Valsuelm

Sadly, it looks like Bob is on his way out.

You really need to ask, after people have already called you out for it? Try calling spades spades Bruce. 'Enhanced/Advanced Interrogation Techniques' - ambiguous terminology to disguise the fact that torture is used. vs. Torture - descriptive term telling us what was done. Doublespeak if there ever was any. Nah, we will have to agree to disagree This isn't something to disagree about any more than the sun being the primary source of heat on earth is something to disagree about. As I've said before. You should get a job at a ministry of propaganda, if you don't already have one. You're a natural.

You really need to ask, after people have already called you out for it? Try calling spades spades Bruce. 'Enhanced/Advanced Interrogation Techniques' - ambiguous terminology to disguise the fact that torture is used. vs. Torture - descriptive term telling us what was done. Doublespeak if there ever was any.

Well yea. Local guys generally get it right more often. Thing is, is that the local guys very often follow the lead of the national guys and the local guys rarely if ever drive a weather story at a national level, if there are still local guys at all that is. A lot of local weatherman have been put out of work all over in the last decade or so with the cannibalizing of many a small local TV station by large media companies. We have at least two less local weather folks than we did ten years ago where I live due to such things. Insofar as my complaint about the weather folks getting the current conditions wrong. It's not a matter of a few degrees of temp I was referring to, but something much more drastic such as the national services (The Weather Channel, Accuweather, et al) saying it's raining heavily right now when it's been a beautiful sunny day all day long with not a rain cloud in the sky and with the radar not even showing any rain within 100 miles in the last 24 hours, or the opposite scenario.

Yea... lost on you they apparently were, as they were not exactly about life under communism. They most certainly reflect life in western society, as well as eastern, and all other modern societies. You're guilty of doublespeak in this very thread. Here's a decent documentary discussing some Orwellian aspects of modern media in the U.S.. It's a bit bias in some senses (very critical of republicans/conservatives but fails to levy the same deserved criticism against democrats) , but it's still very much worth a watch as there's info in it you won't find discussed in many other places. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvgnkNuTpXk

Every time I hear they are remaking Ben Hur I just cringe. You know they are going to screw that up. I don't think that Hollywood is capable of that kind of quality in a movie anymore. Looking at who is involved in it, my best guess is that it's being produced by some Christians that want to bring the story to a newer generation. I can appreciate that, however, I'd much rather they invest trying to convince MGM to widely re-release the 1959 version. The casting is meh, and of course there is no way they are going to beat the infamous chariot race scene. I more than likely won't ever watch it, but I certainly hope they do a better job with that remake than Ridley Scott did with Gods and Kings. Casting two prima donnas and an aged Weaver in the roles Heston and Brynner owned and Baxter shined beautifully in, just fail.

/puke

Ridley Scott made two great movies. Alien and Blade Runner. He made a few better than average movies, and a number of mediocre to bad ones. Him directing is definitely not a selling point to a movie for me at this point. Kingdom of Heaven was ok imo. Nothing great. Certainly one of the better of it's genre in the last 20 years (but that isn't saying much). I wonder if people who've seen it that think it's amazing have seen movies like Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, or Spartacus.

Well, the basic mistake you're committing here is a/ assuming that most people who were interrogated were "religious zealots who truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven", which is far from the truth - 26 of the 119 people (over 20%!) detained did not meet the most basic standards for detention, and this is "a conservative calculation [that] does not include individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to 'pose a continuing threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests' or to be 'planning terrorist activities'", according to the report we got, and b/ thinking of them as this terrifying other who became irrevocably corrupted, instead of being... y'know, regular people who had such a shortage of opportunities that signing up with terrorists sounded like their best option. Hate groups tend to attract desperate people, and - while I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I'm fairly sure that treating that underlying problem also severs many of the ties responsible for the person's loyalty to the organization. Its an interesting perspective to suggest that the AIT EIT were done to people who weren't actively involved in Al-Qaeda or had a direct relationship to Bin Laden The usage of AIT under these conditions would have made it even more unpalatable. But I would need to read some credible links to believe this, if you can post some I would find it pertinent ? For one example, look up the plight of the Uyghurs who were kept and are being kept at Guantanamo. I think much of those books was lost on you if you think 1984 is 'a false prediction that never occurred', and 'The West isn't like the pigs, you can't seriously compare Western actions to the horrific deeds of Al-Qaeda? ' As for how would I get vital information? Well, that really depends on the situation, the information that needs to be acquired, and who has it (do they even have it?). About the absolute last thing I'd do is put a person I want information from in a situation where they have nothing left to lose, like most of those who have been kept at Guantanamo Bay.

