PDA

View Full Version : Obama doesn't qualify to be a citizen, much less a natural born one.



keymanjim
05-21-2012, 10:32 PM
It is true that the 14th Amendment has the stipulation that people must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US in order to be US citizens. The definition of this phrase has been bandied about for years. But, I believe the definition of the man who inserted the phrase into the 14th, Sen Lyman Trumbull, should always be the best one to use:


"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. "


A person's citizenship at birth is defined by not only where they are born but who they are born to. If a person is born of even one foreign national then they inherit that parents citizenship. But, in doing so they are not under the complete jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, they are not born a US citizen.


This point is further enhanced by the main architect of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham. On April 25, 1872 during a debate regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:


“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”


(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)


So, John Bingham, the father of the 14th Amendment, believed up to and beyond that point that all laws pertaining to citizenship in the US, including his 14th Amendment, defined citizenship as being born on US soil to two US citizen parents.


It doesn't matter where he was born. According to the 14th Amendment, obama is not a US citizen.
Much less a natural born one.

Trinnity
05-22-2012, 12:26 AM
I can think of a gazillion reasons why he isn't one of them. And I think he's hiding a lot. A LOT.

BlackAsCoal
05-22-2012, 06:26 AM
:0)

More re-hashed failed nonsense.

Hey, just because this crap didn't work the first time is no reason why republicans shouldn't drag it out and try it again.

I'm sure that democrats and Obama are real happy to see you try.

keymanjim
05-22-2012, 06:55 AM
:0)

More re-hashed failed nonsense.

Hey, just because this crap didn't work the first time is no reason why republicans shouldn't drag it out and try it again.

I'm sure that democrats and Obama are real happy to see you try.
I love it.
The standard "I can't handle these facts so I'll pretend they don't exist" post.
Even though nothing will come of this, obama is still toast. He's been a unmitigated disaster to this country from day one. Some can even say he started back when he was senator obama. He certainly did his part by voting in lockstep with pelosi and reid as they destroyed the economy. That was, when he bothered to vote at all.
Since he took office the labor force participation rate has dropped, food stamps usage has risen, the national debt has skyrocketed, two credit rating downgrades, etc, etc.

And all of this could have been avoided had we followed the Constitution as it was written instead of bending it to meet flawed political ideologies.

Goldie Locks
05-22-2012, 07:09 AM
I love it.
The standard "I can't handle these facts so I'll pretend they don't exist" post.
Even though nothing will come of this, obama is still toast. He's been a unmitigated disaster to this country from day one. Some can even say he started back when he was senator obama. He certainly did his part by voting in lockstep with pelosi and reid as they destroyed the economy. That was, when he bothered to vote at all.
Since he took office the labor force participation rate has dropped, food stamps usage has risen, the national debt has skyrocketed, two credit rating downgrades, etc, etc.

And all of this could have been avoided had we followed the Constitution as it was written instead of bending it to meet flawed political ideologies.


Yep, that's the problem right there...nothing will be done about it, even if it can be proven. Those in charge will never let a president of their choosing be ousted from office under any circumstances. Just like nothing will happen to Eric Holder either or any of the other law breaking radicals in this administration.

MMC
05-22-2012, 07:47 AM
If such was proven to be the case. The Office of the Presidency would be required to deny that such a travesty ever took place. Even the US Constitution would require it. As we could never let the rest of the World Know that Everything that we stand for was Usurped.

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 08:07 AM
:0)

More re-hashed failed nonsense.

Hey, just because this crap didn't work the first time is no reason why republicans shouldn't drag it out and try it again.

I'm sure that democrats and Obama are real happy to see you try.

You have been too kind, BAC. To call it nonsense is to give nonsense a bad name.

The Constitution has never had a wrecking ball taken to it quite so thoroughly as do this band of merry subverters do to it in almost every know nothing post written in what will be called the Age of Stupid today.

Goldie Locks
05-22-2012, 08:10 AM
If such was proven to be the case. The Office of the Presidency would be required to deny that such a travesty ever took place. Even the US Constitution would require it. As we could never let the rest of the World Know that Everything that we stand for was Usurped.

