The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1501

Post by LM K » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:23 am

I successfully slapped Nash to the ground when I pointed out that he was quoting a statement incorrectly. Nash kept saying that Dr. West said "a Stanley had a baby.". However, that quote only exists on Nash's website.Nash wrote one of his [link]essays,http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... sed-birth/[/link] about his misquote.Nash's explanation for his mistake is bizarre.[Nash notes: The Dr. failed to clearly speak the first word of his reply, or she failed to hear it since it was nothing more than the letter "a". It is very normal to semi-speak that vowel when it starts a sentence since it is normally pronounced: "uh", instead of as the long version pronunciation ("A"). What he said was: "uh Stanley had a baby." It's all too common to truncate the "uh" and not speak it loud enough to be heard. A similar failure of pronunciation occurred with the most famous words ever spoken: That's one small step for (uh) man, -one giant leap for mankind. Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11.]So, Nash somehow knows what the good doctor said even though he wasn't there and the woman who was there states that there was no letter "a" before "Stanley had a baby.". :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:



User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1502

Post by everalm » Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:15 am

I'm in agreement with Suranis.Gnasher,Would you kindly explain precisely what it is you believe cannot be proved, the statement parameters and legal relevance. Reading the rather obtuse and obscure statements you keep dropping seems to imply that in your opinion, later SC rulings (that are by their very nature constitutional) that counter, interpret or refute some previous lower courts interpretation that you like are invalid.....Please do feel free to share exactly what the "challenge" is, if you can...?



User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1503

Post by BillTheCat » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:49 pm

ObsessionByCalvinKlien.jpg


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 14293
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1504

Post by kate520 » Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:06 pm

:blah: :yankyank: :yawn:


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1505

Post by ballantine » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:39 pm

That is in the context established earlier, -pre-Wong opinion. Pre-A.G. Griggs interpretation of the SCOTUS reinterpretation of the 14th A.You fail unless you can show the same sort of message before the late 1890's. Don't bother trying, but if you do, you might find an outlier or two that reflected a more immigrant-oriented, immigrant-pleasing administration that was normal. Or the policy may have never changed until Wong.But comments that are not made by the executive branch of the federal government don't even count because only it had power over the issue of American nationality (as apposed to State citizenship).More claims you are right because you say you are right because you say so. Legal authority prior to Wong overwhelming supported the fact that jus soli was the American rule including all early court cases, executive department opinions and the statements of Congress. There is no early authority supporting jus snaguinis as ever being the law no matter how often you repeat your unsupported claims which is why Congress needed to provide for jus snaguinis for the foreign born. This is merely a matter of historical fact. How many pre-Wong authorities would you like me to cite? 50? 100? Can you cite 3 that anyone heard of agree with you. I think not. You seem to think calling courts and executive branch officials and members of Congress stupid because they don't agree with you even when you can offer no authority to show they are wrong other than your own opinion. A five-year-old can see that such only makes you look stupid.



ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1506

Post by ballantine » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:54 pm




The national naturalization acts provided citizenship only to children of naturalized aliens dwelling in the United States. If they were not naturalized, then Washington considered them to be subject through their foreign father to a foreign power, and thus not even considered citizens by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 nor the 14th Amendment.


All of you boneheads need to get your FACTS straight. It is not a matter of opinion but of historical facts and federal perspective, not State perspective.




Ding. Ding. DIng. We have a winner for the stupidest Nash statement of the week. Naturalization in the 19th century was understood by all legal authorities to only apply to the foreign born. So said all courts addressing the issues, our executive department and Congress itself. How many citations would you like? Can you provide one citation to the contrary? And you are simply luyign with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 nor the 14th Amendment as I have shown you that the authors of each said you were wrong. You just call them stupid as well as obviously you know more than the people who wrote such acts. In case you might want to learn, on naturalization:





"The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class." Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 417





"It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth." Justice Curtis, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)





"An alien naturalized is "to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject." Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)





“NATURALIZATION. The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America…. ALIEN, persons. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, who has not since been naturalized under their constitution and laws. To this there are some exceptions, as this children of the ministers of the United States in foreign courts. See Citizen, Inhabitant.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)





“Naturalization. That process by which an alien becomes a citizen. ….An alien is one who is born in a foreign country.” Analysis of Civil Government, By Calvin Townsend, (1809)





“NATURALIZATION. [Lat. naturalizatio.] The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native or natural-born subject or citizen.* Co. Litt. 129 a. 1 Bl. Com. 374. 2 Kent's Com. 64—67. ….Alien: In american Law. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, (1851)





"I maintain that a negro cannot be made a citizen by congress; he cannot be made a citizen by any naturalization laws because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone....Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they are made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution...Then, if a negro is a citizen of the United States at all, he is a citizen by birth and by operation of the Constitution.." Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 598 (1866).





“What is the meaning of the term “naturalize?” It is investing an aliens with the privileges of a native-born citizen. What is an alien? A foreigner, one born in a foreign country.” Mr. Thorton, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 1156 (1866).





“They have held expressly in several cases which are referred to in the decision I will read in a moment, the right of naturalization under the Constitution referred only to persons of foreign birth, that it had no reference to persons born in the United States.” Mr. Eldridge, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 1855 (1866).





“I ask whether Judge Curtis in the opinion referred to, did not take the same ground in reference to a uniform rule of naturalization I take now, that they were only intended to apply, by virtue of power given in the Constitution, to foreigner, persons not born here – persons who come from another country.” Mr. Rogers, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pg. 1153 (1866).





“Believing, as I do, that the Constitution confers upon Congress no power to confer citizenship except on naturalized foreigners, I believe such rights conferred by this act to be in violation of the Constitution…” Mr. Latham, at Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pg. 1295 (1866).





