Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well I haven't lived in the states recently so I didn't know that people stopped saying the pledge of allegiance. That is a real shame. I think that the simple pledge probably brings the usa together more than we know. Every day we recited it and I always felt proud to say it.

Also we had a jehovah's witness he just didn't have to say it with us. Why not just make a law like that?

efarrer wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Re: Torture... That is a matter of opinion. Whether I agree or disagree with you on whether or not there's torture going on, there is unfortunately little definitive evidence to prove either side. Both sides of the arguement have enough "evidence" to cast doubt on the other. I'm trying to stay neutral at the moment.

If the guy who wrote the book on surviving torture for the US governemnt calls it torture, I'm willing to accept his decision.

As an aside, I remember in the Republican debate where Romney was lecturing McCain on whether water-boarding was torture. That removed the last vestige of faint hope that I would ever consider voting for Romney.

After WWII we prosecuted Japanese interrogators who used waterboarding for torture. It's not necessary, it's not reliable, and we shouldn't be doing it.

If the American economy collapses, so does ours. Your downfall= our harm. No need for active malice. You just don't know as much about our international relationship as I do, and nor should you. It really doesn't matter to you except in an abstract way. America's condition is as important to Canada as our own.

Now that Canada is a petro-economy because of Alberta, we should be a little more resilient. Manufacturing in Ontario and the Maritimes will bear the brunt of it (like it is already). I think a US recession wouldn't really effect Alberta that much until it started reducing demand for energy.


As another aside, I find in interesting that Canada may have an election called, campaigned for and resolved between now and when the US election takes place. (Both have their merits, the Canadian system is cheaper and quicker, the American system gives people a lot more time to educate themselves on the issues and the candidates and the primary system is much more open, whereas in Canada no one suspected that Stephane Dion would emerge as the Liberal leader until the last day of the Liberal convention when it was a done deal.)

Canada's main export is america and vice versa so if America goes down both will suffer (canada 25% of exported goods to america's 17% to canada, or so).

jfrazell wrote:Calling an entire political party evil - pretty much one third of the electorate - pretty much just ends the discussion. Its not a rational statement.

Oh well.

jfrazell, if that's what you got out of my posts, I appreciate your restraint.

But that's not what I meant at all. And I don't think it's what I wrote.

IMO, GWB and his administration have done extremely immoral and destructive things out of what I perceive to be a combination of greed, selfishness, shortsightedness, arrogance and ignorance. Just to focus on Iraq for a minute, war is evil. A necessary evil, at times (see= the allies in WWII, and our invasion of Afghanistan), but inherently evil. The war with Iraq was not necessary. It's led to 4000 American dead, many times more permanently disabled, and approximately 600,000 Iraqis dead. And that's just counting the cost in human lives so far. Not the damage to our economy or theirs. Or the effect on our military and its capacity to fight the battles and wars we may actually NEED to fight in the future.

I'm not calling the entire Republican party evil. I said that the people who vote for someone who does evil bear a measure of responsibility for the consequences. I feel some responsibility too, even though I voted against him both times. Maybe I should have volunteered more. Or donated more. Or otherwise done a better job of taking some concrete action to stop it. I don't know.

I'm not calling the Republican nominees other than McCain evil. Even though I think espousing support for torture is beyond ethically questionable, right into the realm of morally repugnant. I did call them "completely unsuitable", which is my genuine opinion.

I'm not sure I even think GWB is evil. Though I'm not sure what else to think. When you see something like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

It makes you wonder what the actual rationale behind the war was, when they had a good sense nine years before about the likely consequences of invasion.

efarrer wrote:
If the American economy collapses, so does ours. Your downfall= our harm. No need for active malice. You just don't know as much about our international relationship as I do, and nor should you. It really doesn't matter to you except in an abstract way. America's condition is as important to Canada as our own.

I'm with you, now.
No. I won't argue that point.
My take on the way you worded it (without qualification) was that you meant intentional harm.
I'm with you, now.

MagickalMemories wrote:I addressed what I had a problem with.
I care about America. I kind of resent the way you asked it, too... "or do [I] even care?" That's ridiculous. I love my country and I care about every wax and wane of its' strength.

efarrar wrote:But it's a legit question. all the same, insulting to you personally, perhaps. It's not intended thus. If you answered, it doesn't matter to that then any discussion of the ecnomy is pointless as the respondent is simply looking for a fight. I'm not actually trying to rile you up. You just get offended at areas where I a Canadian don't see the point.

