Null



otterinbham

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    5,546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About otterinbham

  • Rank
    Auburn fan since 1962, dammit.
  • Birthday 07/28/1962

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hmmmm. 1. This is just one article on the subject and is largely speculating on exactly what the report will say. It begins by saying there is no "proof" that "torture" prevented terrorist plots, yet when it quotes the report the quote says that it is hard to verify. It slants it in the direction it wants it to go. It is very interesting how obama and company are so selectively picking and choosing what they want to release on this subject. 2. The actions of GWB and Cheney and Company did keep America safe for 7 years after 9/11, no conclusion is even necessary. Why you feel the need to superimpose "torture" as the only measuring stick afa whether they protected us or not is beyond me. I sure that not all "torture" was productive but I trust those close to the situation to be capable of determining if it was worthwhile or not and they felt it was. Forgive for not giving your completely inexperienced opinion little if any weight here. Well, I did three years on contract supporting Asymmetrical Warfare out of Huntsville and spent a lot of time with majors, colonels, and generals. In all my reading and in all my conversations, I never encountered one military man who stated that torture helped intelligence gathering. In fact, when the Abu Gharib scandal broke, there were any number of people who said that the intelligence gathered from torture is dicey. What do rocket, air defense and acquisition guys know about asymmetrical warfare? Or "torture"? You spent all your time among the Army's nerds (God love 'em, but the fights they fight are not necessarily the fight that is being fought right now). Redstone is the LEAST Army post I've ever been on. The Abu Ghareb story was about humiliation....not torture for intel. Actually, this was Special Forces and Green Berets, with a few other Navy and Army guys thrown in to create a multi-branch approach--some of the tactics were used in Iraq during the surge, in fact. It just happened that the consulting firm was based out of Huntsville. Nice try, however. Really? What was the name of the project? I want to look it up and read about it's funding and visit it's CALL site. Because I call BS about a three-year project in my back yard I never heard of. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. This is not the place where unconventional warfare is studied. This is where technology is developed, and technology developers have zilch to do with interrogations. I guess torture and interrogations techniques are what you talk about over lunch? Private message to you, Tiger Heat.
  2. Hmmmm. 1. This is just one article on the subject and is largely speculating on exactly what the report will say. It begins by saying there is no "proof" that "torture" prevented terrorist plots, yet when it quotes the report the quote says that it is hard to verify. It slants it in the direction it wants it to go. It is very interesting how obama and company are so selectively picking and choosing what they want to release on this subject. 2. The actions of GWB and Cheney and Company did keep America safe for 7 years after 9/11, no conclusion is even necessary. Why you feel the need to superimpose "torture" as the only measuring stick afa whether they protected us or not is beyond me. I sure that not all "torture" was productive but I trust those close to the situation to be capable of determining if it was worthwhile or not and they felt it was. Forgive for not giving your completely inexperienced opinion little if any weight here. Well, I did three years on contract supporting Asymmetrical Warfare out of Huntsville and spent a lot of time with majors, colonels, and generals. In all my reading and in all my conversations, I never encountered one military man who stated that torture helped intelligence gathering. In fact, when the Abu Gharib scandal broke, there were any number of people who said that the intelligence gathered from torture is dicey. What do rocket, air defense and acquisition guys know about asymmetrical warfare? Or "torture"? You spent all your time among the Army's nerds (God love 'em, but the fights they fight are not necessarily the fight that is being fought right now). Redstone is the LEAST Army post I've ever been on. The Abu Ghareb story was about humiliation....not torture for intel. Actually, this was Special Forces and Green Berets, with a few other Navy and Army guys thrown in to create a multi-branch approach--some of the tactics were used in Iraq during the surge, in fact. It just happened that the consulting firm was based out of Huntsville. Nice try, however.
  3. Hysterical. Gotta love the Brits.
  4. Heck, if things continue along this path (Thanks to W and O. The economic destruction of the country will be a partnership between the two), I'll probably be eyeing Australia or New Zealand as a place to put my money. Safe, strong economies where the rule of law still applies.
  5. I don't think so. Bham's mail is pretty good...usually next day if you mail by noon.
  6. Hmmmm. 1. This is just one article on the subject and is largely speculating on exactly what the report will say. It begins by saying there is no "proof" that "torture" prevented terrorist plots, yet when it quotes the report the quote says that it is hard to verify. It slants it in the direction it wants it to go. It is very interesting how obama and company are so selectively picking and choosing what they want to release on this subject. 2. The actions of GWB and Cheney and Company did keep America safe for 7 years after 9/11, no conclusion is even necessary. Why you feel the need to superimpose "torture" as the only measuring stick afa whether they protected us or not is beyond me. I sure that not all "torture" was productive but I trust those close to the situation to be capable of determining if it was worthwhile or not and they felt it was. Forgive for not giving your completely inexperienced opinion little if any weight here. Well, I did three years on contract supporting Asymmetrical Warfare out of Huntsville and spent a lot of time with majors, colonels, and generals. In all my reading and in all my conversations, I never encountered one military man who stated that torture helped intelligence gathering. In fact, when the Abu Gharib scandal broke, there were any number of people who said that the intelligence gathered from torture is dicey.
