Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#1

Post by Reality Check » Sat Aug 16, 2014 5:45 pm

Steven L. Craig will debate Frank Arduini on Reality Check Radio on September 2, 2014 at 9 PM EDT. The subject will be the definition of the term "natural born citizen. The debate will be moderated for time and each participant afforded equal uninterrupted time with periods for questions to each other. We will take calls following the debate. I will post a link and more information later.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15876
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#2

Post by Suranis » Sat Aug 16, 2014 6:11 pm

Props to the guy for stepping up... assuming he does not pull a scotte and run away.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#3

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Aug 16, 2014 6:22 pm

=D>
► Show Spoiler



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#4

Post by Reality Check » Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:13 pm

Props to the guy for stepping up... assuming he does not pull a scotte and run away.I think he will show up. I was in Volin's chat the other nigh and he was the only one who wasn't juvenile.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34518
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#5

Post by realist » Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:17 pm

I suppose it's something to do and I certainly will listen to it (hopefully live), but (putting on wet blanket) I truly don't see the point.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#6

Post by Reality Check » Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:58 pm

But don't you know if Steve Craig wins Obama will be out of office. Oh wait ..... :lol:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34518
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#7

Post by realist » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:28 pm

sl at BR...[/break1]birtherreport.com/2014/08/wnd-report-obama-eligibility-case-lives.html?m=1]http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/08/wn ... s.html?m=1slcraignbc59p · 2 hours agoThe "question" of who is and who is not a U.S. natural born Citizen ONLY becomes a "Political Question" when it concerns a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL that has reached the age of 35 yrs old and has resided within the limits of the U.S. for a verifiable 14yrs (combined or consecutive is legitimate question). But, by DEFINITION, the question of who is and who is not IS, in the 1st instant, a "Citizenship Question". The 1st Congress ESTABLISHED the uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship, implicit), naturalization which DEFINES the EFFECTS of its provisions on various circumstances and MUST be construed in order to determine who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen. To IGNORE the "term of words" usage within the Act is BOTH intellectual and judicial malfeasance, which has created and would continue the circumstance of "ambiguity" when "resorting elsewhere" other than the ACTUAL LAWS made in pursuance of the COTUS.Might need English translation.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#8

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:06 pm

Coming to a battle of wits unarmed. Realist is right: this should be fun if we can get a simultaneous translation into English.



User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7621
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#9

Post by Flatpointhigh » Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:04 am

will Esperanto do in a pinch?



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#10

Post by Reality Check » Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:33 pm

Well the debate is still on ... maybe. For a variety of reasons we have had to postpone the debate until mid October. For a sample of Mr. Craig's novel arguments about citizenship check out slcraignbc's comments on the latest article on my blog. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... ment-15081


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#11

Post by Piffle » Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:27 pm

Well the debate is still on ... maybe. For a variety of reasons we have had to postpone the debate until mid October. For a sample of Mr. Craig's novel arguments about citizenship check out slcraignbc's comments on the latest article on my blog. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... 15081Thank goodness the format is an audio-only debate. Mercifully, I'll be spared having to watch randomly capitalized words fly by.Hope it comes off, RC; should be fun.



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#12

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:42 pm

This Craig guy seems to be channelling his inner Appuzzo! Just another racist troll perverting law and facts to fit his racist nutjob agenda. But his opponents on your blog seem to enjoy their gleeful counter-trolling so I guess his efforts aren't completely wasted.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7182
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#13

Post by RoadScholar » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:49 pm

Permit me to suggest, RC, that you post quite soon your proposed debate format in detail, stipulating that you will be enforcing the time limits and ground rules strenuously. Obviously F. Arduini will have no trouble playing within the lines, but Mr. Craig should be given plenty of time to mull over what a strictly organized quasi-formal debate entails. Having to shut up and let the other guy talk may be a new experience for the guy. Eh what?


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6984
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#14

Post by Northland10 » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:46 pm

Well the debate is still on ... maybe. For a variety of reasons we have had to postpone the debate until mid October. For a sample of Mr. Craig's novel arguments about citizenship check out slcraignbc's comments on the latest article on my blog. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... 15081Thank goodness the format is an audio-only debate. Mercifully, I'll be spared having to watch randomly capitalized words fly by.Hope it comes off, RC; should be fun. He called me nutland 1.0, among other things. I was soooooo offended, it took me half the day to stop giggling. He was not pleased with my quoting the 14th amendment debates, among other things (btw, thank you Ballentine).


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4828
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#15

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:16 pm

I guess this isn't happening anymore since Steven Craig just got his ass handed to him on RC Radio's blog and has now run away: http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... ment-15137 It's a beauty to behold.



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4828
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#16

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:24 pm

Well the debate is still on ... maybe.