Well, I understand that you're not TRYING to be insulting. It's why we aren't arguing. If I thought you were insulting me intentionally, I'd be far more confrontational. I think it's just the braod brush-strokes of language you're using and I'm misinterpreting.

No harm, no foul.

Since you've cleared it up that you're not trying to say anything in an insulting manner, I can overlook it if the wording on something you have to say "gets to me." Unfortunately, there are enough people on Dakka who seem to love a good disruptive arguement that it affects the rest of the comversations.

I do have to admit that I'm a little surprised that nobody has really gotten into any arguements yet, with the volatility of the subject.
--------------------------------
Re: Waterboarding.

I didn't know that the japanese were tried for it after WWII. Interesting.
It does tend to lend weight to the whole "torture" thing but, on the other hand, back then, a movie that said the *F* word or showed a woman's bare breast would've been considered outrageous. Now it's considered what? PG-13? A SOFT R rating?
They were far more uptight back then.

I honestly can't opine on waterboarding because, though I HEAR it's bad, the description I've heard of it makes me think it's all in the mind of the "tortured."
I would genuinely like to be submitted to waterboarding voluntarily by someone who is well trained in its' execution and that I trust. If I could experience it myself, then I could form a solid opinion. Until then, I can only say that it SOUNDS bad... but kinds doesn't sound THAT bad.

That's not flame-bait. Just a guy who can't seem to "picture" it.

Eric

Yeah I know what you mean. But I think it's so bad for the prisoners because they have a horrible life in guantanomo or where ever and everything just overwelmes them that much more.
But having only heard it's terrible I can't imagine how it actually is.

snorkle wrote:Yeah I know what you mean. But I think it's so bad for the prisoners because they have a horrible life in guantanomo or where ever and everything just overwelmes them that much more.
But having only heard it's terrible I can't imagine how it actually is.

yes lord knows we don't want terrorists to have to wear orange.

Cap 'em and be done with it.

MagickalMemories wrote:Re: Waterboarding.

I didn't know that the japanese were tried for it after WWII. Interesting.
It does tend to lend weight to the whole "torture" thing but, on the other hand, back then, a movie that said the *F* word or showed a woman's bare breast would've been considered outrageous. Now it's considered what? PG-13? A SOFT R rating?
They were far more uptight back then.

I honestly can't opine on waterboarding because, though I HEAR it's bad, the description I've heard of it makes me think it's all in the mind of the "tortured."
I would genuinely like to be submitted to waterboarding voluntarily by someone who is well trained in its' execution and that I trust. If I could experience it myself, then I could form a solid opinion. Until then, I can only say that it SOUNDS bad... but kinds doesn't sound THAT bad.

That's not flame-bait. Just a guy who can't seem to "picture" it.

Eric

Says it better and with far more authority then I ever could.

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

jfrazell that is a very cold way to look at things.

psst...we need the information, capping 'em get's you nothin' but satisfaction...

not saying I feel sorry for the inmates but that was just my view on why they think it's so bad(probably not true anyways).

::shrug::

I still don't have a clear picture of what it does.
I know the EFFECTS. I know how he says (and I believe it) that it will make you feel... but there was still no step-by-step "this happens, then that happens."
That was what I was referring to.

That being said, I was annoyed by a small part of the article:

Forget threats, poor food, the occasional face slap and sexual assaults. This was not a dignified ‘taking off the gloves’; this was descending to the level of our opposition in an equally brutish and ugly way. Waterboarding will be one our future enemy’s go-to techniques because we took the gloves off to brutal interrogation. Now our enemies will take the gloves off and thank us for it.

When was the last time an enemy "took off the glaves" in a dignified way. Viet nam? Al Qaeda? The taliban? Come one. All of these people use tactics this bad and worse already.
When is the last time the US hacked off a living - and conscious- person's head on video?

Waterboarding will not LEAD to our soldiers being treated similarly.
They already are.

But, I digress. This is not necessarily about the elections.

Eric

Does anybody think Hillary will make a comeback? She did it in NH but I think overall Obama still has the lead and NH and IA are only like 2%of the total votes.

One theory for the NH win despite the massive polling against her (besides skullduggery which you can never ignore when it involves Clintons) is that the NH party machine went for her and actively worked in her favor. If true that doesn't bode well for Obama unless he can pursuade the other state machines to his side or remain neutral.

