Comments on: De Vattel: revisited http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/ Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:50:33 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: mrlqban http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/#comment-28805 mrlqban Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:10:12 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=3446#comment-28805 <blockquote cite="comment-28770"> <strong><a href="#comment-28770" rel="nofollow">Paul Pieniezny</a></strong>: No, you are demonstrably wrong. The French Canadian version of “natural born” does not use indigènes. Why? Because “Indigènes” would imply the original inhabitants – Indians and (in Canada also) Inuit. In fact, if Vattel, an inhabitant of Switzerland (a country which has been afraid of being swamped by new arrivals from France, Germany or Italy) had been asked in 1776 what he meant with his phrase in the American context, the chance that he would have said only Red Indians, as naturels and indigènes were citizens, is slightly higher than 60%. </blockquote> well, indigenous in English or indigènes in French are synonym of natives no matter what language you use.

Paul Pieniezny: No, you are demonstrably wrong. The French Canadian version of “natural born” does not use indigènes. Why? Because “Indigènes” would imply the original inhabitants – Indians and (in Canada also) Inuit. In fact, if Vattel, an inhabitant of Switzerland (a country which has been afraid of being swamped by new arrivals from France, Germany or Italy) had been asked in 1776 what he meant with his phrase in the American context, the chance that he would have said only Red Indians, as naturels and indigènes were citizens, is slightly higher than 60%.

well, indigenous in English or indigènes in French are synonym of natives no matter what language you use.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Scientist http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/#comment-28771 Scientist Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:56:18 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=3446#comment-28771 You could certainly make the case that all 44 US Presidents are illegitimate usurpers ruling over unjustly expropriated land. You could certainly make the case that all 44 US Presidents are illegitimate usurpers ruling over unjustly expropriated land.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Paul Pieniezny http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/#comment-28770 Paul Pieniezny Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:28:43 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=3446#comment-28770 No, you are demonstrably wrong. The French Canadian version of "natural born" does not use indigènes. Why? Because "Indigènes" would imply the original inhabitants - Indians and (in Canada also) Inuit. In fact, if Vattel, an inhabitant of Switzerland (a country which has been afraid of being swamped by new arrivals from France, Germany or Italy) had been asked in 1776 what he meant with his phrase in the American context, the chance that he would have said only Red Indians, as naturels and indigènes were citizens, is slightly higher than 60%. No, you are demonstrably wrong. The French Canadian version of “natural born” does not use indigènes. Why? Because “Indigènes” would imply the original inhabitants – Indians and (in Canada also) Inuit. In fact, if Vattel, an inhabitant of Switzerland (a country which has been afraid of being swamped by new arrivals from France, Germany or Italy) had been asked in 1776 what he meant with his phrase in the American context, the chance that he would have said only Red Indians, as naturels and indigènes were citizens, is slightly higher than 60%.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: mrlqban http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/#comment-28747 mrlqban Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:50:59 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=3446#comment-28747 I was using logic to prove that indigenous (in English, I don't want to use French)means natural born without citing. If native = natural born (do you need authority for this?, it has been referenced in this blog a lot of times that they are equal) ,and indigenous = native, then indigenous must equal natural born. For my last sentence, it is my opinion that the Framers possibly adapted Vattel's concept. No different than your opinion that they possibly did not. <blockquote cite="comment-28735"> <strong><a href="#comment-28735" rel="nofollow">Dr. Conspiracy</a></strong>: That’s all very fanciful, but there are two gaping holes that let all the air out of your comment. First, you cite no authority that <em>indigènes </em>[you couldn't even get it correct in the French] means “natural born”, and second you cite no authority that the framers of the constitution used de Vattel’s concept.So besides your own prejudices, I see nothing in your comment. </blockquote> I was using logic to prove that indigenous (in English, I don’t want to use French)means natural born without citing.

If native = natural born (do you need authority for this?, it has been referenced in this blog a lot of times that they are equal)

,and indigenous = native, then indigenous must equal natural born.

For my last sentence, it is my opinion that the Framers possibly adapted Vattel’s concept. No different than your opinion that they possibly did not.

Dr. Conspiracy: That’s all very fanciful, but there are two gaping holes that let all the air out of your comment. First, you cite no authority that indigènes [you couldn't even get it correct in the French] means “natural born”, and second you cite no authority that the framers of the constitution used de Vattel’s concept.So besides your own prejudices, I see nothing in your comment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Dr. Conspiracy http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/#comment-28735 Dr. Conspiracy Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:49:41 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=3446#comment-28735 <strong>mrlqban</strong>: <em>Indigenous [sic] still means natural born</em> That's all very fanciful, but there are two gaping holes that let all the air out of your comment. First, you cite no authority that <em> indigènes </em> [you couldn't even get it correct in the French] means "natural born", and second you cite no authority that the framers of the Constitution used de Vattel's concept. So besides your own prejudices, I see nothing in your comment. mrlqban: Indigenous [sic] still means natural born

That’s all very fanciful, but there are two gaping holes that let all the air out of your comment. First, you cite no authority that indigènes [you couldn't even get it correct in the French] means “natural born”, and second you cite no authority that the framers of the Constitution used de Vattel’s concept.

So besides your own prejudices, I see nothing in your comment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>