Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 22, 2014, 02:57:07 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 66
1  General Politics / Individual Politics / Who would you rather have as your Governor? on: Today at 11:01:07 am
Well?
2  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this image on: December 21, 2014, 01:29:40 am
I don't see how anyone can claim the media is biased in favor of Hillary after the hysteria they drummed up over her "dead broke" comments.
3  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Was the 2002 Alabama Gubernatorial election stolen? on: December 20, 2014, 11:28:32 pm
Surprised Siegelman gave up so fast.

Anyway, from Wiki:  

"no corresponding vote shift in other issues and candidates on these same ballots, a shift that would be expected if they were actually anti-Siegelman voters"

Case closed.

It is extremely odd that he gave up so easily, considering how obvious the rigging was. Given that he was later charged with bribery and fraud dating back to 1995, maybe he was blackmailed into doing so.
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Opinion of Ed Koch on: December 20, 2014, 10:57:07 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Koch
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Larry Sabato's 2016 Presidential Rankings on: December 20, 2014, 08:54:50 pm


prez map 2016

NC will be competitive.
6  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this image on: December 20, 2014, 08:49:05 pm
A little worrying that 48% say they would not consider supporting her, I know she's polarizing but I didn't think it would be that high. Nevertheless, freedom image.
7  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Stevenson vs McGovern vs Mondale on: December 20, 2014, 05:08:48 pm

The government shouldn't just be giving people money.
8  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Stevenson vs McGovern vs Mondale on: December 20, 2014, 04:58:08 pm

Right, because people would totally invest/and or save that money and not spend it on something inane.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary vs Rand would be the weirdest election on: December 20, 2014, 12:55:57 pm
Paul couldn't get through the election without saying something completely tasteless and disgusting. Not to mention he makes Dukakis look charismatic.
10  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Stevenson vs McGovern vs Mondale on: December 20, 2014, 11:29:11 am
Anyone but the guy who suggested giving everyone in America $1,000.
11  General Politics / Individual Politics / Was the 2002 Alabama Gubernatorial election stolen? on: December 19, 2014, 09:40:41 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_gubernatorial_election,_2002
12  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Pro-Life Feminists on: December 19, 2014, 10:30:41 am
Not a fan of feminists in general, but FF.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Where should Hillary Clinton build her library? on: December 18, 2014, 10:38:29 pm
King County, TX
14  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Should Family Guy do an episode about killing Kim Jong-un? on: December 18, 2014, 08:22:20 pm
Yeah, South Park would do this better. As SP itself pointed out, most FG jokes aren't even relevant to the plot of the episode.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Al Franken: "I'm Ready for Hillary" on: December 17, 2014, 09:50:03 pm
The people saying Warren might run remind me of the Freepers who kept insisting Palin was running a stealth campaign in Iowa back in 2011.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 1 out of 5 Republicans Agree: Rectally feeding suspected terrorists is a-ok! on: December 17, 2014, 03:11:14 pm
I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?

Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?

It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.

OK. But this only brings us back to a stronger version of our previous question: What kind of information is gained if and only if we use these methods?

I don't really think about it in a broad sense. If an individual has information about an attack, we should use any means necessary to get them to talk. Different things might work for different individuals.

Can you describe the circumstances under which you would expect any of these tactics to elicit useful information? Can you point to any particular incident in which these methods did work or, failing that, would have worked?

I concede I'm not familiar with a particular incident.

Why wouldn't some of these tactics work? I'd assume most terrorists are strong willed individuals. If someone is withholding information on an attack, another terrorist, etc, it is vital to get the information through whichever means necessary. That individual may feel inclined to give up said information if they feel threatened, or feel that their family is in danger. Maybe being made uncomfortable long enough breaks their will. I wouldn't expect standard interrogation methods to work on these people.

So you admit that your argument that torture is useful lacks empirical support? "Why not?" is reason enough for you?

I'm not saying it should be the go to option. Just that if they feel one of these methods would be more effective on a particular individual, they should be able to use them.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Florida Cuban Vote on: December 17, 2014, 03:06:17 pm
I thought Cubans in FL were Republican because of anti-Cuba sentiment? I assume this would only hurt. I think Obama won them in 2012, possibly 2008 as well, though.
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do you agree with Obama's decision to normalise relationships with Cuba? on: December 17, 2014, 02:18:32 pm
Of course. Should have been done decades ago.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which scenario is more likely in 2016? on: December 17, 2014, 12:49:24 pm
Can't believe it's tied! Hillary will probably win FL, but she could lose it in a poor environment. Hillary is not going to win MO against any Republican except Cruz, and even then it's going to be a 2008 margin of victory for either of them.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Predict Jeb's % in Ohio (general election) on: December 17, 2014, 12:37:37 pm
How will Jeb play in OH against Hillary, assuming he's the nominee?
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 1 out of 5 Republicans Agree: Rectally feeding suspected terrorists is a-ok! on: December 17, 2014, 12:22:37 am
I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?

Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?

It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.

OK. But this only brings us back to a stronger version of our previous question: What kind of information is gained if and only if we use these methods?

I don't really think about it in a broad sense. If an individual has information about an attack, we should use any means necessary to get them to talk. Different things might work for different individuals.

Can you describe the circumstances under which you would expect any of these tactics to elicit useful information? Can you point to any particular incident in which these methods did work or, failing that, would have worked?

I concede I'm not familiar with a particular incident.

Why wouldn't some of these tactics work? I'd assume most terrorists are strong willed individuals. If someone is withholding information on an attack, another terrorist, etc, it is vital to get the information through whichever means necessary. That individual may feel inclined to give up said information if they feel threatened, or feel that their family is in danger. Maybe being made uncomfortable long enough breaks their will. I wouldn't expect standard interrogation methods to work on these people.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush on: December 16, 2014, 09:07:51 pm

A 2012 repeat.  The most boring election ever.
You know Bush has money. Jeb Bush does not have a Mitt Romney problem at all. Look at this way. Hillary is a little unelectable because she criticizes and criticized the Iraq War but she voted for in the Senate. Elizabeth Warren has some skeletons in her closet. She for sure has flip flopped somewhere. A candidate who may have voted Republican in the eighties but is now a liberal Democrat is bound to have made some changes in her positions. Mitt Romney was an independent during the Reagan/Bush years. The talking points about Romney are well known.

Revisionist fantasy. Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, not for the baseless war he ended up waging.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Obama coalition in 2016 on: December 16, 2014, 08:46:37 pm
I think Hillary will do better with Hispanics. The Tea Partiers/Ann Coulters have shifted their focus from ObamaCare to immigration, and whoever gets the nomination is going to have to pander to that constituency during the primaries, and probably say something completely asinine.
24  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: David Duke v Barack Obama on: December 16, 2014, 07:29:27 pm
Duke would win.

Obama would win by 10%+.

Insanity.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 1 out of 5 Republicans Agree: Rectally feeding suspected terrorists is a-ok! on: December 16, 2014, 06:40:57 pm
I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?

Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?

It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.

OK. But this only brings us back to a stronger version of our previous question: What kind of information is gained if and only if we use these methods?

I don't really think about it in a broad sense. If an individual has information about an attack, we should use any means necessary to get them to talk. Different things might work for different individuals.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 66


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines