Bush trying to keep waterboarding

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No he didn't recommend dat,cuz they didn't have the show yet back then.He also didn't recommend grown people make gang sign-type movements with their fingers(while uttering the words "Hook em Horns.")Don't you think when one does such things,then they are pretty much auditioning to be on the new HEE HAW SHOW? Don't you think HEE HAW would be an accurate description?What about when grown people have fake pigheads on their heads,and say "suuu eeey" ? Is that not like dat Hee Haw show?

Jesus is a cool dude.If he was here widme,I would get him some cheetos and a Dr. Pepper.He would say "thank you my son," and I'd say "this is called HEE HAW Cuisine."He would say "it's quite salty,"and I'd say "Hee Haw like it dat way, pa." Then he'd say "can I meet this man called HAW." I would then let him know dat HEE HAW has been waiting to meet him for quite some time now.

interesting way to justify your intolerance. lol you bash people in this area for being intolerant, but you're the same way.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I've tolerated them all my life.They've caused me to have an a-hole for a president for 8 years.I'm not looking to pass laws against them,but I do wish they could form their own conservative country of NASCARTONIA. They say you should dream big.That's a big dream.I don't like them.Look at what one did yesterday.Makes my country look like a bunch of dogs live here.I would say I do tolerate them.They are the ones trying to pass laws against peoples rights to do stuff.The most I've done against them is say I don't think this HEE HAW bunch should have the right to torture(and they are hypocrite Christians for wanting to torture to begin with.) I know it's a mainly conservative bunch on here,but encouraging the Pres to keep torture an option is not Kool.

One question that has been answered
but is not widely publicized is:

Does waterboarding actually yield good quick information?

And the answer appears to be in some cases
it works very well in extracting information quickly.

So President Scuds sits in the Oval Office:

Pres. Scuds, we have information about a terrorist
attack in LA. It looks like a big network and we dont
know where the hell they are in LA, but its going to
be real bad as it involves a dirty nuke. We do have
suspects in the planning in custody. The attack appears
to be imminent. We think waterboarding will possibly work
on one of these guys. We need info NOW. And this guy has
the goods. He knows. It might work... We have tried other
quick techniques on this guy and its not working.

Does this situation arise often? NO. But if it does,
do you want to leave the option open?

So do you want to say we will prohibit this practice unless
we see a dire need to do it, or just flat out prohibit KNOWING
that it IS effective at getting vital information quickly IN SOME
cases?

And of course we prohibit it completely because we
know it will be abused by Bush and his Cowboy military...
And because we cant set proper criteria when it should
be used.
They are holding a gun to your head, tell the
Cops to back off and let them kill you...take one
for the country and ethics.

[Danzig]

i also don't like the fact that some want to take away a persons rights. hell, i live in a dry county, and am unable to wager my own hard earned money online if i wanted to. i'm a live and let live sort of person, which makes me a freak in many peoples' eyes around here. something came up about homosexuality the other day at work. who knows what one lady at work thinks of me now, as i disagreed with her contention that upbringing is the cause, followed by a persons choice to be that way. i told her i thought you're born that way. no doubt she has now consigned me to the burning fires of hell now. doesn't bother me tho, i don't care what she thinks--it's funny tho, she can quote verse but seems to have forgotten 'judge not' and 'he who is without sin'.

[skippy3481]

For arguements sake, how do you know what christ said? Your believing it because someone wrote about it at least 80 years later after he did. None of these accounts were written done right then....

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

One question that has been answered
but is not widely publicized is:

Does waterboarding actually yield good quick information?

And the answer appears to be in some cases
it works very well in extracting information quickly.

So President Scuds sits in the Oval Office:

Pres. Scuds, we have information about a terrorist
attack in LA. It looks like a big network and we dont
know where the hell they are in LA, but its going to
be real bad as it involves a dirty nuke. We do have
suspects in the planning in custody. The attack appears
to be imminent. We think waterboarding will possibly work
on one of these guys. We need info NOW. And this guy has
the goods. He knows. It might work... We have tried other
quick techniques on this guy and its not working.

Does this situation arise often? NO. But if it does,
do you want to leave the option open?

So do you want to say we will prohibit this practice unless
we see a dire need to do it, or just flat out prohibit KNOWING
that it IS effective at getting vital information quickly IN SOME
cases?

And of course we prohibit it completely because we
know it will be abused by Bush and his Cowboy military...
And because we cant set proper criteria when it should
be used.
They are holding a gun to your head, tell the
Cops to back off and let them kill you...take one
for the country and ethics.

i've always thought that torture may well yield what you want the person to tell you, not necessarily the truth. to this day you have people who give false confessions due to hours upon hours of questioning by the police. why wouldn't this be different?
i don't know what the cia uses vs the military. i'd hate to see limits placed that shouldn't be placed by congress, but whether that's the case here, i don't know. i don't want this country to become exactly the type of thing it is supposedly fighting.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

For arguements sake, how do you know what christ said? Your believing it because someone wrote about it at least 80 years later after he did. None of these accounts were written done right then....

that's true too. what do they say, winners write history? christianity has certainly been a smashing success.
like they said on south park, the bible is a guide you can use. but i wouldn't take it as gospel....oh, that's punny.

