I never made an outright accusation, and, for you to claim so, and to refer to one simple question as “all the crap that you’ve been getting”, is disingenuous.
Excellent choice of constitutional “scholar”, and the quotes aren’t meant to convey anything other than pure unadulterated sarcasm. By the way, were you aware that this particular “scholar” says the constitution doesn’t give you a fundamental right to own private firearms, but was instead targetted solely at militia ownership? In other words, he thinks it is perfectly fine for cities and states to outlaw firearm ownership if they so desire. Still sound like your kind of guy?
Whack! banned. Is it for terminal obtuseness in this thread or there was something else going on in others?
Try harder.
Hi Morella, welcome back! Don’t get too comfortable on that couch, as you’ll be leaving soon.
Could have been for that bit of gratuitous French aimed at emacknight. What she said means “Go get fucked up the ass, you moron”, which runs afoul of the language rules. Twice if the mods equate con with cunt (which would be correct etymologically, but not semantically).
Usually only nets you a warning though, so 
Then why did you bring it up? Or is that another one of your lies?
Oh, I wanted to be the one to provoke her.
[sniffle] She just can’t quit the SDMB. It touches the heart, really. Or maybe the spleen.
Well, the trolling wasn’t sufficient for a ban, but the sock-puppet apparently did the trick.
Yeah, that pretty much clinches it as a troll. True nutbars will set up a sock but will freely admit it’s them. Acting like you’re someone else? That’s just dicking around.
That is the most transparent socking I’ve ever seen. Nice trolling skills, there. The username being a loose anagram for “I don’t give a fuck” in French is a nice touch. All in all, a solid effort.
Not actually true. Chester A. Arthur had a british parent, and thus, was not an American Citizen, despite being born on American Soil.
At least, according to this line of reasoning.
I’ve got some lovely sharp cheddar from Vermont to go with that cider.
I know this wasn’t your point, but from that site (bolding mine):
That looks like a pretty clear admission that Arthur was an American citizen at birth. The fact that he was also a British citizen from birth is irrelevant. That whole argument falls down by itself.
My daughter was born in London, England. The spouse and I are both US citizens (and UK permanent residents). Although she was legally a dual citizen from birth, one of the pieces of paper the Embassy gave us when we registered the birth had some wording on it (sorry, I don’t have it at hand) saying that it had not yet been legally determined whether her circumstances at birth made her a “natural-born citizen” of the US for the purposes of running for President or not*. The US State Department does not have a view and the courts apparently haven’t taken one yet, so anyone claiming to know definitively is lying.
However - born in the US to a US citizen parent = natural-born citizen. I think that one’s been settled, no?
*Fortunately we had the foresight to put an announcement in the Honolulu papers and bribe the Governor of Hawaii, just in case. 
Maybe next time, until then, learn from the master.
No, there are three more conditions: not a Kenyan, not a Muslim, not a liberal President.
You know what I don’t get about conspiracy theories and their theorists: how is it they never realize nothing can disprove them?
To prove Obama is a citizen requires a birth certificate. But showing the birth certificate just means that it’s an obvious forgery. So if you can’t verify the birth certificate, you can’t verify citizenship. There is nothing that can possibly prove he was born in the US to a US citizen. So then why bother? Wouldn’t you realize the entire system for establishing natural-born-citizenship is unverifiable, and thus its requirement to be President is irrelevant.
If we were to apply this new system of citizenship, we could essentially trace all African Americans back to a parent that wasn’t allowed to be a citizen. Hence their children can’t be citizens, so their children’s children aren’t citizens. We’re left with a few New Englanders and a couple of people from Virginia that are inbred enough to legitimately claim noble heritage.
So Obama makes citizen under the “not a liberal President” clause, or do you have to hit all three?
Time to head to ATMB to see if there’s a thread about the banning. Somehow, I doubt it.
Mmmmmmmmmmmn, it’s a beautiful morning!
You’re right. I left that part out because you have to draw the line somewhere, but to be completely precise I should have said that Obama’s the first president who was known to run afoul of the rule, because Arthur supposedly lied about his father’s citizenship status (as seen in the URL of your link, for instance). The fact that he felt the need to conceal that is further evidence that it was widely known to be a rule. If he hadn’t lied about it, it would have been resolved right then and there and we’d never have run into all this trouble with the Kenyan.
According to that line of reasoning.
It was probably the blatant admission of trolling at the bottom of post #1033. The sock puppet entered the picture after the banning.
In the thread about the woman who binned the cat she also wilfully ignored an instruction from Lynn Bodoni not to post descriptions of animal torture, which probably didn’t help her case any.