How does the Constitution require it??? I don't understand what you are saying. We have had impeachment before and Nixon left office in disgrace...I understand this would be different but....

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 08:12 AM
I can think of a gazillion reasons why he isn't one of them. And I think he's hiding a lot. A LOT.

Same breathless, retarded innuendo that proves Apes descended from Man.

Shame about it. DCJ Part 2.

MMC
05-22-2012, 08:28 AM
How does the Constitution require it??? I don't understand what you are saying. We have had impeachment before and Nixon left office in disgrace...I understand this would be different but....

The difference would be that Nixon was not a Usurper. If one would ever be discovered as a Usurper, the Constitution Invokes the Office of the Presidency. Lays out all of the format and VESTS the Excutive Powers to the Office of the Presidency.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#Am20) and 25th Amendments (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#Am25).).....snip~

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html.

keymanjim
05-22-2012, 08:38 AM
You have been too kind, BAC. To call it nonsense is to give nonsense a bad name.

The Constitution has never had a wrecking ball taken to it quite so thoroughly as do this band of merry subverters do to it in almost every know nothing post written in what will be called the Age of Stupid today.
And yet, neither you or her can refute it.
You instead choose to act like it doesn't exist.
It's right there in front of you. Pick it apart. Show us where it is incorrect.

BlackAsCoal
05-22-2012, 09:24 AM
I love it.
The standard "I can't handle these facts so I'll pretend they don't exist" post.
Even though nothing will come of this, obama is still toast. He's been a unmitigated disaster to this country from day one. Some can even say he started back when he was senator obama. He certainly did his part by voting in lockstep with pelosi and reid as they destroyed the economy. That was, when he bothered to vote at all.
Since he took office the labor force participation rate has dropped, food stamps usage has risen, the national debt has skyrocketed, two credit rating downgrades, etc, etc.

And all of this could have been avoided had we followed the Constitution as it was written instead of bending it to meet flawed political ideologies.

Spoken like a true partisan.

I'll repeat this .. I didn't vote for Obama nor would I.

That being said, the continued reliance of the right-wing on already failed and completely non-sensical tabloid stories to beat Obama is their choice. They can drag out Rev. Wright, Muslim, terrorist-lover, not a citizen, and all the absolute goofy meme they can invent. Their choice.

But as it has already been demonstrated, that only drives more people to the polls to vote for the "lessor evil."

And in case you aren't aware, the Constitution is a living document. The Founders never meant it to be intrepreted literally for all time. That was the genius of the Founders.

BlackAsCoal
05-22-2012, 09:28 AM
You have been too kind, BAC. To call it nonsense is to give nonsense a bad name.

The Constitution has never had a wrecking ball taken to it quite so thoroughly as do this band of merry subverters do to it in almost every know nothing post written in what will be called the Age of Stupid today.

Agreed.

They have no understanding of the Constitution. No understanding of the genius of the Founders .. and no understanding of the Age of Enlightenment in which they lived.

They reach for the Constitution and the bible to protect them from anything they don't live .. like the natural evolution of society.

Society is dynamic, not static. Change is its natural state of being.

BlackAsCoal
05-22-2012, 09:31 AM
And yet, neither you or her can refute it.
You instead choose to act like it doesn't exist.
It's right there in front of you. Pick it apart. Show us where it is incorrect.

<hand raised> :0)

What is it that you need picked apart?

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 09:47 AM
Keymanjim, it's your job to educate yourself and not to filter out the mountain of information and thought out there that puts the lie to ignorance and stupidity.

keymanjim
05-22-2012, 09:52 AM
Spoken like a true partisan.

I'll repeat this .. I didn't vote for Obama nor would I.

That being said, the continued reliance of the right-wing on already failed and completely non-sensical tabloid stories to beat Obama is their choice. They can drag out Rev. Wright, Muslim, terrorist-lover, not a citizen, and all the absolute goofy meme they can invent. Their choice.

But as it has already been demonstrated, that only drives more people to the polls to vote for the "lessor evil."