MagickalMemories wrote:::shrug::

I still don't have a clear picture of what it does.
I know the EFFECTS. I know how he says (and I believe it) that it will make you feel... but there was still no step-by-step "this happens, then that happens."
That was what I was referring to.

That being said, I was annoyed by a small part of the article:

Forget threats, poor food, the occasional face slap and sexual assaults. This was not a dignified ‘taking off the gloves’; this was descending to the level of our opposition in an equally brutish and ugly way. Waterboarding will be one our future enemy’s go-to techniques because we took the gloves off to brutal interrogation. Now our enemies will take the gloves off and thank us for it.

When was the last time an enemy "took off the glaves" in a dignified way. Viet nam? Al Qaeda? The taliban? Come one. All of these people use tactics this bad and worse already.
When is the last time the US hacked off a living - and conscious- person's head on video?

Waterboarding will not LEAD to our soldiers being treated similarly.
They already are.

But, I digress. This is not necessarily about the elections.

Eric

Amen Brother.

snorkle wrote:Does anybody think Hillary will make a comeback? She did it in NH but I think overall Obama still has the lead and NH and IA are only like 2%of the total votes.

I hope so.

Separating my desires from reality, it will be a tough climb. Obama has a ton of money and a ton of a support. Hillary does have a strong base in the February 5th states though. She'll certainly win NY (and Obama will certainly win Ill.), but I think that she's likely to take California too. If she takes both NY and Cali, then she can afford to split the remaining Feb 5 states with Obama and still have a big lead in delegates going forward.

snorkle wrote:Does anybody think Hillary will make a comeback? She did it in NH but I think overall Obama still has the lead and NH and IA are only like 2%of the total votes.

For Dem's, I think that Obama is the emotional / knee-jerk choice & Hillary is the wise choice.
It depends on what people want, really.

I think that, overall, people aren't stupid. I think they know they need wisdom & experience.

I think Hillary's going to win, based on experience. People can talk about JFK all they want, but we have never EVER had a person as politically inexperienced as Obama in the White House and, with the state that our nation is in, I don't think now is the time to start.

I think Hillary's going to carry it, and I think that, in the end, it won't be as close- not nearly so- as it is right now.


Eric

Interesting fact. To register to vote in the New Hampshire primaries you just have to declare that you are planning on moving there someday. Watch some of the footage and you'll notice parking lots full of cars but none are from New Hampshire.

Maybe they're reporter cars?

Or tourists?

(lol election tourists)

You could call me an election tourist. I happened to be in Iowa with my family for christmas so we went and saw Obama and Hillary.

snorkle wrote:You could call me an election tourist. I happened to be in Iowa with my family for christmas so we went and saw Obama and Hillary.

Cool. What were your impressions of them?

MagickalMemories wrote:::shrug::

I still don't have a clear picture of what it does.
I know the EFFECTS. I know how he says (and I believe it) that it will make you feel... but there was still no step-by-step "this happens, then that happens."
That was what I was referring to.

Malcolm Nance wrote:2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again..

Ahtman wrote:Interesting fact. To register to vote in the New Hampshire primaries you just have to declare that you are planning on moving there someday. Watch some of the footage and you'll notice parking lots full of cars but none are from New Hampshire.

No, you have to be a resident. If you're registering for the first time (or the first time in a given ward), they ask you for government-issued photo ID, and a utility bill showing your current NH address. There is also a provision for you to sign a sworn affidavit affirming that you are a US citizen & NH resident, and giving your NH address. See RSAs 654:1, 654:7, 654:7-a, 654:8-a, and 654:12 in particular.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiii/654/654-mrg.htm

At every NH election I've participated in, there have been a lot of out of state volunteers. Particularly from Massachusetts, IME, as I live in Manchester, which is in the southern part of the state and is the most populous city. In 2004 I volunteered for a get-out-the-vote group. The day and night before the election, and the day of, we drove around dropping off flyers at registered voters’ doors, reminding them of their polling locations and encouraging them to go vote. Both days, I was the one local guy in the car, driving volunteers from out of state. The night before the election I had a couple of cute college chicks up from Boston. I was almost sad that I had a girlfriend.

Re: the Pledge: The ruling of Judge Goodwin in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was that the “under god” part does constitute a state-sponsored endorsement of religion, and is thus a violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling back in 2004 primarily on procedural grounds, ruling that the parent who originally brought the suit wasn’t entitled to do so, as he was non-custodial at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

That said, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and justices Day O’Conner and Thomas disagreed on the procedural point, so went ahead and examined the constitutional question. Their conclusion was that the pledge is not an endorsement of religion, but merely an acknowledgement of our religious heritage.

