(V):  Even McCain thinks it's torture.  But he's wrong.   It's appropriate to use such a technique if the stakes are high enough.  As a matter of routine, or just to bring unpleasantness to a person, then yes you are right.  But in the right context, Keller is all wet (no pun intended.)  It's not torture.   It can be used as torture but it's also a useful interrogation tool.  And if your family's life were at stake, you'd use it too.  As for me, I'd go right to the tougher stuff like snipping off fingers or well placed electrodes if my family's safety is at stake.  If a terrorist means to do me harm or my loved ones harm, or if he/she has information that could save lives, I'll use whatever I can and the terrorist be damned.  But that's me.  The US military has very strict guidelines which is why waterboarding has only been used 3 times.  Three.  THREE.  And only in these rare cases was it employed as a last resort.  It's nonsense to be against something that ultimately saved many lives.  The people it was used against were cold blooded murderers.  I have no sympathy for them. 

(V):  Nope.  It simulates the drowning reflex.  You need to be accurate here.  It cannot harm you.  It only simulates drowning.   It's meant to be unpleasant.  It's NOT meant to be "nice."   But in now way can permanent harm come to the person.  And it's ONLY been used in very rare cases and only after all other methods have failed.   It's only used when there is sufficient reason to believe that lives are at stake and that information is necessary to save the lives of one's fellow soldier or US interests. 

And it's not been used since 2003.   One can only guess why it keeps being brought up considering the facts.

It beats beheading too.   And I notice this board (as well as world opinion) concentrates on the three waterboarding episodes and ignore the hundreds of beheadings.   I'm against beheadings but have no problem with waterboarding.  It can't kill anyone.  I only scares the crap out of ya (not to mention it also scares vital information out - which is the point).

(V):  That's not an explanation.  Please explain how waterboarding is torture.

And your "half drowing" is inaccurate. 

do you even know what waterboarding is?

(V): simply saying "half-downing" is not an explanation. Besides, you're wrong.

Give an explanation of waterboarding. Why is it torture. Explain it. Be exact.

(V): "What!!! You consider repeatedly half drowning someone a nice thing??"

You're the one making the claim that it is torture. I'm asking you to explain why.

Only three terrorists were waterboarded and NONE since 2003. For all the hype, this fact seems to make the "torture" claim insignificant. Waterboarding cannot kill and was only used in extreme cases. On the other hand, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was responsible for the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

In case people are unaware, waterboarding lasts less than a minute. It simulates the feeling one has when they are drowning. Yeah, not a picnic. But in the three cases it was used, it yielded results.

OTOH, beheading lasts a bit longer. The person being beheaded is put before a camera, bound, and three armed men stand over him. He knows he is about to be killed. He's been beaten and tortured for day before this event. After a speech condemning the prisoner, one of the terrorist reveals a 12 inch knife. It is curved and looks like a miniature sword. The terrorist grabs the prisoner and pushes him to the ground. Taking the knife, he begins cutting away at the man's neck. The man begins to scream. Blood begins to squirt out of the man's neck as the terrorist continues to cut away at the man's flesh. The other two terrorists hold him down so he can't thrash about. He is now smearing a death scream. A puddle of blood moves upon the ground. The man is motionless now as the terrorist cuts through his neck and removes his head from his body. The terrorist holds up the bloody head to the camera.

Daniel Pearl died this way. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is eating three squares a day and enjoying the protection of international rights. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was responsible for the murder of many including Daniel Pearl. Daniel Pearl did nothing wrong. He was an innocent man murdered in a most brutal way.

And the left takes the side of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while never mentioning Daniel Pearl.

I'll bet Daniel Pearl would choose waterboarding over beheading if he was given the choice.

(V): how is waterboarding torture

Via the Wall Street Journal - Obama;s poll numbers are below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001:

[...] Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.

Bernice: "stereotypically I categorize everything"

Perfect!!!

Ferris Bueller: Good question.

Librarian a category of a certain type of job. From that there are sub categories.

All librarians are old ladies with funny glasses that say, "shhhhh" a lot." is a stereotype.
The term "stereotype" is itself a category.

Things that are heavy = a particular category of things.
All fat people eat potato chips is a stereotype.

A category is a division of classes of things (small, large etc) It's a classification - a group of a particular kind.

A stereotype is the characteristics assigned or generally associated with a particular group. Here there is a bit of a crossover as certain "categories" of groups (liberals) could be given stereotypical characteristics.

But, to say someone is a liberal isn't the same as saying someone IS liberal. The first identifies the category, the second describes the person (and perhaps stereotypes them in doing so).