And in case you aren't aware, the Constitution is a living document. The Founders never meant it to be intrepreted literally for all time. That was the genius of the Founders.
What makes you think this is some kind of a crutch? It a part of history that has been bastardized to fit and ideology. But, this is the internet. Whether we find a solution to it here is irreverent in the real world.
What I've shown you here is absolute proof that, not only is obama not a US citizen, but that there are no such things as anchor babies.

And, the Constitution is written in stone. If you wish to change it then there are mechanisms for that. THAT was the genius of the Founders.

Mister D
05-22-2012, 09:53 AM
Yes, this is most certainly the Internet. This thread reminds of me of everything I hate about it.

keymanjim
05-22-2012, 09:54 AM
Keymanjim, it's your job to educate yourself and not to filter out the mountain of information and thought out there that puts the lie to ignorance and stupidity.
I did. And, I'm right.
If for no other reason than you have failed to prove me wrong. Probably because you are afraid to look into the subject and find that I am right.

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 10:01 AM
I did. And, I'm right.
If for no other reason than you have failed to prove me wrong. Probably because you are afraid to look into the subject and find that I am right.
I litigate Constitutional questions. What you have written is moronic.

Try a source off the "approved" list.

keymanjim
05-22-2012, 10:04 AM
I litigate Constitutional questions. What you have written is moronic.

Try a source off the "approved" list.
The words of two of the major contributors to the 14th Amendment are "moronic"?
Hell, why stop there. Let's dismiss the entire Amendment because you don't like what the writers have to say.

BlackAsCoal
05-22-2012, 10:06 AM
What makes you think this is some kind of a crutch? It a part of history that has been bastardized to fit and ideology. But, this is the internet. Whether we find a solution to it here is irreverent in the real world.
What I've shown you here is absolute proof that, not only is obama not a US citizen, but that there are no such things as anchor babies.

And, the Constitution is written in stone. If you wish to change it then there are mechanisms for that. THAT was the genius of the Founders.

If it was written in stone .. how can it be changed at all? That doesn't make any sense.

The Constitution has been changed/amended many times. Proof that it was not written in stone.

The Founders DID NOT even mention many issues of the day they were aware of .. like slavery. Not a single word about it in the original Constitution .. as well as many other issues of the day .. like God, immigration, marriage, taxation without representation, and the "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness."

The genius of the Founders was in their wisdom that life and society evolves. Coming generations would not interpret neither life nor society as it was interpreted then.

Most of today's confused also believe the Founders were as Christian as they are. They believe the Founders intended this to be a christian nation. :0)

The wisdom of the Founders was in their understanding that they were creating a living document.

keymanjim
05-22-2012, 10:10 AM
If it was written in stone .. how can it be changed at all? That doesn't make any sense.

They're called "Amendments". And, you need one Amendment to alter of eliminate another. NOT, the off hand misinterpretation by an agenda driven court system.

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 10:52 AM
They're called "Amendments". And, you need one Amendment to alter of eliminate another. NOT, the off hand misinterpretation by an agenda driven court system.The Constitution not only allows the Judiciary to decide Cases and Controversies, it makes it their duty to do so. And, according to the Constitution, it is the Judiciary that is authorized to give the final say on what the Constitution means.

Whether you know it or not, you are not protecting the Constitution. You are subverting it.

keymanjim
05-22-2012, 10:56 AM
The Constitution not only allows the Judiciary to decide Cases and Controversies, it makes it their duty to do so. And, according to the Constitution, it is the Judiciary that is authorized to give the final say on what the Constitution means.

Whether you know it or not, you are not protecting the Constitution. You are subverting it.

But, no where does it give them the authority to alter the Constitution. And, that's what they are doing when they take an Amendment an interpret it to mean the exact opposite of the writer's intentions.

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 11:01 AM
But, no where does it give them the authority to alter the Constitution. And of course the Supreme Court would not agree that they have altered it. And they get the final say.

What Constitutional position do you assume lay people hold when it comes to deciding cases and controversies?

keymanjim
05-22-2012, 12:24 PM
And of course the Supreme Court would not agree that they have altered it. And they get the final say.

