Torture

maineman said:
Do you honestly think that Jesus would condone waterboarding?

and I would LOVE to see a quote from Teddy Roosevelt that suggested that he approved of violating Article VI of the constitution in order to waterboard anyone.
Click to expand...

lmao....the what would jesus do debate tactic...

take a good look at your own life, would jesus approve of your words and proclamations that you make on the internet? denials, affirmations, insults...etc...

jesus would tell you that you are in fact bearing false witness, might want to rethink getting into a holier than thou pissing match with me....preacher

apparently teddy roosevelt didn't think that waterboarding was torture and don't be stupid, the UN treaty as you well know didn't exist back then
 
Yurt said:
lmao....the what would jesus do debate tactic...

take a good look at your own life, would jesus approve of your words and proclamations that you make on the internet? denials, affirmations, insults...etc...

jesus would tell you that you are in fact bearing false witness, might want to rethink getting into a holier than thou pissing match with me....preacher

apparently teddy roosevelt didn't think that waterboarding was torture and don't be stupid, the UN treaty as you well know didn't exist back then
Click to expand...


I don't bear false witness to anything. I have never said that I was not a sinner. I am. So are you. I ask myself all the time what would Jesus do...what would Jesus think of me... obviously, you don't engage in such reflection.

By my reading, Roosevelt disapproved of waterboarding and, in fact, ordered an American general court martialled for allowing it.

And my point was: I certainly do not think that Teddy Roosevelt would have approved of waterboarding if, in his day, it had been a violation of the supreme law of the land.

Clearly... you do. Like I said... your approval of waterboarding in the face of the UN Convention against torture shows me your disrespect for the constitution as well as your moral deficit in being perfectly happy with the United States of America torturing captives. I stand apart from you on both points.
 
Threedee said:
Its nice to see liberals taking a straight reading of the Constitution approach on this matter. But, geez, what motherfucking lengths we need to get to for this to occur!!!
Click to expand...
This is such bullshit! Conservatives for years have decried the exclusionary rule, basically saying that the 4th amendment should have no teeth. BUT THEN when it serves their law and order purpose they invent out of whole cloth exigent circumstances so that a cop CAN search without a warrant and what he finds can be used as evidence. The fourth amendment says NO SEARCH SHALL ISSUE without a warrant and that is what it means. There should NEVER be a search without a warrant, not on a car, not a bus not anything. Any search that does occur violates the constitution of the united states. But you can keep pretending that it is only conservatives that give the constitution a straight reading.
 
Socrtease said:
This is such bullshit! Conservatives for years have decried the exclusionary rule, basically saying that the 4th amendment should have no teeth. BUT THEN when it serves their law and order purpose they invent out of whole cloth exigent circumstances so that a cop CAN search without a warrant and what he finds can be used as evidence. The fourth amendment says NO SEARCH SHALL ISSUE without a warrant and that is what it means. There should NEVER be a search without a warrant, not on a car, not a bus not anything. Any search that does occur violates the constitution of the united states. But you can keep pretending that it is only conservatives that give the constitution a straight reading.
Click to expand...

This makes a whole lot of sense.......we'll detain you and your car (and possibly your family) while we get a warrant to search it. This could take a few hours depending on which judge is available. :rolleyes:
 
maineman said:
I have not lied about anything. Article VI clearly lays out the founding father's views on treaties. ....
Click to expand...
These two statements are direct opposites of one another. You're a liar because the Article VI says that treaties don't supersede the COTUS, yet you're inferring that it does. You're a big fat liar.
 
WinterBorn said:
The UN thing covers all persons. Is this about the topic or about a personal attack? I have not seen anything that maineman posted that warrants namecalling.

Did I also not see you claim points (what kind of points?) for yourself because someone else resorted to name calling?
Click to expand...
Maineman has previously insulted my family members with disgusting sexual innuendos, so the normal rules of debate do not apply when dealing with this his lying ass.
 