All liberals have a philosophical leaning that differs in ways from conservative philosophy. Otherwise they'd both be liberals or conservative. A liberal can be a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. (same is true of a conservative - conservative on finances, liberal on views towards social issues).

A stereotype would be to say all liberals are fiscally irresponsible. All religious nuts are conservative. etc

Vikings:

Bernice:

are we off topic yet?

Imsoaddicted: We have three parties too. The democratic/liberal party. The republican/conservative party.

And the office party.

Bernice: Well if that's the case, then my bad. I stand corrected.

Bernice: What are they and what are their leanings? ;)

(V): Democracy is a political system. (sigh)

Bernice: I think the Labour party is equivalent to the liberal party. Mostly

(V): You can claim to be a box turtle for all I care. That's not the point. Much of your leanings are consistent with the leanings of the liberal establishment. You're religious views for example, are very liberal.

So there.

(V):  It doesn't have to be accurate.  But in general, it's safe to say that you lean on the liberal side of politics and on moral authority.  My leanings are much more conservative. 

(V):  Yes.  Even you fit into a slot of some kind.  It's what defines you and your way of viewing the world.  Not necessarily a rigid definition, but a definition nonetheless.  I'm a conservative thinker.  That ought to give you some idea of my political leanings and view of life.  Not every detail, but to some degree.   Some attitudes are definitely characteristic of the left, some of  the right.  Some fall in the middle.  

(V): Well, you're not God so that comparison is weak.   And a liberal IS a category.  We all fit into some slot with respect to our political views and with respect to our philosophy of life. 

There's a difference between a category and stereotyping.   Nothing wrong with identifying categories. 

(V):  it's not a stereotype, it's a category. 

Czuch:  Good piint!

Übergeek 바둑이: I agree that Bush carries a huge part of the blame for this mess. But he's not alone. Many other Republicans are to blame as are many Democrats. Anytime there improprieties in elections it's wrong. I think many politicians are basically crooked. And I'll admit, I can't stand most democrats. But I can recognize and idiot Republican when I see one.

(V): You can't spend trillions of dollars and get out of debt. And no business should be bailed out. Not the business of the government. Not the way the market works. You can't manage the market in that way. You'll see. GM is bankrupt anyway. So it didn't help. The government will drive things even worse in the auto market. Idiots. They know nothing of running car companies.

(V): You don't solve reckless spending with even more reckless spending. Obama is reckless.

I don't trust him. I think all this stimulus crap will bite the US in the butt. It was declared an emergency in the beginning (to ward off the dreaded 9% unemployment that was sure to come if they didn't pass it) but now we are in double digits and they are talking about another stimulus package. Nice.

One way to cripple America is to bankrupt her. That's where this huge spending President is heading. And don't be mistaken, his honeymoon days are over. The economy is worsening. Taxpayers will see increases in their taxes and deductions are already being eliminated. When you want to sell your home in the future you'll have to jump through a bunch of Federal regulations. Big Brother is here.

As to Al Frankin: All the votes were NOT counted. Read the news. That's at the heart of the issue. The democrats disputed legitimate votes and the courts sided with the democrats. Never mind that in some districts there was double counting etc. The same sort of nonsense happened here in this State. Minnesota has now elected an ex wrestler and a failed radio host.

The Democrats have a little more than three years to mess this country up and then there will be a change in leadership. In two years the democratic majority will not stand. People are already tired of their nonsense. watch and see. Obama is losing favor in strongholds. In one stronghold he's down 11%. That's a big deal.

(V): Frankly, who cares? MJ is dead. He's still dead. He's no model for anything. He was a musician and that's that. His personal life is not something to hold up as a model. He was a drug addict. He engaged in illegal activities. He was an abuser of drug and that's what killed him. And I'm growing tired of the victim attitude. Lots of people have poor childhoods but that's no excuse to do some of the things MJ did. Let's face it, if he were a old white unemployed bum, fat and unshaven, who just happened to have a similar unpleasant upbringing, and he was "sharing his bed" with kiddies (as a bridge to his childhood or whatever) you'd sing a different tune. So would the world.

Too many people made excuses for MJ in his life. That's why he's dead. Now they are making excuses in his death. Beyond stupid.

I loved his music. Ben is a favorite. I'm sorry he's dead. But facts are facts. He died because he abused drugs. And he paid a unscrupulous doctor to acquire the drugs illegally and administer them illegally. In that respect, MJ was a criminal. But the left will not allow this. Even though they went after Rush Limbaugh for his addiction to pills, and they wanted his head, MJ does worse and the left has only platitudes.

gogul: "Allright. That's nuts. Mj's life is a failure."