“To the inquiry propounded as to the power of Congress over this subject of naturalization I respond that this authority to ‘establish a uniform rule of naturalization’ only confers upon the Federal Government the power to admit ‘aliens,’ that is, persons born out of the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States, to citizenship and does not covey the power to elevate to the rank of citizens persons of an inferior race born within its jurisdiction and allegiance. Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 3216 (1866).





“The American definition of the word “naturalize” is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, as is as follows: “Naturalization: The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States.” Bouvier defines a “Naturalized Citizen” to be “one who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States under the Constitution and laws.” The same author defines and alien to be “one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States who has not since been naturalized under their Constitution and laws.” Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 3216 (1866).





“Under the 4th section of the act of April 14, 1802, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, &c., (2 Stats., 153,) such children, if dwelling in the United States, are declared citizens. That section provides, in brief, that the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, &c., being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States,’ be considered as citizens of the United States. The section, of course, refers to children born out of the United States, since the children of such persons, born within the United States, are citizens without the aid of statutory law.” Attorney General Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862).





I know, I know, everyone is stupid that disagress with you.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43460
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1507

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:03 pm

Show off.



ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1508

Post by ballantine » Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:06 pm

And just to followup on your claims of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, here is what it's author said:"Undoubtably." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)(in reply to Sen. Cowen's question whether the Civil Rights Act will have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese aliens and Gypsies born in this country)."And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father." Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons's Veto), Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1757 (1866)“That amendment in its first clause is but a copy of the civil rights act, declaring that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States. This had been previously declared by act of Congress, and it was so without any act of Congress. Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed. The Constitution itself prohibits any person from sitting in this body who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of a particular State. By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)Now are you going to keep repeating your lies about such Act or admit that you are wrong. I know, you are going to say it doesn't matter what the people who wrote the Act meant as all that matters is your opinion. And the person most often credited with the language of the 14th Amendment (as he introduced it):“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870)."A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.....They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866)."If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who has been naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;" Sen. Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)So your position is, in essence, that it doesn't matter what the people who wrote the Constitution intended or what the law actually was in the 19th centurty, all that matters is your opinion.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43460
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1509

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:04 pm

Yeah. Plus he doesn't do research.



User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 6985
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1510

Post by Estiveo » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:34 pm

Yeah. Plus he doesn't do research.Why research when you can just make shit up? :-k Research is hard...and might also provide facts. [-(


Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1511

Post by listeme » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:47 pm

Verbie and I and my nephew have been discussing this. We have finally figured out what Nash is doing. Nash is writing historical fan fiction.


We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1512

Post by Flatpointhigh » Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:55 pm

Verbie and I and my nephew have been discussing this. We have finally figured out what Nash is doing. Nash is writing historical fan fiction.where's the secks? All fanfic has secks.



"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
wavey davey
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:01 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1513

Post by wavey davey » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:28 am

Verbie and I and my nephew have been discussing this. We have finally figured out what Nash is doing. Nash is writing historical fan fiction.Is Nash himself the "Mary Sue"?



User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1514

Post by listeme » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:28 am

Verbie and I and my nephew have been discussing this. We have finally figured out what Nash is doing. Nash is writing historical fan fiction.where's the secks? All fanfic has secks.It's all solo.


We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11161
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1515

Post by Whatever4 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:51 am

Verbie and I and my nephew have been discussing this. We have finally figured out what Nash is doing. Nash is writing historical fan fiction.where's the secks? All fanfic has secks.Not sure Nash knows what that is.


"[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)

LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1516

Post by LM K » Sat Aug 02, 2014 7:24 pm

Verbie and I and my nephew have been discussing this. We have finally figured out what Nash is doing. Nash is writing historical fan fiction. =))



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

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1517

Post by Piffle » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:04 pm

I'm not sure where to post this but this thread seems to be as good as any:Can anyone tell me what positions John Adams, Publius and Alexander Hamilton took in their writings on the issue of net neutrality? Please show all calculations and historical citations supporting your final conclusion.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9702
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1518

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:38 am

Gnish Gnash crawled out from under his rock and is currently over parading his ignorance for all to see at Doc's. Strangley his wisdom did not seem to be universally and welcomingly received over there, and the acclimation he apaprently expected didn't materialize at all, and he's more than a bit put out about it in fact. Poor dumb bunny.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23795
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1519

Post by bob » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:59 am

Nash's EPIC SMACKDOWN!!1! of one of HistorianDude's comments.That's what passes for news in birferstan these days: blog posts in response to the comment sections of other blog posts.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1520

Post by Epectitus » Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:15 pm

I am, apparently, a "Luciferian lying hack."






"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15325
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1521

Post by Suranis » Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:48 pm

Woah, that's one of his most popular blogposts, bringing in a RECORD NUMBER of 6 Comments!!!!

... all by someone called arnash. :o 8-)


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14649
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1522

Post by Reality Check » Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:49 pm

I saw that. It looks like he is copying other peoples comments over to his blog and answering them. Weird.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6504
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1523

Post by Northland10 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:19 pm



I am, apparently, a "Luciferian lying hack."



Congratulations. Does that come with a merit increase?


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

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9702
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1524

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:40 pm

Well, when ya gots plenty o' nuthin, yo gots plenty o' nuthin!!! Particularly when it comes to wit and repartee.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1525

Post by Flatpointhigh » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:57 pm









I am, apparently, a "Luciferian lying hack."





Congratulations. Does that come with a merit increase?







Lucifer is the Roman god of Enlightenment. Think about that.



"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

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”