What Constitutional position do you assume lay people hold when it comes to deciding cases and controversies?
Congress has the final say. As they are the only one that can alter the Constitution.

wingrider
05-22-2012, 03:44 PM
Congress has the final say. As they are the only one that can alter the Constitution.

almost... congess passes a proposed amendment then it goes to the senate where it takes super majority, then it has to be ratified by 75 percent of the states, then the president signs it and it is law.. congress by itself cannot amend the constitution,,

as to the op... I promised myself I would not make any comments on a birth thread,,, so I will pass on this. I am just waiting 5 more months and voting this POS of a presidebt out of office..

spunkloaf
05-22-2012, 04:01 PM
Thank GOODNESS this bullshit is all we have to put up with. If there was actually something that liberals needed to cover up or defend, we might actually have to put some effort into our debate. It's nice to watch these fools run their conspiracies right over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.

Go, lemmings! GO!

I bet if you just say the lie 10 more times, some idiot might believe you. You wont need any proof or anything.

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 04:06 PM
Congress has the final say. As they are the only one that can alter the Constitution.Nopes. That is 100% wrong. And that's not how the Amendment process works either.

Peter1469
05-22-2012, 04:08 PM
Spoken like a true partisan.

I'll repeat this .. I didn't vote for Obama nor would I.

That being said, the continued reliance of the right-wing on already failed and completely non-sensical tabloid stories to beat Obama is their choice. They can drag out Rev. Wright, Muslim, terrorist-lover, not a citizen, and all the absolute goofy meme they can invent. Their choice.

But as it has already been demonstrated, that only drives more people to the polls to vote for the "lessor evil."

And in case you aren't aware, the Constitution is a living document. The Founders never meant it to be intrepreted literally for all time. That was the genius of the Founders.

The Founders gave us two ways of changing the Constitution:

1. The amendment process
2. The convention process.

Not the "say it means whatever you wish process."


And in case you aren't aware, the Constitution is a living document.


No it is not.

It has been forgotten that the Constitution only gave the federal government limited and enumerated powers; in all other matters the States were sovereign. We have ignored much of that since 1936.

spunkloaf
05-22-2012, 04:21 PM
The Founders gave us two ways of changing the Constitution:

1. The amendment process
2. The convention process.

Not the "say it means whatever you wish process."



No it is not.

It has been forgotten that the Constitution only gave the federal government limited and enumerated powers; in all other matters the States were sovereign. We have ignored much of that since 1936.

State to me which parts of the constitution the amendment process is forbidden to touch. Which parts of the constitution are eternally protected from being amended?

wingrider
05-22-2012, 04:23 PM
freedom of speech

the right to bear arms

the right to a trial by jury

the right to due process

shall I go on.?

Peter1469
05-22-2012, 04:36 PM
State to me which parts of the constitution the amendment process is forbidden to touch. Which parts of the constitution are eternally protected from being amended?

If the

1. amendment process, or
2. the convention process is followed,

then none of the Constitution is not subject to change.

The living Constitution people want to just change it without bothering with 1 or 2.

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 04:45 PM
If the

1. amendment process, or
2. the convention process is followed,

then none of the Constitution is not subject to change.

The living Constitution people want to just change it without bothering with 1 or 2.The US Supreme Court would disagree that what happens in cases and controversies is "changing" the Constitution. Nobody thinks that cases or controversies are supposed to change the Constitution.

Applying it is not changing it.

wingrider
05-22-2012, 05:18 PM
The US Supreme Court would disagree that what happens in cases and controversies is "changing" the Constitution. Nobody thinks that cases or controversies are supposed to change the Constitution.

Applying it is not changing it.
that would depend on how the application is made,,

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 05:37 PM
that would depend on how the application is made,,How so?

Like every other class of judge under the sun, the Supreme Court Justices have to apply the law to the facts.

The 4th Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures - does not provide an inventory of all searches that would be considered "unreasonable". Do you think we need a Constitutional Amendment to know the 4th Amendment applies to searches of computer hard drives - even though Jefferson was not known to be much of a computer man?

The Constitutional sections and amendments were written at a high level of abstraction so that they could be applied to scenarios and fact patterns then familiar AND AS WELL to those unknown to Founders.

wingrider
05-22-2012, 06:37 PM
I am saying that activist judges let their personal biases cloud their interpretation of a given issue or potential law.. and don't tell me they don't .. every judge does it in one way or another, for the last 70 or 80 years the court has been this way ever since FDR.