Very much so. You're about the only one making any sense of the MJ hysteria.

gogul: "michael Jacksons music and life is politically irrelevant. A few interesting people died lately, how about McNamara. Michael Jackson is taking too much space on this board."

Gee, you and I agree!

Jim Dandy: Exactly. Or if he were a white guy sleeping with black boys Sharpton would sing a different tune.

Jim Dandy:

GTCharlie: It's always about Race with him. I'm tired of the race card.

(V): "And AD's example is not relevant, it was not caused by a depression but a change in competition rules. If you cannot understand the difference then study economics"

The CAUSE is not relevant but the effect is. Therefore my example is more than relevant. We are talking about the effects of policy change. And in the same way ATT was split due to policy, so are the big car companies being bailed out due to policy. You can argue that the bailout policy is due to depression and you can also argue that the ATT split is due to a depression of sorts: smaller companies were economically depressed (or suppressed) by the big monopoly.

It's a relevant argument.

(V): "a service being split is not the same as a company busting through worldwide economic depression. Such a comparison is not relevant."

It's relevant because thousands of jobs were eliminated because of government intrusion. You are right that new jobs were created as a result and this point supports my position. The car companies are allowed to fail and new companies would spring up. There's always someone waiting to jump in.

But bailout a failing company? No. How will that help in the long run? It won't. History will show this bailout of car companies to be a huge blunder.

Czuch: Back in 85 I lost my job due to the government's intrusion into AT&T's business. They split up the phone company and I lost my job along with 24,000 other workers. No one bailed me out. Thousands more lost their jobs after the breakup. I was 34 and had two children. Along with my wife's help, I put myself through college, landed a teaching job, and started a new career. I went on to get my master's degree and that put me way up on the pay scale. No government help. No bailouts.

And what of all those workers who also lost their jobs? If they looked, they found new work. As a result of the breakup of the phone company, many more businesses were formed. Some grew at fantastic rates!

So here's the government breaking up a "BIG" company on the one hand, and then helping a "BIG" company on the other.

Let the market take care of it. After the phone company breakup, new business started. More jobs were created than were lost. I don't recommend it because it was government intrusion that caused the problem (and I could have my stats wrong). Either way, the government should do it's job and ONLY its job. Follow the mandates of the Constitution and stay out of our lives. They try to RUN everything but they RUIN it instead.

Big government = less freedom = less quality of life = less potential = weakness.

(V): the US is not like a big company. And no, it shouldn't be bailed out. California is a good example of this. They are a government. They operated against sound economic principles. They are a very liberal State and they simply gave too much money away. YOu can't offer free this and free that to people that don't contribute and then scratch your head when the money runs out. No bailouts for California. They dug their own hole even while they were being warned. They ignored the warnings. You touch the hot stove, you get burnt. Deal with it.

As for the auto industry: if they fail, they fail. More people have lost their jobs in small businesses than could ever lose their jobs in the auto industry. Big business doesn't make the US. It's the small ones that do. The big ones suck up to the government. When "Ma Bell" was dismantled, competitive businesses sprung up everywhere. Sure, thousands lost their jobs when the telephone company split. Many more thousands found jobs as a result of newly developing businesses.

On Banks: if they are insured, you get your money back. If not, oh well. It's not the job of the government to bail out people who make bad investments.

As to Bernie Madoff: The government was warned over and over about that man and the government ignored it. Seriously, he should be hung in the city square for all to see, along with any others who were participants in the theft.

But bailouts? No. Who is going to give me the thousands I've lost when the market lost money? No one. That's the way the ball bounces.

(V): "And regarding the employees and investors and the effect on the moral of the nation of such falls? No business is perfect, they are run by humans"

So what? Small business have employees too. When they fail, they fail. If you lose money on an investment, you lose. That's the way it works. If you can't compete, you die. Never should a company be bailed out. Make it or die.

Many banks didn't fail and MANY banks made tons of money. Mine is one of them. They refused to issue bad loans.

Czuch: The majority of the jobs in the US are made by small business entrepreneurs. But the government puts its money in the big business even though that's NOT where the jobs are. Meanwhile, hundreds of Chrysler franchises were closed even though they were making money. Some franchises that were built up, were closed and consolidated (given to another) with another franchise. The government essentially took one man's business and gave it to another man.

This is the President that the people voted for.