  7. Hahahah.... Here's an interesting bit for Victorian English history for you. During the pinnacle of the Victorian Era, there were up to 8 different mail deliveries per day in some parts of the country. So when you read of people talking about the "Morning Mail," "Afternoon Mail," and "Evening Mail," that's what they mean.
  8. My thoughts exactly and I have told their customer service reps the exact same thing. It costs them much more to pay somebody to handle my mailed payment then it does for me to do it online. I know our mortgage company is one of the "offenders". I also think it is either (or both) of our utilities that have toe be mailed in because of an online fee also. You know, if it's utilities, you should really write to your public service commissioner about that. Because you can make the case that being charged for an online payment is tantamount to a buried rate hike. As far as your mortgage company is concerned, that's the stupidest thing ever. I mean, our mortgage is automated draft. Who are the neanderthals that hold your note? Heck, I own a fee-based business, and I'm thinking of taking client payments via Pay Pal in exchange for a 5% discount. Forgive me for going on a rant, but I really hate inefficiencies like that. The CEOs of those organizations must have their heads up their asses.
  9. Yep. I open my mail over the recycling bin nowadays. What's more, as somebody who's heavily involved in marketing, direct mail is vanishing as a medium. Because I'm in a zip code with a very high average household income, my mailbox used to be flooded with circulars? Nowadays, 3-5 pieces of mail is the norm.
  10. You're right on Mormonism, but mistaken on the question of interracial marriages. You're thinking of the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act which became Federal Law in 1923. However, the miscegnation laws of various states in the 19th Century already stated that couples from different races could only marry with a license from the state.
  11. Add the fact that, at the beginning of 2008, 50% of all Americans polled vowed to never vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances, and I think McCain would have beaten her. Not handily, but without question. I'd like to see the citing for that. Just to show you that I don't make this stuff up, here are two representative samples: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSydEN...qzyhsNLwa_rpJWg http://townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambr...ostility_factor
  12. See, there it is again. The government telling you how to live your life, the same as in the marriage thread. And based on what authority? The authority that it has granted itself. Personally, I play maybe one or two games of Texas Hold'em a year with friends. Once, I was in Vegas on business, and won $16 in a video poker game while waiting on a client in the lobby of the hotel. That's it. I just work way too hard for my money to blow it, and really don't understand people who do. That being said, once again, it's JUST NOT MY BUSINESS, just the same as if you want to smoke pot, do lines of cocaine, drink as an adult, watch porn or have a homosexual marriage. The government should not step into the way if you elect to do these things. On the other hand, don't go running to the government if you become an alcoholic, a drug addict, or whatever else because of the consequences of your behavior.
  13. Similar to how you thought McCain would defeat Obama? I remember you thinking that McCain would win back in the summer. I'm really not trying to be confrontational, I just have to highlight that because I disagree with your latest statement. Hillary wouldn't have won Indiana or North Carolina like Barack, but she would have would have gotten to the magic 270. This is a difference in opinion that will go unsettled, though. She wasn't on the ballot in 2008 and never will be. You're absolutely right to point that out. In 2008, I did indeed predict that McCain would beat Obama. And that was a prediction I held with right up to the entire Wall Street meltdown in late September and early October. At the time, Obama was able to make political hay because he managed to cast himself as the ultimate political outsider, something that Hillary Clinton would have never been able to do. Even then, it was only a 7% spread during an economic tumult and with a very compelling personal storyline, not equivalent to the pastings that Reagan handed Carter in 1980 or Mondale in 1984. Meanwhile Clinton, unlike Obama, was a thoroughly establishment figure, and one with considerable baggage. Add the fact that, at the beginning of 2008, 50% of all Americans polled vowed to never vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances, and I think McCain would have beaten her. Not handily, but without question.
  14. Ah, but there's the rub. Why is government in the business or legitimizing marriages in the first place? After all, the government didn't even get into the marriage biz until the 1870s, and only then to ensure that whites and blacks did not marry. Yet today, we now look to the government as the arbiter of who is married and who is not. And, of course, now that we've invited wholesale government involvement in people's lives through various public assistance, the government gets to determine who is married and who is not married. See how this all descends into madness?
  15. Sure it is. Because all those things you cite are all consequences of the government's extensive involvement into our private lives. The only true concern that you offer is the division of property after one's death. However, if we have the simple legal recognition of a permanent relationship, then even that can be dispensed with easily. And, of course, people entering into those relationships can always have a simple will drawn up. I mean, you can get the software for about thirty bucks nowadays. Now, mind you, my vision of government is pretty simple: Build the roads, protect the shores, enforce contracts, resolve disputes, protect the safety, civil rights and property rights of all people, and protect the environment. When government gets involved in more arenas than that, things naturally spiral out of control.