I understand that...

[deorro 1]

I understand that not too many still desire to, strictly, adhere to the U.S. Constitution just as they do not have a desire to, strictly, adhere to The Holy Bible. I understand this. It is called 'modern interpretation'; just as God changes with 'time', so they say, so also should 'we'.

Well accordingly to the U.S. Constitution, president hopefuls had to 'fit' into The Constitutuon's guidelines. Article 2, i believe. A certain age, a certain number of years as a member of the U.S State and also one who was required to have been a 'citizen' of the U.S 'AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF 'this' CONSTITUTION'. Well of course noone would be able to fit the last requirement seeing the 'adoption' occurred in 1787, or so? The full acceptance, or 'adoption', ratification is what i believe it is called, by all 13, not 50, States. So of course noone alive today would have been able to have been born in 1787, as a 'citizen', and be alive today even running for the Presidential 'seat'.


So what could it have meant when the early founding fathers, all excelling in academia and also being 'well travelled 'world' travellers', wrote this 'requirement' and signed their 'well repudated name and surname' to have surrendered their parchment(s) of the guidelines of the U.S Government, as the 'great' separation war between the colonists, the separatists and the U.K, resulted in; 'The Demand for Independence'? Perhaps they, being advanced in learning as well as having noted the 'migrations' which were already occurring; with the finding(s) of The Newfoundland(s), they might have written this requirement as a 'future' caution which they could have forseen as a possible U.S 'danger', or 'treason', as The Constitution speaks of; Article 4, i think. So....

To be a 'citizen' at 'THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION' of This U.S Constitution; 1787, or so, maybe being born of already U.S citizens, in 1787, could be what they meant; then even up to present.


Let's just 'assume' this to be... Nextly... Trivia ????

Which U.S President was the very first which did NOT have parental lineage back(ing) to 1787 within the U.S?

Hint: (W)ould you be (W)restling with the concept?

W.W.

Do you think Mr. W.W looks a little like Mr. J.B, (Joe Biden), only with 'darker' features, a little??

 

[bluzman61]

I understand that not too many still desire to, strictly, adhere to the U.S. Constitution just as they do not have a desire to, strictly, adhere to The Holy Bible. I understand this. It is called 'modern interpretation'; just as God changes with 'time', so they say, so also should 'we'.

Well accordingly to the U.S. Constitution, president hopefuls had to 'fit' into The Constitutuon's guidelines. Article 2, i believe. A certain age, a certain number of years as a member of the U.S State and also one who was required to have been a 'citizen' of the U.S 'AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF 'this' CONSTITUTION'. Well of course noone would be able to fit the last requirement seeing the 'adoption' occurred in 1787, or so? The full acceptance, or 'adoption', ratification is what i believe it is called, by all 13, not 50, States. So of course noone alive today would have been able to have been born in 1787, as a 'citizen', and be alive today even running for the Presidential 'seat'.


So what could it have meant when the early founding fathers, all excelling in academia and also being 'well travelled 'world' travellers', wrote this 'requirement' and signed their 'well repudated name and surname' to have surrendered their parchment(s) of the guidelines of the U.S Government, as the 'great' separation war between the colonists, the separatists and the U.K, resulted in; 'The Demand for Independence'? Perhaps they, being advanced in learning as well as having noted the 'migrations' which were already occurring; with the finding(s) of The Newfoundland(s), they might have written this requirement as a 'future' caution which they could have forseen as a possible U.S 'danger', or 'treason', as The Constitution speaks of; Article 4, i think. So....

To be a 'citizen' at 'THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION' of This U.S Constitution; 1787, or so, maybe being born of already U.S citizens, in 1787, could be what they meant; then even up to present.


Let's just 'assume' this to be... Nextly... Trivia ????

Which U.S President was the very first which did NOT have parental lineage back(ing) to 1787 within the U.S?

Hint: (W)ould you be (W)restling with the concept?

W.W.

Woodrow Wilson?

 

[deorro 1]

Elmer J. Fudd

E.J.F. a,b,c,d,e

a,b,c,d

E

f,g


If Mr. Joe Biden was, J.B, who might be E.F??
Be ve(W)y, ve(W)y quiet...

E.F
J.B

A to E is 3 letters apart.
F to J is 3 letters apart.
J to B or;
B to J is 7 letters apart
with the 'median' being... F
B,C,D,E

F

G,H,I,J

EF and FG.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I understand that not too many still desire to, strictly, adhere to the U.S. Constitution

What gives you that idea, specifically?

 

[Jackson]

I understand that not too many still desire to, strictly, adhere to the U.S. Constitution just as they do not have a desire to, strictly, adhere to The Holy Bible. I understand this. It is called 'modern interpretation'; just as God changes with 'time', so they say, so also should 'we'.

Well accordingly to the U.S. Constitution, president hopefuls had to 'fit' into The Constitutuon's guidelines. Article 2, i believe. A certain age, a certain number of years as a member of the U.S State and also one who was required to have been a 'citizen' of the U.S 'AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF 'this' CONSTITUTION'. Well of course noone would be able to fit the last requirement seeing the 'adoption' occurred in 1787, or so? The full acceptance, or 'adoption', ratification is what i believe it is called, by all 13, not 50, States. So of course noone alive today would have been able to have been born in 1787, as a 'citizen', and be alive today even running for the Presidential 'seat'.