However, to me this seems to miss the entire point of the law that added "under god" to the pledge, as expressed by President Eisenhower when he signed it. From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling:

• Decided - the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact which (according to the court) the federal government did not dispute. The court also noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he also announced "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
• Judge Alfred Goodwin from the 9th circuit remarked: "A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

There’s a great article about the Pledge and how it and similar expressions of religion were inserted into and tacked onto our national expressions on Slate.com:

http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499

jfrazell wrote:One theory for the NH win despite the massive polling against her (besides skullduggery which you can never ignore when it involves Clintons) is that the NH party machine went for her and actively worked in her favor. If true that doesn't bode well for Obama unless he can pursuade the other state machines to his side or remain neutral.

This was the biggest piece of the puzzle for me. When I heard that Lou D’Allesandro was campaigning for her, I knew Obama might be screwed in Manchester, where I previously expected Obama to do well.

I'm sorry, in my rush to post before heading out I did not make it clear that was a conspiracy theory I had heard about the New Hampshire Primaries as it was related.

Of course it is the same group that thinks that Latino grocery stores are fronts for illegal immigrant hotels to.

Some of them are (at least around here).

There are workers who are housed in dormitories who
are illegal. These people are abused, threatened, etc.

Yes, they are breaking the law. But I'm still struggling with
the fact that our rights only apply to our citizens and not
humanity as a whole.

(Which is why torture on off-shore sites is so hard to
wrap my head around)

They have rights under the Constitution.

Like every other CRIMINAL.

Hell, I say tag 'em and release 'em. We need the cheap labor, and we can get tax money out of 'em!

Oh, and if you're uninsured and cause a car accident, we take a kidney, lung, or something like that in payment.

~evil grin~

We need the cheap labor if you don't want wage levels to rise.

jfrazell wrote:They have rights under the Constitution.

Like every other CRIMINAL.

Well, no, not really. If that were the case Chinese political prisoners could say that they shouldn't be in prison because the US Constitution gives them the freedom of speech. Immigration policy sets about the procedures for dealing with non citizens. The states also have a say as well. We can not force the Constitution on other people. It is a fun and overly complicated part of our exciting legal system. Steady work though I would bet. Just being inside the border of the USA doesn't automatically give one constitutional protections, unless you give birth here, then your kid would. Of course most American's don't really understand their constitutional rights either.

I am not saying that. I am saying those who are in the US have similar rights. Thats why the terrorists are kept in Cuba, not here.

@Asmodai:
I thought Hillary was the best organized and she stated what she would do.
Obama was a better speaker but he was less organized and he didn't state what he would do as president in as much detail. His main argument was that his lack of experience was a good thing, because politics in Washington are broken(didn't like it too much). I got to shake his hand! Yeaaahhh
I also saw Bill even though he isn't(obviously) running and he was the best of the three. Too bad he can't run.

Don't know if anybody cares but both candidates had Secret Service guys standing around. I don't think any other candidates had those dudes with them.

jfrazell wrote:We need the cheap labor if you don't want wage levels to rise.

I often find myself wondering if the illegal's situation (and the degree to which they are despised) is a trowback to the slavery era. Obviously they are second class citizens with limited rights, who occuppy the same economic niche as the slaves did (doing the work full citizens will not do at prices that fall well below minimum standards). Are they effectively untouchables for the uppercaste to look down on as a problem- but not actually repair the situation.

I have to ask are the citizens of the US prepared to deal with severe rises in the cost of food, and other goods, if the illegal immigrants are removed? Since I get much of my fresh fruit and vegtables through thier work, I find it hypocritical not to wonder how much of a vested intrest I have in the maintence of the status quo.

And if you want to deal with the problem, why is the focus on the immigrants rather than the people who are willing to pay them? Slap some big fines on thier employers and you'll see the problem grinnd to a halt in short order. Basically, no jobs=no immigrants.

Or is the problem that there really is no desire to actually deal with the problem? That the ultra cheap labour for some big industries (and lets not kid ourselves farming is labour intensive still and a huge employer of the illegal immigrants) is an addiction which makes them willing to discourage senators and congressmen from actually doing something.

Allowing a faster greencard recognition might alleviate the problem, in particular if it were located at the border, and worked in a much simpler fashion then the process for permanent immigration.