john5746

He doesn't specifically say they tried it, but he mentions in the video that the 'German chess playing' method would not work with these guys. "They hate us more than they love life" He also mentions that as time went on and they saw their 'brothers' in jail, they began to break more easily, without waterboarding. It was the urgency that made them feel the need. Only in retrospect, with '911 fading in memory' does he think it was wrong. Not very convincing. He specifically mentions after the waterboarding, he was much more cooperative and that it broke him. He talked with them in English from the start, but after waterboarding he gave them very good information. If you ask me, the 48 hour sleep deprivation sounds worse than the water boarding.

I thought the quotes below were significant. I agree, hopefully they do some of that. I remember reading somewhere that some of the Japanese were very surprised when they were treated OK and it broke their brainwashing. He mentioned at one point about the prisoners seeing their 'brothers'. That is key. They care about their brothers more than themselves in many cases. This is important as well. When Pangloss mentioned OBJECTIVE, it jerked my brain into the discussion. I have almost drowned before and if someone hadn't been near to yell help to, I probably would have said a prayer to god. That alone tells me I would say ANYTHING to avoid torture!! That being said, I was none the worse after a half hour or so. I guess it depends on the duration, etc. As far as not wanting our soldiers to face the same treatment, well: 1) We bomb civilians and invade homes - I'm pretty sure we don't want them to do the same. 2) We don't have an 'agreement' with the enemy. In fact, their procedure is to kill innocents. I pretty much rely on the likes of John McCain, who knows what he is talking about regarding torture. But, he may be looking at it from his personal perspective, which would assume all people are like him. That is not always the case. I consider myself a good person and live pretty well by the golden rule. In fact, I am too damned nice sometimes. If someone attacks me, I use whatever force is needed to protect myself. If they attack my family, I would gladly torture their ass before taking them out. This doesn't change me, I am still a good person. In the same way, terrorists(not insurgents) are attacking our innocents, below the belt. They deserve far worse than waterboarding, IMO. We can make the case that we are the 'good' guys why still dropping bombs and torturing terrorists.

IMO, people believe in God because they are taught it from birth. Without society, they would probably believe in gods or spirits. I think it is man's attempt to control nature. If they can know a being that causes these unexplainable things, then they can attempt to appease them in hopes of changing the situation.

It made me feel dirty and cheap...but happy!

Science is a belief system, while religion is an unbelievable system. Does that make you happy?

I agree with YT that life seeks pleasure/avoids pain. I guess this would be more so at the organism level. At the gene level, it is to multiply. Does the universe have a purpose? I doubt it, therefore I doubt life has a purpose. It is up to humans to give themselves purpose, IMO. All Life will die out with the universe eventually anyway, so enjoy it while it lasts.

I think your mixing up ideas/theory with management/execution. For example, a President probably will not come up with big policy ideas on his own. He has a team, each of whom consults with others, not to mention the legislative branch. A leader doesn't need to be the smartest person with the best ideas. A leader needs to get the job done, by chosing and inspiring the right people, being decisive in an emergency, etc. This would be true with the military as well. Planning would be done in the war room with a group, but execution during a battle isn't a time for consensus building. Trust your leaders or your toast(to a point).

No expert here either, but I think missing 9/11 was more due to ageniceis not communicating and acting together more so than an intelligence failure. There was knowledge of a possible threat. The Iraq WMD situation might be a better fit. Yes, If the reports said Iran has WMD, would anyone believe them? Iran's major concern until 2003 was Saddam. He supposedly had WMD, a bluff that apparently worked. Currently, they would be worried about Israel and the US and possibly Pakistan. The more countries that get the bomb, the more likely it will be used. Especially since MADD becomes much less of a possibility. Other than the loss of life in Iraq, the costliest mistake would be to become to lax with security and try to return to the Clinton era. Ironically, Clinton appears to be the least likely to do that of the top democrats, IMO.

I don't know, would Vietnam be considered a better success story than Korea? I mean South Korea is great, but North Korea is total crap. At least Vietnam doesn't require us to be there in the middle.

Iran No Nukes Looks like the carrot/stick approach works with Iran. Maybe there is hope in that region after all.

Actually, as many NY's move down south and start complaining, then we see it first hand, up close in our own neighborhoods. As usual, the loudest of the bunch gets all the attention. I actually get along better with the NY's than many Nascar fans. What amazes me is how some will talk about how things are cheaper and taxes are lower, etc. Then they turn around and want this service and that service. As for this incident, well Giuliani is an asshole. There are people who get paid minimum wage who put up with getting yelled at, etc. and don't demean the customer. His gut instinct is completely wrong for a public servant, IMO.

I think everyone knows where Paul is coming from now. Get rid of half the government, isolate ourselves from the world and let the states figure it all out. A confederacy if you will. Until they narrow down the debates to at least 4, there is no point in watching, IMO.

[math]religion = \overline{logic} [/math] Why did the hurricane kill all those people? Religion: God's will? Science: Given time, shit happens. I think evolution attempts to explain why. Why would a fish want to go on land? Why would a male peacock display all those pretty feathers, making them easier to be eaten?