Oh Orwell. 'Advanced Interrogation techniques' There's really nothing advanced about torturing someone. In fact it's a sub 100 IQ level approach to a situation. Either that or just some evil sickos getting their evil on. Real advanced techniques would involve coercion akin to what Hanns Scharff became famous for. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Do us all a favor Bruce and please go read 'A Brave New World', '1984', and 'Animal Farm'.

Predictions are probabilistic and therefore sometimes inaccurate-- we should stop predicting!! No. Go ahead and predict. Just don't listen to people who sensationalize, exaggerate, repeatedly stir up hysteria multiple times a year based on poop, make money doing so, and get it wrong most of the time. I have more faith in the Farmer's Almanac or Madam Zelda to get it right with her crystal ball than the major weather services here in the US. An experienced eye can more accurately predict the weather based on seeing the radar map, temp map, air pressure map, and sometimes even just looking at the sky or smelling the air, than the mainstream media weather people can. I say that because they do get the the current conditions wrong at least a few times a year where I live (I only check the weather about once a week on average, so it's probably more than a few). If you can't even tell me what it's doing outside right now, why on earth should I give you even a smidgeon of credence in telling me what's going to happen tomorrow. Your average weatherman shouldn't have any more credibility than your average politician. It's another 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.' situation.

No. In fact it's turned out to be a bad joke. http://nypost.com/2015/01/27/national-weather-service-meteorologist-sorry-about-getting-that-blizzard-thing-wrong/ http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2015/01/27/storm-fails-to-live-up-to-predictions-in-some-areas/ http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2015/01/27/social-media-calling-blizzard-of-2015-a-bust/ http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/live-video/watch-live-new-york-city-snow-cam-322484291648 Why people listen to the weather people much at all is beyond me. I've seen them get the current conditions drastically wrong, let alone what's going to happen tomorrow or a week from now.

There's been about a couple of 'the worst storms the USA east coast has ever seen.' every year for the last few years. It's total BS really. A couple of feet of snow is generally not that big a deal in the northeast. It's not exactly unusual in most places northeast of Maryland. Yay for skiers. The hysteria in the media and governmental decrees of insanity that seem to occur more and more these last few years never really happened a decade or more ago. It's pretty ridiculous really that a winter storm here is making international news. And really, it's not that exceptional a storm. The last really bad winter storm I recall happening was in late December of 2000. That was a massive ice storm that encapsulated states from Oklahoma to New England in ice, and shut things down all over (as it brought power lines down all over). I was actually driving cross country at the time as saw some pretty wild stuff (note they never actually closed the roads back then for any great length of time, if at all; that's a relatively new and disgusting imo phenomenon).

He's been on my list in that regard since the mid 90s.

So being angry and scared justifies evil acts? I've little doubt that some of the people you think are the 'bad guys' are angry and scared. How come their evil deeds aren't justified this way. And the CIA does not have keeping the USA safe as it's priority.... it works for the international bankers (aka 'Wall Street), not for the people of the USA.

Since we've taken that turn. (warning: somewhat explicit lyrics)

Does it make you uncomfortable to call a spade a spade? If you're well grounded in reality, It shouldn't. Efforts to call a spade other than what it is, are efforts at deception and evil in nature.

Where does one get trained to torture people? Didn't realize there was a school for that.