So what could it have meant when the early founding fathers, all excelling in academia and also being 'well travelled 'world' travellers', wrote this 'requirement' and signed their 'well repudated name and surname' to have surrendered their parchment(s) of the guidelines of the U.S Government, as the 'great' separation war between the colonists, the separatists and the U.K, resulted in; 'The Demand for Independence'? Perhaps they, being advanced in learning as well as having noted the 'migrations' which were already occurring; with the finding(s) of The Newfoundland(s), they might have written this requirement as a 'future' caution which they could have forseen as a possible U.S 'danger', or 'treason', as The Constitution speaks of; Article 4, i think. So....

To be a 'citizen' at 'THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION' of This U.S Constitution; 1787, or so, maybe being born of already U.S citizens, in 1787, could be what they meant; then even up to present.


Let's just 'assume' this to be... Nextly... Trivia ????

Which U.S President was the very first which did NOT have parental lineage back(ing) to 1787 within the U.S?

Hint: (W)ould you be (W)restling with the concept?

W.W.

Woodrow Wilson?

Well, that wasn't hard...

 

[deorro 1]

This is not a slanderous 'attack'... But if you take B.O for Mr. Barack Obama and add the 'A' after the B and the 'B' after the O, you get Baob, or if with inductive math solving skills, common core, you can get Babo, or as they say in the Korean language, Babo, or translated as, 'dum dum'.

So, J.B, or Jobi, or.. Jo B 'I'. As in 'I'm, Jo'...

Or Joib, inducted, would be, 'Jo, 'I' B'.... as in the same...

 

[bluzman61]

This is not a slanderous 'attack'... But if you take B.O for Mr. Barack Obama and add the 'A' after the B and the 'B' after the O, you get Baob, or if with inductive math solving skills, common core, you can get Babo, or as they say in the Korean language, Babo, or translated as, 'dum dum'.

???????????????

 

[deorro 1]

So... If The initials of The Messiah Christ were J.C, would that be same as J.C? In other words, Is (J)esus Christ THE SAME as (J)oshua Christ?

Both being, J.C...

No. Joshua has short hair. He does not think that the verse in 1 Corinthians is 'up to current interpretation'. (J)esus, however, obviously thinks differently. He is always seen with 'long hair'. They are Not the 'same'.


Not to get into Church 'matters' but then WHY is the name'(J)esus still being used??

The superscription above the crucifix. INRI ... this is why. The INRI, which was placed over the head of The Messiah Christ, is a 'True' occurrence.

The INRI which are on the crucifixes of today... they are 'ornaments'....not a 'human being' Who has A Name.

 

[bluzman61]

So... If The initials of The Messiah Christ were J.C, would that be same as J.C? In othercwords, Is (J)esus Christ THE SAME as (J)oshua Christ?

Both being, J.C...

So if Woodrow Wilson ISN'T the answer, who is it?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So... If The initials of The Messiah Christ were J.C, would that be same as J.C? In othercwords, Is (J)esus Christ THE SAME as (J)oshua Christ?

Both being, J.C...

So if Woodrow Wilson ISN'T the answer, who is it?

Woody Woodpecker.

 

[deorro 1]

Trivia question #2.

Mr. W.W,
Mr. B.O,
Mr.J.B..
And Mr. (J).C

What do they have in common?

They have 23 chromosomes, as part of their independent DNA, as common. However while Mr. W.W, Mr. B.O, Mr. J.B have another 23 chromosomes, Mr. (J).C does not.

 

[Jackson]

Well, this is just a stab, but Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama and Jeb Bush have 23 chromosomes because they are male, But Jesus Christ does not be cause it was the immaculate conception. Probably a bad stab.

 

[Jackson]

Well, this is just a stab, but Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama and Jeb Bush have 23 chromosomes because they are male, But Jesus Christ does not be cause it was the immaculate conception. Probably a bad stab.

I peeked on page 1, JB Joe Biden...he never came to mind!

 

[bluzman61]

Well, this is just a stab, but Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama and Jeb Bush have 23 chromosomes because they are male, But Jesus Christ does not be cause it was the immaculate conception. Probably a bad stab.

Sounds like a GOOD stab to me. This reminds me of a joke. "Did you hear that O.J. may take another stab at acting?" "He may still be cut out for it."

 

[Jackson]

Well, this is just a stab, but Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama and Jeb Bush have 23 chromosomes because they are male, But Jesus Christ does not be cause it was the immaculate conception. Probably a bad stab.

Sounds like a GOOD stab to me. This reminds me of a joke. "Did you hear that O.J. may take another stab at acting?" "He may still be cut out for it."

Good Joke!

 

[Jackson]

James Buchanan! I went to bed last night trying to think what president had the initials of J B., Went through Johns, then James and wallah! James Buchanan popped up in my mind. So, the answer is they were all leaders but Jesus was the leader of mankind, not of the US without the 23 chromosones.