They are generalizations, but: religious = strong theism non-religious = atheism and weak theism. From a world impact standpoint, there is no difference between strong and weak atheism, since atheism has no value system. But, there is a difference between strong and weak theism.

You nailed the issue with your first statement - "what my friends call me". Say a French man goes to America. People may call him a foreigner. Should he start calling himself a foreigner? I would think it would be better to tell people that he is from France. Now, he may find it interesting to meet and talk with other foreigners, but that does not mean he is from a country called "foreigner" or identifies with this grouping in any way. He just will share the experience of being a foreigner in America with them, that is it. You might want to check out something like secular humanism to see if you share those values. I am not sure I agree with that statement, but I concede to avoid yet another lengthy thread on the issue. However, I think you would agree with the following: If strong atheism requires as much faith as theism, this by no means implies that it even remotely takes as much faith as being a Christian.

I have no problem with this if it makes identification more efficient. I have several shopping cards, etc. Walmart can probably track their customers better than the US can track their agents.

In retrospect, I see your point a little better. I don't believe anything this person is saying. It isn't like this guy was your buddy for 20 years and then you declare he was never a christian. But christians are fallible, so I don't disbelieve the christianity part anymore than anything else. There is true slavery in the bible, purchasing innocent people and passing them and their offspring down generations. They treated Israelites differently than foreigners, etc. I think you would agree that slavery of innocent people is inherently wrong, if there is such a thing. I say that the bible does not teach this fact.

Nice how that works. A virtual stoning. If the person isn't "perfect" or does something you don't approve, they are not christians doing wrong, but are not christians at all. How about a slave owner? Are they christian? How about a woman who just had an abortion? Christian? How about someone who just dropped an A-bomb on a city? Is that OK within Christ's message? Love thy enemies?

Nope, competition drives costs down, that has been proven over and over again. But, in the chase for profits, lower margin services might be sacrificed for higher margin services. Instead of making parts for you tape recorder, they make cd players. Instead of offering cheap x-rays for patients, they go for the MRI. Instead of fixing cleft pallets, they provide boob jobs.

You make a valid point, however I would argue that Religion can be used more readily to manipulate people. Science says nothing of morality, much like a tool. Religion is more of a "how to" guide. And that guide is not very clear and is obviously misinterpreted all the time. It also claims that other "how to" guides are rubish and the people using those guides are wrong. If you kill someone with a wrench, well that is clearly the not the fault of the wrench. If you kill someone because of some faulty instructions, then I think the instructions are partly to blame. Holocaust from evolution theory? I think religious persecution had much more to do with it than any science theory.

Still don't understand: If I make 100,000 at 20% tax, then I take home 80,000 If I make 110,000 and the extra 10,000 is at 30% tax rate, then I take home 80,000 + 7,000 = 87000. Very true on the low wage scale, which I am not talking about. Now if the tax rate on millions is at 40%, I still want that 60%. If too high, it does provide less incentive, but mostly it just encourages investment in long term capital or tax free structures(muni-bonds, etc.) The perception is that democrats just increase spending and increase taxes. Actually, there is some truth to that, but closer to the truth is that the democrats tend to spend in different sectors than the Republicans. Both spend.

Or smart people in stupid groups.

How about this? We have a national lottery. A portion of tax revenue plus monies from contestants goes into this lottery. Only people who agree to donate an organ can be a contestant. Every week you have a drawing and the drawing is only on those donors that match a patient in need. There would be multiple winners based on how many patients need an organ and how much money is in reserve. You win a sizeable amount of money, donate a kidney and no blackmarket crap. Damn, I'm a genius - and humble too.

Currently, christianity in America is pretty liberal on the average and the majority of them frown on this almost as much as we do, IMO, but I don't think your fears are completely unfounded. There are always potential Hitlers just waiting for some real power - Pat Robertson for example. If there is an economic collapse in America or a very strong threat from Islam, it is very easy to see that fundamentalist thinking might prevail. Of course, this can happen with atheism, racism, etc. as well. IMO, if a threat comes from the next generation, it will be about money. They will blame their lower standard of living on some group - possibly hispanics. The one thing that might save this situation is religion, unless it becomes protestant vs catholic! Anyway, I digress. I think the best we can do is frown upon it and let those around us know that intolerance or tolerance of intolerance is not acceptable. The above situation is bad, but having government intervene would be worse.

Lowering taxes tends to increase consumption and short term investment vs longer term capital investment for tax shelter purposes. If you barely qualify for a higher tax bracket, you barely pay the higher tax rate on just the amount over the limit. I do not see how this will result in less net income. The government should be appreciated for more than economic success, but revenue is paid in $, not blood and sweat. The latter two are hidden in every greenback and I would argue that the poor and middle class have provided the majority of that blood and sweat equity that goes unseen in every dollar. All of us are in debt to one another for this equity that has required sacrifice so that we have an opportunity to succeed. The more we acquire, the more in debt we are to soldiers, firemen, policemen, etc. Good point on the people caring more, but the federal government will run a debt, so it doesn't seem to worry about being low on the revenue side. Most important is to never appear to raise taxes.