Took me awhile Amy, then clued in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icYzAYyb-cY

If I drove this in high school and not a Schwinn things would have been very different.

More stupidity on steroids. A fetus lawyer? A fetus has no rights!

What, Patrick? You said that children (minors) DO, and anyone who says otherwise is (assorted profanity), despite the clear difference applied when any child reaches the age of majority.

All because you're confused at best, of course. Since you cannot post a reference without saying if you agree with it, I won't dare to infer your position on this issue, lest you stamp electronic feet and perhaps even pout, even grow angry and abusive that your audience cannot understand you.
Civil, and ever the optimist, I am still waiting to see if you get an idea what a fallacy is, or say what the impact of the Affordable Care Act is on yourself.

I wonder WHY the fetus does not speak for itself, if it has rights? Ah. As an incompetent, it has a guardian. Like a manatee. There we go.

Oh, wait!

Isn't the woman in Patrick's link the kind of person who will magically NOT abuse drugs if they were just legal?

Wow. The solution is so simple!

Radwaste, I knew you'd rise to the bait. Thank you for living up to my expectations like the predictable fool you are.

And it's as good a place to explain to you why I refuse to engage you. The simple reason is, to put it bluntly (as someone who couldn't care less about your feelings or anything else about you, for that matter), you're just plain too stupid.

I'll illustrate with an example. I routinely engage birthers online. In fact, I recently completed my research project on defending the eligibility of Ted Cruz. Webpage to be posted as soon as my editor gets back to me on what he wants changed.

You explain to the typical birther that according the SCOTUS ruling of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that a natural born citizen simply means anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth. And that "natural born citizen" is defined according English common law.

The birthers, completely clueless, will say something like, "Oh, tee-hee-hee! Silly me! I thought we gained our independence from England! Tee-hee!"

And they actually think they've not only refuted the argument, but that they've actually said something clever and witty!

To explain why United States v. Wong Kim Ark resorted to English common law to define the term "natural born citizen," explaining reception statutes, etc. would involve at least a reeducation. And moreover, you're working against their preconceived ideas that a natural born citizen can only mean one born in the U.S. to two citizen parents (an idea that they formed out of their hatred of President Obama). So, explaining this to them would merely be a matter of educating them. It would involve something more akin to deprogramming.

And I'm simply too intelligent to see that as anything more than a fruitless effort. If a person doesn't know, and genuinely wants to know, I'm willing to educate. But I'm not in the business of deprogramming, something that could not be accomplished online.

And in much the same way, engaging you and emptying your head of the bullshit ideas that you think you know would involve deprogramming.

As I said, you're just plain too stupid.

But for the sake of those who have an IQ above that of room temperature, I'm going to point out something that is probably obvious to everyone else on this board. In fact, I suspect more than a few people are reading the astounding ignorance you just displayed and are absolutely cringing. (Though they're probably too polite to admit it.)

From the 14th Amendment, with added emphasis: "Section 1. 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."

On the off-chance that you'll actually get this, please notice that it says "born." You have to be born before you are afforded any of the rights of citizenship. A fetus is not yet born, therefore it is not a citizen, and therefore it is not permitted the rights of citizens.

Dunce.

Room temperature where I live can top 130.

For some one who refuses to engage certain people you sure spend a lot of time engaging those people

I didn't "engage" him, lujlp. I set him up (knowing by this time that he can't resist an opportunity to attack me) and I slammed him, entirely for my own amusement.

There's a difference between discussing an issue with someone as if he's an intellectual equal and taunting him for my own sadistic pleasure.

The former is engagement. The latter is simply abusing someone. (And I thoroughly enjoyed doing it, which I why I don't mind gloating about it to you, especially since you didn't exactly try rebut anything I pointed out. Not that you could.)

It's 47 here, my office is kept a nice chilly 55, so I can feel I can ask this question Patrick.

With the exception of voting and maybe gun ownership, don't even illegal aliens in this country enjoy most of the rights we citizens do? Free speech, religion, right to an attorney, self incrimination, etc etc.

While a fetus may not be a citizen yet, I think our society was awarded them some rights based on viability. If a 7 month pregnant woman who is reported to be a substance abuser gets put into detention until the baby is born, isn't that an acknowledgement that the fetus has some rights? Add to that the biggie of abortion term limits.

Just askin.

