Do you support torture?

[glockmail]

it has been my argument that treaties are the law of the land according TO the constitution.... have you ever read Article VI.... oh no...I forgot...you never read anything, you just wait for others to read it for you and then, depending on whether they are your buddies or not, you chose to believe or disbelieve them!

sp when will you be a man and prove your little "fact"? Or better yet, when will you just admit that you misspoke and were mistaken?

What I said was that I don't bother to read boring and useless shit like you do. The Constitution is neither.

So you admit that you think "international law" trumps the Constitution. That explains a lot actually. But to be consistent with your camp, you must also agree that a barking dog or head-panties is torture, just like waterboarding.

[retiredman]

What I said was that I don't bother to read boring and useless shit like you do. The Constitution is neither.

So you admit that you think "international law" trumps the Constitution. That explains a lot actually. But to be consistent with your camp, you must also agree that a barking dog or head-panties is torture, just like waterboarding.

no. I don't. Can you fucking read, or are you really a COMPLETE moron? I said that the constitution itself gives preeminent status to treaties ratified by our government.

How would YOU interpret Article VI of the constitution when it says "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"???

I would love to hear your interpretation!

[glockmail]

no. I don't. Can you fucking read, or are you really a COMPLETE moron? I said that the constitution itself gives preeminent status to treaties ratified by our government.

How would YOU interpret Article VI of the constitution when it says "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"???

I would love to hear your interpretation!

So you do think that International Law trumps the Constitution. Just like I said.

[retiredman]

So you do think that International Law trumps the Constitution. Just like I said.

YOu really are as dumb as sack of hair.

I guess you are incapable of giving us your interpretation of Article VI. Why is that? Do you need to go check with someone with some intelligence to figure out how to answer it?

you are a little idiot...incapable of intelligent discussion

[glockmail]

YOu really are as dumb as sack of hair.

I guess you are incapable of giving us your interpretation of Article VI. Why is that? Do you need to go check with someone with some intelligence to figure out how to answer it?

you are a little idiot...incapable of intelligent discussion

Right now I'm more interested in your interpretation, which appears to be that "international law" trumps the Constitution. This is, after all, a hallmark of the Democrat Party, and you would therefore swallow it down whole.

[retiredman]

Right now I'm more interested in your interpretation, which appears to be that "international law" trumps the Constitution. This is, after all, a hallmark of the Democrat Party, and you would therefore swallow it down whole.

wow. you really look pathetic when you get painted into a corner. speaking of swallowing.... how does "supreme law of the land" taste?

[glockmail]

wow. you really look pathetic when you get painted into a corner. speaking of swallowing.... how does "supreme law of the land" taste?

You assert that "international law" trumps the Constitution.

[retiredman]

You assert that "international law" trumps the Constitution.

no. I do not. you cannot comprehend english, obviously.

Article VI of the Constitution clearly states that when America enters into a treaty with another country or countries, that the terms of that treaty have great weight. The terms of treaties that we make with other nations become, according to our founding fathers, the supreme law of the land. Article VI is unambiguous about this. There is a distinct difference between "international law" and the specific terms of treaties that we negotiate with other nation states. That diffference is not really very subtle, but obvously flies high over YOUR head.

Oh..and did you hear the latest news from President Bush's Director of Central Intelligence? Michael Hayden has stated that waterboarding is probably not legal. Imagine that. That's what I'VE been saying all along. hmmmm.

[glockmail]

"Probably not" and "not" are two very different things. But for you to be consistent, having a dog bark or head panties are "probably not" legal also.

[retiredman]

"Probably not" and "not" are two very different things. But for you to be consistent, having a dog bark or head panties are "probably not" legal also.

that is your opinion and it is a stupid one.

I do not share it.

Let's just say that Michael Hayden probably doesn't either..and he probably would find you to be even more moronic than I do.

How are those Iranians and their love of America, by the way????


oh..and regarding those American loving muslims...

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=346&nid=&id=

seems as if they don't quite agree with you! LOL

[glockmail]

Its not an opinion that "not" is not the same as "probably not".

[retiredman]

Its not an opinion that "not" is not the same as "probably not".

you really do have a problem with English above the My Weekly Reader level, don't you? The more you post, the stupider you become in my eyes. Really...sometimes I feel like I am trying to talk to a three year old. What is an opinion is the phrase that ends in "also". wow.

and I LOVE how you ignore every thing else that pummels your stupid ideas and concentrate on one gotcha - and fuck that up!

[glockmail]

you really do have a problem with English above the My Weekly Reader level, don't you?....

I routinely ignore your insults and bullshit. As I said before I have you exactly where I want you.

As someone who "Aced" American Literature at the college level, I don't think that there is anything wrong with my reading comprehension. Your post in question, as well as the one quoted in my signature, can only be interpreted one way.

[retiredman]

I routinely ignore your insults and bullshit. As I said before I have you exactly where I want you.

As someone who "Aced" American Literature at the college level, I don't think that there is anything wrong with my reading comprehension. Your post in question, as well as the one quoted in my signature, can only be interpreted one way.

"General Custer and the 7th Cavalry pursued Chief Sitting Bull and his band of Lakota Sioux up to the banks of the Little Big Horn."

Do you interpret THAT sentence in that same way? Professor?

"Aced", huh. Look...everybody is a phi beta kappa on the internet, glock.... and every gay guy like you has an enormous penis, no doubt. American literature at an Alabama vo-tech is probably not as strenuous as curricula at real colleges.

And it seems to me that you do a much better job ignoring your own screw ups than you do me!

[Yurt]

"General Custer and the 7th Cavalry pursued Chief Sitting Bull and his band of Lakota Sioux up to the banks of the Little Big Horn."

Do you interpret THAT sentence in that same way? Professor?

"Aced", huh. Look...everybody is a phi beta kappa on the internet, glock.... and every gay guy like you has an enormous penis, no doubt. American literature at an Alabama vo-tech is probably not as strenuous as curricula at real colleges.

And it seems to me that you do a much better job ignoring your own screw ups than you do me!

If torturing the enemy could save just one life of an innocent, are you for it or against it.

caveat: if you already answered, alright, just couldn't bring myself to wade back through this thread.