Police Officer talks about his experience at Trump's rally in Tucson: AWESOME!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

Torture OUTSIDE the US does not apply to constitutional scrutiny. They ar enot citizens or visitors to our country so they have no recourse in America UNLESS brought to the US.

The Geneva Convention is not part of the Constitution.

Surveillance? Outside in public IS constituitional because its public. also using certain devices to eavesdrop from the street is also OK,but cant be used in a court of law itself.

The member is question said "outside current constitution".

Closing borders? If they are stopped before coming into the US its not un constituitional or unlawful because until they clear customs they aren a visitor officially.

That was not a point of contention.

Terrorist who DONT SIGN THE CONVENTIONS ARE NOT COVERED BY IT EITHER.(big letters for easy reading not yelling.)

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

So youre going to be a hypocrite and take your ball and go home huh?

No, I am more than willing to engage in this debate, but I will not let the other member change the subject simply because they were caught with their pants down.

Or in other words, the ball is in my court and someone is trying to change the game.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

This is not about controlling a conversation.

You have lots to say about why Trump's solutions are mean to the terrorists, but you have none of your own. Absolutely nothing. Amazing.

originally posted by: Gin
a reply to: MysticPearl

That's what the left always does, divide people apart and pit people against one another, instead of putting people together and discussing and debating issues to fix common problems all Americans have.

I've watched plenty of divisiveness happen on both sides - liberal and conservative. Actually your attitude right there aids in the divide. I bet you don't see that though. But that's the problem - everyone thinks it's the other guy and not him or herself.

The truth is you can't change other people, you can only change you. When we all start changing ourselves rather than pointing fingers at each other things might start getting better for us average citizens.

The unfortunate fact is that Trump has been stirring people up in his rallies and speeches prior to the Tucson rally. I just watched the Tucson rally and Trump is far more tame than he has been at his previous rallies. I have a feeling that he has had a serious talking to by many of the GOP and has been told to tone down his "I'd like to punch 'em in the face" or "knock the crap out of 'em" rhetoric.

So, it's not surprising that this officer was "surprised" by Trump's toned down rhetoric and the lack of violence toward protesters.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

So youre going to be a hypocrite and take your ball and go home huh?

No, I am more than willing to engage in this debate, but I will not let the other member change the subject simply because they were caught with their pants down.

Or in other words, the ball is in my court and someone is trying to change the game.

This is not a game. People died today and the world needs solutions, not silly games.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

Torture OUTSIDE the US does not apply to constitutional scrutiny. They ar enot citizens or visitors to our country so they have no recourse in America UNLESS brought to the US.

The Geneva Convention is not part of the Constitution.

Surveillance? Outside in public IS constituitional because its public. also using certain devices to eavesdrop from the street is also OK,but cant be used in a court of law itself.

The member is question said "outside current constitution".

Closing borders? If they are stopped before coming into the US its not un constituitional or unlawful because until they clear customs they aren a visitor officially.

That was not a point of contention.

Terrorist who DONT SIGN THE CONVENTIONS ARE NOT COVERED BY IT EITHER.(big letters for easy reading not yelling.)

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the other "side" signed it.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

So youre going to be a hypocrite and take your ball and go home huh?

Looks that way - looks like the challenger doesn't like to be challenged.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

This is not about controlling a conversation.

You have lots to say about why Trump's solutions, but you have none of your own. Absolutely nothing. Amazing.

My solutions were not the topic. Why have you stopped defending Trump's list of awesomeness?

Could it be that once they were written-out for others to see that they weren't so awesome?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

So youre going to be a hypocrite and take your ball and go home huh?

No, I am more than willing to engage in this debate, but I will not let the other member change the subject simply because they were caught with their pants down.

Or in other words, the ball is in my court and someone is trying to change the game.

This is not a game. People died today and the world needs solutions, not silly games.

Your list of Trump's solutions are ignorant.

If they weren't, why would you try to change the subject to my personal ideas and not defend those of Trump, which you held so high?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

This is not about controlling a conversation.

You have lots to say about why Trump's solutions, but you have none of your own. Absolutely nothing. Amazing.

My solutions were not the topic. Why have you stopped defending Trump's list of awesomeness?

Could it be that once they were written-out for others to see that they weren't so awesome?

Seems like the best list to me of all candidates. We have already established that.
Just trying to see if you have anything to offer now....

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

Torture OUTSIDE the US does not apply to constitutional scrutiny. They ar enot citizens or visitors to our country so they have no recourse in America UNLESS brought to the US.

The Geneva Convention is not part of the Constitution.

Surveillance? Outside in public IS constituitional because its public. also using certain devices to eavesdrop from the street is also OK,but cant be used in a court of law itself.

The member is question said "outside current constitution".

Closing borders? If they are stopped before coming into the US its not un constituitional or unlawful because until they clear customs they aren a visitor officially.

That was not a point of contention.

Terrorist who DONT SIGN THE CONVENTIONS ARE NOT COVERED BY IT EITHER.(big letters for easy reading not yelling.)

