RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://xrlq.com/2011/08/27/todays-idiot-dean-haskins/trackback/
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
5.884 Powered by Wordpress
I can demonstrate that your assertions about Wiley Publishing are totally devoid of factual information , for you state that you’re “sure they’ll find it eventually,” which is quite indicative of those of your ilk (stating fallacy as truth).
From Wiley Publishing: we request “the following attribution language at the end of any postings that may refer to the FOR DUMMIES® brand. Attribution Language: FOR DUMMIES® is a registered trademark of Wiley Publishing, Inc.”
If you will notice, their attribution language is in the video details, and in an annotation at the point in the video where their trademark graphically appears.
So, you were completely wrong about that one . . . now onto Chester Arthur. Even though you’ve shown that you write without any knowledge of the truth, why did you conveniently leave out the fact that Arthur directed that all of his personal documentation be burned if there wasn’t something he wanted to obfuscate? As you so astutely pointed out, his “constitutional eligibility to the Presidency is identical to Obama’s,” as Obama is just as ineligible to hold the office as Arthur was.
Chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry?
Comment by Dean C. Haskins — August 27, 2011 @ 12:47 pm
Re Dummies, it’s all well and good to post the requested language when referring to them, but that’s no defense at all to misusing their trademark. IOW, the fact that I might refer to them in a post means they request (but can’t require) that I mention their trademark. It doesn’t give me permission to palm off their name and publish my own stuff as X For Dummies. Then again, the trademark thing is between you and Wiley. I have no dog in that fight.
As to Arthur, one of the chief weasel tactics is to answer a question with a question. Not going to let you get away with that. Answer my question first. Burnings aside, everyone knew at the time of Arthur’s candidacy that father was a non-citizen at the time of his birth. If anyone back then thought that disqualified him as a natural born citizen, why didn’t the Arthur-birthers just say so? That would have been much easier and much more straightforward than to waste their time arguing over where he was born.
Comment by Xrlq — August 27, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
In fact, the case against Arthur would have been stronger, as there was no 14th amendment time of his birth. Or Minor’s for that matter.
Comment by Xrlq — August 27, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
What my head is not taking why he used for Dummies in that video. It´s totally inappropriate.
Above all I highly disegree with the content too.
S.
Comment by Sarita R. Compton — August 29, 2011 @ 10:45 am
I keep forgetting that people are still stuck on this particular sort of stupid, even in 2011.
Born on US soil? Check.
American parent? Check.
Citizen from birth, and thus “natural born”? Check.
(A href=”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162″>Text of Minor for reference.
I concur in XRLQ’s reading that it does not remotely support the case that the President is not a natural-born citizen.
Indeed, to repeat, it quotes the Fourteenth Amendment, saying all persons born in the United States are citizens.
And someone who is not a naturalized citizen, but is one from birth is… a natural-born citizen. That is, after all, what the term means.)
Comment by Sigivald — September 29, 2011 @ 5:44 pm
tHERE ARE ALWAYS PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO BELIEVE. iN ANYTHING, NO MATTER HOW QUESTIONABLE, HOW SILLY, HOW TRANSPARENTLY FRAUDULENT.
bUT THAT’S WHY nIGERIANS LOVE PEOPLE WHO INSTILL oBAMA WAS BORN IN THE usa.
Comment by Molon Labe — January 19, 2012 @ 1:13 am