relevance and could be telling. (at the risk of coming down to your level of "argument" ...) I completely disagree; but you know what? If it is relevant, who better than Diablopilot, who asked the question originally, to come out of hiding, man up and explain for himself why he thinks it is relevant? His silence is puzzling - or perhaps telling. That could be. Anything is possible. If you choose the reality well enough. And your reality is quite apparent in Bonfire. If you would take the time to look at the pages that you are on, you would notice that this is NOT Bonfire. Next. Reasonably perceptive of you. But you completely missed the fact that I didn't write "in here". You get a D+ for powers of observation. . . . something about subtext . . . remember that? Further, I'd not have you as a professor of mine. You tend to ignore facts and make up your own reality entirely too much for me to consider you competent.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #93 June 8, 2010 On the whole, you perform better in Bonfire.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #94 June 8, 2010 Quote On the whole, you perform better in Bonfire. Although I agree with and thank you for your opinion, you still will never be able to woo me into being your student. You are to contrary with yourself and way to inconsistent to justify me spending my time in that way, when there are other teachers out there that are more qualified and less biased.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 June 8, 2010 Quote On the whole, you perform better in Bonfire. ooh, personal attack disguised as a backhanded compliment. Weren't you just quoting forum rules in order to dodge a question of citizenship? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 122 #96 June 8, 2010 so anyway, all the distracting conversations aside why can't we reaffirm the original intent and not recognize infants of illegal aliens as US citizens (admittedly my understanding of the 14th) or for all those with a different understanding, make it clear that they are not citizens what is the process to initiate this? a vote? action at the Supreme Court? other?Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #97 June 9, 2010 Quote why can't we reaffirm the original intent and not recognize infants of illegal aliens as US citizens (admittedly my understanding of the 14th) or for all those with a different understanding, make it clear that they are not citizens what is the process to initiate this? a vote? action at the Supreme Court? other? You would need a practical method of implementation. The current situation is simple - birth certificate from a US soil hospital. If you are a citizen and bear a child outside of the country, you need to invoke a process to recognize the child as an American. Ignoring the question of right or wrong, to accomplish what you seek seems very very messy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #98 June 9, 2010 QuoteQuote On the whole, you perform better in Bonfire. ooh, personal attack disguised as a backhanded compliment. Weren't you just quoting forum rules in order to dodge a question of citizenship? Ad hominem arguments are generally fallacious, and the rules ARE the rules. If he'd asked if I were a Constitutional lawyer, I could see the relevance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #99 June 9, 2010 Quotewhy can't we reaffirm the original intent and not recognize infants of illegal aliens as US citizens (admittedly my understanding of the 14th) or for all those with a different understanding, make it clear that they are not citizens what is the process to initiate this? a vote? action at the Supreme Court? other? Why not just require law enforcement officers to make pregnant women show their papers? No racial profiling necessary! That way, they can deport the illegal ones immediately before they give birth. Throw the baby out with the mother! Sterilize them while you're at it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #100 June 9, 2010 Chango, do you think illegals should be deported?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
