My own stupid argument was that “Warships should be named after persons or events of historical significance to the Navy,” and later that ‘there is a tradition in naming ships’, both of which you rejected.

Idiot....

I feel like I want to ask for details to this story, but then I also feel like I don’t care. Unless it’s going to be funny. In which case, I encourage you to take a risk.

This just make me giggle like a school girl...

Actually, the argument I’m making is called “appeal to tradition”. The argument I’m countering is called “ad hominem”, which is usually taken as a negative.

The Chickadee was decommissioned more than a half century ago... and that’s also a stupid name. Not sure what the relevance is here.

So basically we’re naming a Navy asset after a guy whose only claim to fame is that he’s gay, and he happened to have served one term of enlistment. I’m calling bullshit on this one - this is pure soviet style politics. There’s no reason to name a warship for Milk. A community center in the Castro? That would be a…

I’m not sure what “the standards” are, but I’m willing to bet about 60% were nixed because they were just plain moronic, but 40% were nixed because they didn’t tow the line of the left-wing orthodoxy that anything gay should be treated like it’s the greatest thing ever to happen to mankind, even if it’s really not.

Two reasons. First, they’re going to use the biggest damned thing they can partly because it impresses the hell out of people. Air Force One isn’t just a sweet ride, it’s also a projection of American power and prestige. Landing that plane at a US airport guarantees a few extra votes no matter where it goes. And…

The only thing that has been made clear by the US Constitution, the Supreme Court and by Congress is that birthright citizenship is granted only in the case of a child born to someone lawfully present in the United States and only in the specific cases of either being here on an immigrant visa or under a grant of…

Here’s what page 1 of DS-11 says:

It’s not opinion, it’s objective fact. Yes, there are such things - you’re inability to comprehend them does not nullify that.

It was taught to you in school at some point. Always remember that history is written by the victors, and they always paint themselves as just and virtuous, usually at the expense of the defeated party.

You write “jurisdiction is broadly defined”, then you write “not really sure how the lack of the specific term ‘prosecute’ in a general article”... I mean, you’re pretty much just admitting that you’re an idiot.

Funny you should mention that. The Chinese were the subject of some of the first immigration laws in the US. It used to be a free-for-all until the Chinese Exclusion Act 1886, which led directly to the landmark US vs Wong Kim Ark, which is the case that established birthright citizenship, but also specified it only…

Actually, the senators were quite deliberate in this law, and there were several months of debate. And as a Constitutional amendment, it was also debated in every State legislature prior to ratification. The language chosen was very specific. The only problem with the 14th Amendment is the same issue plaguing the 1st,…

“subject to” in the parlance of Constitutional law (and nationality law) means ‘owing allegiance to’. The term is derived from English Common law. You may recall that British Citizens were - not to long ago - referred to as “subjects of the crown”. You might also recall that we were once British subjects. You might…

Your personal experience is clouded by your lack of judgement.

“subject to” means “owing allegiance”. The rest of your argument is invalid. (Granted, the point about ‘crapping out babies’ has merit - but then, I’ve seen some people in whom you couldn’t tell for sure...)

That simply is the case.