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 06:40 PM
I am saying that activist judges let their personal biases cloud their interpretation of a given issue or potential law.. and don't tell me they don't .. every judge does it in one way or another, for the last 70 or 80 years the court has been this way ever since FDR.Do you think the Founders were unaware that the Justices would be human?

wingrider
05-22-2012, 06:54 PM
Do you think the Founders were unaware that the Justices would be human? what do the founders have to do with the continual dismantling of the constitution we face today and for the last 70 to 80 years?

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 06:57 PM
what do the founders have to do with the continual dismantling of the constitution we face today and for the last 70 to 80 years?You call it a continual dismantling. The Constitution made the Supeme Court Justices the judge of that. Who or what made you the judge?

wingrider
05-22-2012, 07:20 PM
You call it a continual dismantling. The Constitution made the Supeme Court Justices the judge of that. Who or what made you the judge?
history

Peter1469
05-22-2012, 09:25 PM
The US Supreme Court would disagree that what happens in cases and controversies is "changing" the Constitution. Nobody thinks that cases or controversies are supposed to change the Constitution.

Applying it is not changing it.

I agree if that is what they are doing. Explain the sudden shift in commerce clause rulings that began in 1937. Was SCOTUS prior to that just wrong?

dsolo802
05-22-2012, 09:53 PM
I agree if that is what they are doing. Explain the sudden shift in commerce clause rulings that began in 1937. Was SCOTUS prior to that just wrong?I'm inclined to agree there was a corruption there. And still, as I was suggesting the Founders knew that all three branches of the government would be peopled by corruptible men and entrusted cases and controversies, and the responsibility for applying law to fact, to the Judiciary.

The Founders were worldly men, practical men. I cannot imagine they thought the Judiciary would function free from all corruption. The law is what the Supremes say it is, just as the Founders intended it.

RollingWave
05-22-2012, 09:54 PM
I should probably point out that if this logic applies it means only people who are decedents of family already in the US when it was founded (and not Native Americans or Slaves) without exception through the generations can count as US citizens. which would mean like... what... 5% of the current US population? or less?

wingrider
05-22-2012, 11:42 PM
I should probably point out that if this logic applies it means only people who are decedents of family already in the US when it was founded (and not Native Americans or Slaves) without exception through the generations can count as US citizens. which would mean like... what... 5% of the current US population? or less?

you read it wrong..

Peter1469
05-23-2012, 07:44 AM
I'm inclined to agree there was a corruption there. And still, as I was suggesting the Founders knew that all three branches of the government would be peopled by corruptible men and entrusted cases and controversies, and the responsibility for applying law to fact, to the Judiciary.

The Founders were worldly men, practical men. I cannot imagine they thought the Judiciary would function free from all corruption. The law is what the Supremes say it is, just as the Founders intended it.

I would agree if we added that SCOTUS is not infallible and the Court should be willing to correct mistakes made in the past.... I do not believe that the Founders believed that their narrow reading of the Commerce Clause should be usurped by Court action alone.

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 09:06 AM
Without knowing exactly which mistakes would be made, they entrusted a fallible judiciary with the job of applying the Constitution to the facts in Cases and Controversies.

They expected the Judiciary to do this. They did not expect Congress, the Executive or the People to usurp the Judiciary's Constitutional role.

coolwalker
05-23-2012, 10:37 AM
You have been too kind, BAC. To call it nonsense is to give nonsense a bad name.

The Constitution has never had a wrecking ball taken to it quite so thoroughly as do this band of merry subverters do to it in almost every know nothing post written in what will be called the Age of Stupid today.

When you can write a cognizant sentence, we might listen. Perhaps it's the flavor of Kool-Aid you drink that causes your malfunction.

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 10:38 AM
When you can write a cognizant sentence, we might listen. Perhaps it's the flavor of Kool-Aid you drink that causes your malfunction.Or perhaps you are retarded?

keymanjim
05-23-2012, 10:44 AM
Or perhaps you are retarded?
Is that all you have?