For a variety of reasons we have had to postpone the debate until mid October. For a sample of Mr. Craig's novel arguments about citizenship check out slcraignbc's comments on the latest article on my blog.





http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... 15081Thank goodness the format is an audio-only debate. Mercifully, I'll be spared having to watch randomly capitalized words fly by.





Hope it comes off, RC; should be fun.


He called me nutland 1.0, among other things. I was soooooo offended, it took me half the day to stop giggling. He was not pleased with my quoting the 14th amendment debates, among other things (btw, thank you Ballentine). I refocused his attention to your great point about the first black congressmen. Craig tried to claim that the 14th Amendment gave stateless persons citizenship and that all black people were stateless in the country. Northland pointed out that there then is a problem since 5 congressman wouldn't have met the 7 years citizenship requirement in the constitution in order to serve in Congress.





Jefferson Long, former slave and Congressman 1871


Benjamin Turner, former slave and Congressman 1871


Josiah Thomas Walls, former slave and Congressman 1871


Jeremiah Haralson, former slave and Congressman March 1875


John Adams Hyman, former slave and Congressman March 1875





Neither fit the 7 years citizenship after the ratification of the 14th in 1868. This is one he tried to answer but he basically stated the following: so I’m not sure any House member was as bold or obtuse as to rise voicing objection for the CAUSE of YEARS as U.S. Citizen being a disqualifying condition for the newly elected Black man So they wouldn't raise objection because they were black?



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#17

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:31 pm

Using one's version of history and one's form of logic to answer essentially a legal question, and ignoring the law itself, is a recipe for failure. And also one of the reasons I wouldn't have listened to the debate although I know Frank Arduini would have capably destroyed this poseur. Real lawyers would start with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and move on from there. No reason to ignore the legal framework that's already been built. That's why Apuzzo is such a fraud. He can't handle Wong, nor can any of the birthers. But Craig doesn't even know how to look up Wong.



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4828
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#18

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:33 pm

He couldn't even get the naturalization acts of 1795 and 1790 correct. He interpreted that children born on us soil of aliens are considered aliens when that's not what the act even says. Craig then didn't understand the consequences of what his interpretation would actually mean if we followed it to its illogical conclusions.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#19

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:36 pm

Why discuss calculus with someone who still hasn't got addition and subtraction right?



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6984
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#20

Post by Northland10 » Fri Oct 03, 2014 1:16 pm

Neither fit the 7 years citizenship after the ratification of the 14th in 1868. This is one he tried to answer but he basically stated the following: [/font][/size]








so I’m not sure any House member was as bold or obtuse as to rise voicing objection for the CAUSE of YEARS as U.S. Citizen being a disqualifying condition for the newly elected Black man


So they wouldn't raise objection because they were black?If I recall correctly, there was a attempt to object to Hiram Revels in the Senate. I had left him off the list as he was not born into slavery and might have clouded the point I was making.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#21

Post by Reality Check » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:31 pm

Why discuss calculus with someone who still hasn't got addition and subtraction right? :yeah:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4828
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#22

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:21 pm

I didn't know where to put this but Steven Craig is back on RC Radio's blog after having his ass handed to him in October in this thread: https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2014/ ... officer/He is now rambling on incoherently in this thread: https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2015/ ... -21429He's already got nailed on his claim of something in the appellant argument's being something he claimed Chief Justice Rutledge said. He had been passing this off for years now even after he was corrected. Further he's now misreading an opinion regarding federal jurisdiction and somehow thinking it meant that there was merits to a case that was dismissed.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6984
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#23

Post by Northland10 » Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:15 pm

It's amazing how many of the same arguments he used this time. Birthers spend to much time with each other and forget that the rest of the world does not have the memory span of a fruit fly.



ETA. This time he did not call me a prick. I haz as sad. Though it was funny when, at least briefly, he actually thought I supported his argument. His reading comprehension is not good.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4828
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#24

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:48 pm

It's amazing how many of the same arguments he used this time. Birthers spend to much time with each other and forget that the rest of the world does not have the memory span of a fruit fly. ETA. This time he did not call me a prick. I haz as sad. Though it was funny when, at least briefly, he actually thought I supported his argument. His reading comprehension is not good.Yep it is funny where he thought you supported him. He has gotten a little testy though telling us to fuck off and a bunch of other nastiness. I wonder how long it will take him before he says he's not coming back and then disappears for another 5 months. The hilarious part is how he acts like we've never heard this shit before. The stupid part was when he was caught on the fake Rutledge quote he tried to claim we had no proof it wasn't something rutledge agreed with.



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11520
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Eligibility Debate - Steven L. Craig v Frank Arduini 9/2/14

#25

Post by Whatever4 » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:14 am

Question about the Rutledge thing... When did syllabi begin to be added to reported cases? The syllabus for the case is pretty long, but the ones I've seen for early cases are pretty short. Was this syllabus written much later?

ETA The case name, silly. Talbot v. Jansen.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

Post Reply

Return to “Debunking the Lies”