[skippy3481]

And while christ maybe never spoke on it, but it is written about in the new testament. I can give you several passages if need be...

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

"religon makes me want to fart" ..
ted nugent

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

And while christ maybe never spoke on it, but it is written about in the new testament. I can give you several passages if need be...

i've heard that before....

[skippy3481]

dont follow zig sorry...?

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i also don't like the fact that some want to take away a persons rights. hell, i live in a dry county, and am unable to wager my own hard earned money online if i wanted to. i'm a live and let live sort of person, which makes me a freak in many peoples' eyes around here. something came up about homosexuality the other day at work. who knows what one lady at work thinks of me now, as i disagreed with her contention that upbringing is the cause, followed by a persons choice to be that way. i told her i thought you're born that way. no doubt she has now consigned me to the burning fires of hell now. doesn't bother me tho, i don't care what she thinks--it's funny tho, she can quote verse but seems to have forgotten 'judge not' and 'he who is without sin'.

I work with a woman just like that.

[somerfrost]

Then there appears to be considerable evidence that the church leaders "eliminated" several original books of the Bible which elevated women to a place of equality in the church; wasn't it the Diet of Worms in around 1066 (may have the date wrong) that finally "decided" that yes...women also had a soul same as men? My favorite of course remains King James I dictating to his scribes that "chasaph" translated from the original Hebrew to "witch" instead of "poisoner"...that set of a bloody chain of events which lasted for centuries....but maybe James wasn't a paranoid schizophrenic but a messenger of god???

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

dont follow zig sorry...?

a co worker can quote bible verse to support whatever point she is trying to make, it's amazing really. so i was thinking about her, and others like her, when you put up about the passages.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I work with a woman just like that.

i think it's funny in a non-humorous way that she goes to church twice on sunday, goes to bible class, back to church on wednesday...but she's a hater. i don't get it.

[skippy3481]

Somer i think you have to draw a line between old time catholics and modern day non-catholics. Throughout history the church did as they wanted without regard for anyone or anything else. If the pope wanted something he took it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that modern day christians as well as most catholics are more interested now in finding god then following the pope. It't not just witches that were persecuted it was academia, dissidents.. etc.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Then there appears to be considerable evidence that the church leaders "eliminated" several original books of the Bible which elevated women to a place of equality in the church; wasn't it the Diet of Worms in around 1066 (may have the date wrong) that finally "decided" that yes...women also had a soul same as men? My favorite of course remains King James I dictating to his scribes that "chasaph" translated from the original Hebrew to "witch" instead of "poisoner"...that set of a bloody chain of events which lasted for centuries....but maybe James wasn't a paranoid schizophrenic but a messenger of god???

you know, i mentioned ol king james the other day to my daughter. we were talking about the coworker i mentioned above, and the conversation we had had that day. i asked kelly 'what do you think that woman would say/do if she found out that king james, who was behind that version of the bible she refers to, was a homosexual?'

and yes, several books have been left out, including one about judas.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Then there appears to be considerable evidence that the church leaders "eliminated" several original books of the Bible which elevated women to a place of equality in the church; wasn't it the Diet of Worms in around 1066 (may have the date wrong) that finally "decided" that yes...women also had a soul same as men? My favorite of course remains King James I dictating to his scribes that "chasaph" translated from the original Hebrew to "witch" instead of "poisoner"...that set of a bloody chain of events which lasted for centuries....but maybe James wasn't a paranoid schizophrenic but a messenger of god???

as for the diet of worms, mid 1500's. . william of normandy invaded england in 1066. i do love my history.


-edit-diet took place in 1521--charles the v presiding

[skippy3481]

zig is correct 1521 was the year

Originally Posted by Danzig

i've always thought that torture may well yield what you want the person to tell you, not necessarily the truth. to this day you have people who give false confessions due to hours upon hours of questioning by the police. why wouldn't this be different?
i don't know what the cia uses vs the military. i'd hate to see limits placed that shouldn't be placed by congress, but whether that's the case here, i don't know. i don't want this country to become exactly the type of thing it is supposedly fighting.

My information about waterboarding
being very accurate and quick, in
SOME cases, came from an interview
with a military intelligence officer on
NPR (always ultra-liberal supposedly)
It was backed up by some Pyschologist
from a University they had on.

I cant see taking it completely
off the table (pun, no..)
when it MIGHT be very effective in
getting good information quickly in
some cases. The potential for abuse
is always present. The Geneva convention
has it on the no list. But we live in a world
where a few zealots can kill very large
numbers of innocent people very quickly.
Its not a stone throwing world anymore.