Greetings, Eric. As persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S., yes, they do. (Everyone who enters the U.S. is "under the jurisdiction," even illegal aliens. The only exceptions are hostile invaders or foreign diplomats. See Plyler v. Doe, for instance.

To answer your question, I would have to refer you to a rather...shall we say, offensive decision made by the Supreme Court. In fact, it's quite arguably the worst one of all: Dred Scott v. Sandford."

I do not invoke this decision without specifying that I do not agree with its conclusions. But they do raise one small point that's useful here.

From Dred Scott v. Sandford, with added emphasis:

The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [blacks] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate [p405] and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

While the Supreme Court is declaring that blacks are not citizens and not entitled to the rights and privileges of citizens, it is also conceding that the Government reserves the right to extend certain rights to them.

In much the same way, the Constitution extends no rights to a fetus (as they are not citizens as defined in the Fourteenth Amendment), the government reserves the right to extend them certain rights.

My home state (Vermont), allowed blacks to vote since the inception of the state, for example (although voting is not a right provided for in the Constitution), further allowed them to enter contracts, own property, etc.

I knew that you'd cite another case as the end-all, be-all, final word on an issue, Patrick, since you have demonstrated a tendency to avoid questioning any accepted practice, authority figure or custom. I do not know how you do that without some high level of either mental stress or willful ignorance, considering the significant changes in American courts today w/r/t the rights of homosexuals. These cases serve as well as any others to demonstrate that courts, even high courts, are neither the final word nor a complete, tidy solution for all social issues. Consistent study on your part would show that but your citations show instead another plea for the issue at hand to be settled (be quiet, don't bother me any more that court said we're done!). I suggest that you're only looking as far as you need to to make the point at hand, not that you have a thorough grasp of jurisprudence in general.

Now that you're here, Patrick:

1) What is the impact of the Affordable Care Act on you, and on what basis do you find the cost calculator at NPR objectionable?

2) Does your citation of the cases above mean that you agree with them? As I recall, your implied support for the TSA started with such a citation without further comment - which started a lengthy period of whining about your audience not being smart enough to understand what you didn't say. So I want you to be clear.

If you thought that I did not know of the cases you cite OR that your earlier post was "bait", you are simply asserting your standard line, that only you are educated or capable of reasoning, can be correct, etc. I'm happy for two things: I've shown conclusively you cannot recognize fallacies when YOU use them, and that you have not resorted to profanity in this latest tirade.

Observers will note that I am not engaging in ad hominem, nor am I name-calling. You demean yourself when you do that.

Further, about "refusing to engage": anyone, not just I, can ask these questions of you. This makes it clear that it is the idea, not I, which you are refusing. If you could answer the question about the ACA posed above in a satisfactory manner, that would completely defeat my implication that the answer would damage any position of support for the President you might offer in association.

You're just choosing your battles so you can "win", that's all.

Radwaste, I'm sorry, did you say something?

Nothing you dare answer - but you might have noticed that other people post here.

That's the audience, and they read things here, too.

Nothing I care to discuss with you. You really need to let the TSA thing go. You simply don't know enough about it or the issues surrounding it to discuss it intelligently (or unintelligently, for that matter).

Like I said, you're just plain too stupid. When a person is dead, they don't know that they're dead. The ones who suffer are the ones around the dead person, not the dead person himself.

It's the same when you're stupid.

Bye-bye.

Nothing I care to discuss with you. You really need to let the TSA thing go. You simply don't know enough about it or the issues surrounding it to discuss it intelligently (or unintelligently, for that matter). -- Patrick at October 27, 2013 9:46 PM

I've posted this several times since you have shown up here.
=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!

The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from before Entebbe and afterward.

The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.

Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.

The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.

At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.

The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?

The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.

If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.

There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.

Oh, and someone brought bombs being an issue. If bombs were effective and simple then the Lockerbie bombing would have been repeated multiple times between 21 December 1988 and 11 September 2001. That's 4647 days or 13 years. Where was the TSA in that time? There was one successful bombing that was done in Colombia and two unsuccessful attempts in that time. The bombing in Colombia was a drug dealer assassination and not a terrorist attack.

Basically the normal was used in an abnormal way. Once it was realized it was countered.
=================================================

Now I still have not had you refute it or seen you take it apart or said where I'm wrong. So please skip the comments to Rad and comment on my ideas. Am I stupid as well?