Southern Man said:
These two statements are direct opposites of one another. You're a liar because the Article VI says that treaties don't supersede the COTUS, yet you're inferring that it does. You're a big fat liar.
Click to expand...

I infer nothing of the kind. I merely state that the constitution clearly states that treaties we sign become the supreme law of the land.

And you STILL have not shown me ANYTHING in the Constitution that allows that which the UN Convention against torture prohibits. Will you do that anytime soon, or will we have to put up with more of your tapdancing?

There is NO contradiction between the two... ergo, the convention stands as the supreme law of the land, as per Article VI.
 
maineman said:
I infer nothing of the kind. I merely state that the constitution clearly states that treaties we sign become the supreme law of the land.....
Click to expand...
There's your lie again, because they are not if the shit in them is in violation of the COTUS. You are a fucking liar.
 
Southern Man said:
Your premise is flawed, since enhanced interrogation isn't torture, nor does the UN thing cover terrorists. Just admit that you lied about Article VI, or that you're too stupid to have a clue what it means.
Click to expand...

Enhanced Interogation? What a joke! Look, you never did answer my challenge. Are you willing to be water boarded repetatively and then maintain your stance?

Until you walk the talk your just another chickenhawk with no credibility. What your advocating is cruel, cowardly, lazy, inhumane and most importantly it's damned un-American!
 
maineman said:
and you have previously insulted my family members... grow up...get over it. I have.
Click to expand...
You mean your dead father who *********************? Why would you consider that an insult, a liberal like you, who considers homosexuality to be normal moral and healthy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mottleydude said:
Enhanced Interogation? What a joke! Look, you never did answer my challenge. Are you willing to be water boarded repetatively and then maintain your stance?

Until you walk the talk your just another chickenhawk with no credibility. What your advocating is cruel, cowardly, lazy, inhumane and most importantly it's damned un-American!
Click to expand...
Again, you're full of it with this "challenge" until you answer my questions for you. 1. Are you a sadist? 2. Do I have secrets that if known by you could save American lives?
 
Southern Man said:
Because enhanced interrogation isn't torture.
Click to expand...

that is nonsensical.

The Constitution does not discuss torture or enhanced interrogation.

and YOUR opinion about what or what is NOT torture is irrelevant to the discussion about whether torture is, or is not, against the law of the land.
 
maineman said:
that is nonsensical.

The Constitution does not discuss torture or enhanced interrogation.

and YOUR opinion about what or what is NOT torture is irrelevant to the discussion about whether torture is, or is not, against the law of the land.
Click to expand...
What's nonsense is you bringing up some treaty discussing torture when the issue is enhance interrogation, than suggesting that the treaty supersedes the Constitution.

Do you hate the Constitution because it was written by old white men, and your butt-poking father was an old white guy?
 
Southern Man said:
Again, you're full of it with this "challenge" until you answer my questions for you. 1. Are you a sadist? 2. Do I have secrets that if known by you could save American lives?
Click to expand...

The answer is no and no and what do they have to do with the price of tea in China. You're still advocating cowardice.
 
maineman said:
that is nonsensical.

The Constitution does not discuss torture or enhanced interrogation.

and YOUR opinion about what or what is NOT torture is irrelevant to the discussion about whether torture is, or is not, against the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Ahh actually it does. Torture is prohibited by the 8th ammendment. Enhanced interrogation is just a euphamism for torture so it to is prohibited by the 8th ammendment. Due to that, these cowards can only legally advocate torture against non-US Citizens so thank God we have an 8th ammendment or these cowards would be torturing us.
 
Southern Man said:
You mean your dead father who *********************? Why would you consider that an insult, a liberal like you, who considers homosexuality to be normal moral and healthy?
Click to expand...
Here is the last time I warn you for this Southern Man. No descriptions however phrased, however listed, for whatever reason, of sex with minors is acceptable on this site. Even if it is imaginary, of the past, of the future. It doesn't matter who it is toward, if that person is no longer a minor, or if it is phrased in some way to give you a sguiggle out of it not directly mentioning they were a child...


It simply isn't acceptable and will not be tolerated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top