Have another glass.http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/emotic10.gif

coolwalker
05-23-2012, 10:47 AM
Or perhaps you are retarded?

I believe you just proved my point. Thank you.

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 10:54 AM
I believe you just proved my point. Thank you.You are most welcome!

MMC
05-23-2012, 11:01 AM
Awwwwwwwwiiiiiight Dsolo.....way to hang in there bro. http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/olovo/smilies/pillowfight.gif :thumbsup:

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 11:04 AM
Awwwwwwwwiiiiiight Dsolo.....way to hang in there bro. http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/olovo/smilies/pillowfight.gif :thumbsup:How are you doing, MMC? It has been a while.

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 11:05 AM
Is that all you have?

Have another glass.Finally we get down to business we can all appreciate. Cheers!

MMC
05-23-2012, 11:12 AM
How are you doing, MMC? It has been a while.


I am doing good bro.....hope you are to. :wink: Well.....you do know where to find me. :evil: :tongue: :grin:

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 11:14 AM
I am doing good bro.....hope you are to. :wink: Well.....you do know where to find me. :evil: :tongue: :grin:Chicago?

It has been a while since I visited. I'd love to see a cubs game, and take in a few jazz clubs.

Peter1469
05-23-2012, 11:17 AM
Without knowing exactly which mistakes would be made, they entrusted a fallible judiciary with the job of applying the Constitution to the facts in Cases and Controversies.

They expected the Judiciary to do this. They did not expect Congress, the Executive or the People to usurp the Judiciary's Constitutional role.

I would say that a total reversal on what a clause such as the Commerce Clause means, is contrary to what the Founders believed. It destroyed federalism.

MMC
05-23-2012, 11:20 AM
Chicago?

It has been a while since I visited. I'd love to see a cubs game, and take in a few jazz clubs.

:slap2: you.....you funny guy, playing the Comedian this day I see. :toothy1: :biglaugh:

I meant my threads. :facepalm: :smiley_ROFLMAO:

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 11:24 AM
:slap2: you.....you funny guy, playing the Comedian this day I see. :toothy1: :biglaugh:

I meant my threads. :facepalm: :smiley_ROFLMAO:I see you are clothed in multiple threads my friend, an abomination according to the good Book. And so I proposed to meet you on more neutral ground, perhaps sharing a souvlaki in Greek town?

Don't you like the Cubs?

MMC
05-23-2012, 11:30 AM
I see you are clothed in multiple threads my friend, an abomination according to the good Book. And so I proposed to meet you on more neutral ground, perhaps sharing a souvlaki in Greek town?

Don't you like the Cubs?


Put it this way I am not against them. Although I am a South-Sider even if I am not that much into baseball. As my youngest son is a Cubs Fan and my oldest is a White Sox fan. But like you said there are plenty of jazz clubs or even the House of Blues. :wink:

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 11:32 AM
Put it this way I am not against them. Although I am a South-Sider even if I am not that much into baseball. As my youngest son is a Cubs Fan and my oldest is a White Sox fan. But like you said there are plenty of jazz clubs or even the House of Blues. :wink:There ya go.

When I used to live in St. Louis, I'd take the train up often for the music, the baseball, and the simple joys of the windy city. St. Louis also had great music and great baseball.

MMC
05-23-2012, 11:43 AM
There ya go.

When I used to live in St. Louis, I'd take the train up often for the music, the baseball, and the simple joys of the windy city. St. Louis also had great music and great baseball.

My cousin lives in St. Louis. Never been to their place. Cardinal fans thru and true. I went thru there a couple of times. As I had some Demolitions training at Ft. Leonardwood. Went down to East St louis with an Army brother who stopped into see his family too. Brief passings on by for me.

dsolo802
05-23-2012, 11:47 AM
My cousin lives in St. Louis. Never been to their place. Cardinal fans thru and true. I went thru there a couple of times. As I had some Demolitions training at Ft. Leonardwood. Went down to East St louis with an Army brother who stopped into see his family too. Brief passings on by for me.Some of the happiest years of my life there. Didn't venture into east St. Louis much.

Genuinely the most open, friendly part of the country as far as I'm concerned. People really do stop to talk with you, even if they don't know you. Taught me something very essential.