And now his campaign promise of not raising taxes is out the window. He's now talking about raising taxes on the very people he PROMISED would not see tax increases.

And they believed him.

Oh yeah, Obama just blames Bush by saying he inherited this mess. Not so fast, he's creating a bigger mess. History will tell.

(V): My bank is safer. They have made money when other bank issued reckless loans. I've lost money in mutual funds; made money in the bank. I'm choosy on the bank I do business with.

Banks that failed should have been left to rot. Same with the auto industry. compete or die.

(V): "Sorry, but if they feel there is an exception, etc to the law, or the law is wrong they will speak up. Many judges do and that is how reforms come about, especially if the legislation is wrong."

It doesn't matter what they "feel." If the law violates precedent then yes, the courts can act (based on precedent). If the law violates existing law, then yes the courts can act (based on existing law). If the law violates constitutional principles, then yes the courts can act (based on a violation of a constitutional principle). But in now way do they act on how they "feel."

(V): The economy is not like a car in anyway. It is not analogous. What you need is to show how in principle spending money can get one out of debt. The lottery will get you out of debt too. But only a few people. The vast majority of people spend with NO return.

Investments won't get you out of debt. I know. I've lost thousands. The banks are safer as they protect my principle.

When I spend money, it's gone. When I spend more than I make, I have to cut back somehow to catch up. That is a fact of life. You can NEVER show where governments can consistently spend more than is taken in and MAKE MONEY. It's never happened. Ever. Anywhere. Spending money NEVER gets one out of debt. Ever. Never. Nada.

(V): "And as for the courts, judges do have the right to argue about the law, sentences and the like.. over here in poor ol' 'liberal' UK. Some do, some will also do in cases where it's more of a matter of personal feeling and not as such an illegal activity."

Yes, they interpret the law, often based on precedent. But the courts are not to make laws. The legislature makes the laws. And the courts don't legislate. They ought not to usurp constitutional authority. If they do, they are renegades and should be shot. At least ousted from the bench. They work for me by the way.

(V): "No, Bush lost the election as the trust in him and the Republican party went out of the window."

True. But WHY did we lose the trust? Because they abandoned core principles of conservatism. I'd never vote for him again. Regan yes, Bush no.

In general, spending is not a way to get out of debt for anyone. Rather than cite the exception, prove your point by showing how it is a good principle in general.

Czuch: I know. I can't believe how much money the government rips off on us. It's extortion. We have no choice but to pay for their stupid spending habits. They are reckless with our money. Most people just are uninformed and don't give a rip.

My son loves Obama. But he can't tell me why other than to say Bush was an idiot. That's what we're dealing with. I don't dislike Obama. But he's a bad president. His policies are bad. And if things keep progressing as they have, he will trample on the constitution. Big government is well on its way.

Bush messed up big time with big government.

(V): Rubbish. You did not answer the question. You gave a non answer. Please explain exactly HOW you would manage to get out of debt by SPENDING MORE MONEY. They aren't investing the money and you know that. They are spending it on unneeded bridges, warm beer, and the study of earthworms. States are being forced to take stimulus money. No, on this point you are dead wrong. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get out of debt when you spend more money you don't have. Is the debt going down or up?

Way way up. And all the experts say it will be impossible to pay back at the current rate of spending.

Impossible.

So give a detailed answer how it works and no more of the silly one liners. Be specific.

(V): "As for gay marriage... quite frankly.. only about 52% voted to ban it.. hardly a clear majority is it. That is why judges do have the right I feel to contest Proposition 8. If the majority was very clear then ok.. but then again.. some of which the ban is based on is based on incorrect interpretation of Biblical scripture."

Under this form of logic, if 52% have voted in favor, then judges would have the right to overturn the vote because, in your words, it "wasn't very clear."

52% wasn't the final outcome. It was higher than that. In some counties as high as 76%. Either way, it represented just under a million voter HIGHER that were opposed to the measure.

A majority is a majority. It's not a consensus for sure; it's not a strong showing for sure; but, it's the majority. And when the majority speak, the courts should back off. They do not make policy. That is NOT the job of the courts.

(V): Nonsense. He's out spending all previous administrations. That's not the way to get out of debt.

Vikings: Spot on. Many Republicans are talking about returning to their conservative roots. Palin would make a great President. Obama will ruin the economy and put us into so much debt I'll be long dead and we'll sill be paying back from his reckless spending.

(V): Yes. Liberal policies. It doesn't matter who is spending the money recklessly. Liberals are tax and spend. Bush violated Republican principles. In fact, many Republicans strayed from their roots. That's why they lost the election.