Exit poll data...

I'm not seeing the link. If a person is being tortured that means he's in custody and can't pull off a terrorist attack. I don't see how it's a deterrent.


Unless Obama trades some for the release of a traitor like Bo Bergdahl.

Enhanced interrogation techniques, not torture, are designed to get information in order to deter others like the one being interrogated. Even Leon Panetta said waterboarding provided information that led to the killing of bin Laden.
 
Further proof that you're only here to criticize posters who don't agree with you.

I'm here to show how people like you are wrong. You aren't wrong because you disagree, you're wrong because you express incorrect ideas.

If I said 2 plus 2 equal 4 and you said it equals five, you're not wrong because we disagree. You're wrong because it doesn't equal five.
 
Nope... not all liberals... you, desh to be certain.

But again... why are you afraid to tell us what you think the OP is about in your thread? Can you not articulate what you think?

I wrote post after post saying what I thought. All you did was deny what the author said in plain English because you don't agree with it. And that is pathetic.

You're a huge hack who can't accept a position opposite your own without resorting to ad homs.
 
14th Amendment doesn't override immigration law.

14th amendment creates the 14th amendment.....to the extent it states a person born in the US is a US citizen it totally eliminates immigration law, since the person born here is not an immigrant.......

Plus it is a very simple fix
/shrugs.....constitutional amendments aren't that simple.......needs to be ratified by a certain number of states
 
If you are using religion as a reason to deny entry or reentry into the United States, you are violating the 1st Amendment, to say otherwise illustrates your ignorance about the Constitution.
dude.....you don't apply the 1st amendment to noncitizens living outside the country......
 
unfounded - not based on facts or proof.

synonyms - unverified, unsubstantiated, unproven

You saying so doesn't make it so.


Yes, it does- with regard to the Constitution- and amendments exists to prove it.

1% of all Americans are muslims- and discriminating against their faith is unconstitutional. Refusing admission to muslims because they are muslims would comprise discrimination on religious grounds- which is unconstitutional. The constitution expressly forbids the elevation of one religion over another- so barring people because their faith was different from your faith would be unconstitutional.
In a sense the Constitution doesn't tell you what to do. It tells you who are, as an American.

Of course, some ' Americans ' aren't American at all. They were just born in America. See the difference ?


Shouldn't you be off ' observing ' torture someplace ?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it does- and amendments exists to prove it.

1% of all Americans are muslims- and discriminating against their faith is unconstitutional. Refusing admission to muslims because they are muslims would comprise discrimination on religious grounds- which is unconstitutional. The constitution expressly forbids the elevation of of one religion over another- so barring people because their faith was different from your faith would be unconstitutional.

Shouldn't you be off ' observing ' torture someplace ?

When your comments can actually address what was being discussed related to my post, get back to me. My post to which you responded dealt entirely with a claim from another JPP member on an issue unrelated to this topic. Please pay attention.
 
When your comments can actually address what was being discussed related to my post, get back to me. My post to which you responded dealt entirely with a claim from another JPP member on an issue unrelated to this topic. Please pay attention.

You'll see from my opening line that I was keeping the topic in focus- rather than letting you run off with it in some torturous tirade of personal pique.
 
Back
Top