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the other "side" signed it.

Actually it does. BOTH sides have to agree on it. Its one of the stipulations. Also Illegal combatants have no rights except what they are given by whoever captures them. Also they have to treat our POWs as well without harm or torture to get equal treatment. If they kill them they can expect no quarter legally. Smart thing to do is outright execute them which is legal to do instead of capturing.

OH Arizona polls have closed. so far no results.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

So youre going to be a hypocrite and take your ball and go home huh?

Looks that way - looks like the challenger doesn't like to be challenged.

Funny, you were challenged on your own comments and quickly changed the subject.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes you missed out your solutions. I take it therefore you have none? Trump has the best solutions which are a bit mean, but you seem to have no view on what to do. Therefore I have no idea why you are commenting unless you are just spoiling for an argument.

Sure. I am just doing it for the lively debate, or an argument, as it were. I have ideas, but that was not part of the conversation. I was inquiring about those awesome ideas Trump has and you provided what was asked for.

One last time. What are your solutions?

I don't do requests and will not let you try to control the conversation after you painted yourself in to a corner. You've provided all the information I need to know and you are welcome to change the subject to my personal solutions, if you cannot properly defend what you have stated about yourself and Trump.

So youre going to be a hypocrite and take your ball and go home huh?

Looks that way - looks like the challenger doesn't like to be challenged.

Funny, you were challenged on your own comments and quickly changed the subject.

We've already done the debate on Trumps solutions - I have already stated I fully support them. No need to discuss them as nothing you said changes my view. You seem quite offended by them though, but still have not offered any alternatives... still waiting. I suspect you have absolutely nothing to offer on the subject and only kicked it off to have an argument about Trump - again...

a reply to: yuppa

Actually it does. BOTH sides have to agree on it.

That is untrue. The signatory, regardless of whether or not the other side signed it, is bound to adhere to the policies laid-out in the Geneva Convention.

a reply to: UKTruth

You seem quite offended by them though, but still have not offered any alternatives... still waiting.

Like I said, I don't do requests.

You have provided all I need to know.

Asking for alternatives is just asking for something else for you to attack to take the focus off of the ignorant things you posted earlier.

No thanks. I'd rather let it stand as it is.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

You seem quite offended by them though, but still have not offered any alternatives... still waiting.

Like I said, I don't do requests.

You have provided all I need to know.

Asking for alternatives is just asking for something else for you to attack to take the focus off of the ignorant things you posted earlier.

No thanks. I'd rather let it stand as it is.

OK, thanks for playing. To use your unfortunately timed analogy, looks like that ball never came back to me. They call that an ace in tennis

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

Torture OUTSIDE the US does not apply to constitutional scrutiny. They ar enot citizens or visitors to our country so they have no recourse in America UNLESS brought to the US.

The Geneva Convention is not part of the Constitution.

Surveillance? Outside in public IS constituitional because its public. also using certain devices to eavesdrop from the street is also OK,but cant be used in a court of law itself.

The member is question said "outside current constitution".

Closing borders? If they are stopped before coming into the US its not un constituitional or unlawful because until they clear customs they aren a visitor officially.

That was not a point of contention.

Terrorist who DONT SIGN THE CONVENTIONS ARE NOT COVERED BY IT EITHER.(big letters for easy reading not yelling.)

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the other "side" signed it.

Actually it does. BOTH sides have to agree on it. Its one of the stipulations. Also Illegal combatants have no rights except what they are given by whoever captures them. Also they have to treat our POWs as well without harm or torture to get equal treatment. If they kill them they can expect no quarter legally. Smart thing to do is outright execute them which is legal to do instead of capturing.

OH Arizona polls have closed. so far no results.

I think state law in AZ means that results can only be released from 11pm AZ time...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

Actually it does. BOTH sides have to agree on it.

That is untrue. The signatory, regardless of whether or not the other side signed it, is bound to adhere to the policies laid-out in the Geneva Convention.

I went back and researched that. you forgot ANd i also forgot article 3. IF they are captured and under surrender yes they have a few rights but not as many as a actual soldier. SO th esolution is clear. stop capturing them and just dispose of them like the dogs they are. Cant capture a corpse. A simple change of th eROE and take no prisoners will suffice.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

Actually it does. BOTH sides have to agree on it.

That is untrue. The signatory, regardless of whether or not the other side signed it, is bound to adhere to the policies laid-out in the Geneva Convention.

I went back and researched that. you forgot ANd i also forgot article 3. IF they are captured and under surrender yes they have a few rights but not as many as a actual soldier. SO th esolution is clear. stop capturing them and just dispose of them like the dogs they are. Cant capture a corpse. A simple change of th eROE and take no prisoners will suffice.

I think the bleeding hearts would rather capture them, then give them a nice house and welfare - as long as they voted democrat.

a reply to: yuppa

Anyone who wants to ignore Geneva Convention and international law, wants to put dishonor on our troops and abandon morality. It's disgusting. To put murder and torture and any other unspeakable act on a kid who signed up to defend our country.