I'm unaware of any site you have to register at. Try this: http://riftworldchronicles.com/movie.mp4

The Portal A short entertaining film (only ~12 mins long). I enjoyed it, recommend it, and wish it was longer.

Well, the last election wasn't a Presidential election. I only voted for local folks as there was nothing national on the ballot in New York, nor will there be this next election. The previous Presidential election, I wrote in Ron Paul. I'm not too keen on Johnson. He's a helluva a lot better than any of the majors I'll give you that, but he's still kind of a slimy politician, and he's naive on monetary policy and international affairs. I actually liked him for a long while, but after he became a Presidential candidate I looked into him a bit more and didn't like what I found, so he didn't deserve my vote. A vote 'against' any candidate by voting for the major party alternative is worse than not voting, voting for someone you believe in that's very unlikely to win, or writing someone in (what I usually do, since the big parties have made sure there's no 'none of the above' option in mine and most states). And this is unfortunately the trap that so many (probably the majority of voters) fall into. I know more people who voted against Bush than voted for Kerry (and vice versa), voted against Obama than voted for Romney (and vice versa), voted against McCain than voted for Obama (and vice versa), etc, and I'll wager that most of the people here that live in the U.S. can say the same. I was guilty of doing this when I was much younger as well, but then I realized all the problems with it. Here's a few: - You legitimize the two party system, basically perpetuating it's solid grip on U.S. politics - Whoever you vote for is going to use your vote to say 'I have the backing of the American people on this' (this being X (usually some hellish thing you wouldn't actually support if asked)). And a lot of other people are going to believe him, because he can point to getting X number of people's votes that all said they wanted him to be President. - By not voting for who you actually want, even though they are unlikely to win, you're perpetuating the inability of candidates outside of the two party system that you actually like to win. I'm gonna stop here, because really, I could spend a few hours writing on all the things wrong with voting for 'the lesser of two evils'. But I'll sum it up this way: For at least the last three U.S. Presidential elections the two major choices could be likened to this: You've got two daughters, you love them both. There's a well dressed guy with a gun to one's head, and an equally well dressed guy with a knife to the others throat. The evil men in nice suits tell you to choose. Which evil do you choose? Which is lesser? The answer is you choose none of the above and find another way. And that's pretty much the difference between the major Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates (and very often Congress and the Senate too, but that varies) these last few elections. The only real difference is the flavor/color/sound/etc of the absolute BS train to hell they're offering. Unfortunately, of the Americans who actually vote (which is a minority of Americans), too many have been duped into thinking that one major party is actually better than the other. On all the major issues they are the same. They both support the wars, they both pander to the banks, they both have been hijacked by internationalists, they both put the people who bought and paid for them above their actual job, they both piss and poop all over the Constitution, they both want to rob you of your hard earned money and spend it on all sorts of things you couldn't find a single American out there with a smidgeon of brain that would support even half of it, they both lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie, all the damn time, and so on. So don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Please. You're just perpetuating the BS if you do. If you want actual meaningful change (not the superficial crap 'change' Obama was peddling), vote for who you believe in, whether it's Gary Johnson or someone else. If there is no such person, write someone in (real, or as a protest vote as I do). If everyone did that, the Democrats and Republicans would become as the Whigs within a decade. If not enough people do that, we're just going to get more of the same as we've been getting.

But on a serious note if you don't vote for Republicans, and I know you won't vote for Democrats, then who would you vote for? This last election, I wrote in Micky Mouse, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam (for Sheriff), Goofy, and Bugs Bunny. I had considered Marvin the Martian but he didn't meet the residency requirements. It's too early to tell for certain, but right now it's looking like I'll be voting for them again next election. " Mickey Mouse " Typos happen. And 'Micky' wasn't auto-corrected. Thanks. No I didn't mean your incorrect spelling, I never correct spelling or grammar because my own grammar is atrocious. I just found it funny that you pretended to vote for Disney characters I didn't pretend. I actually voted for them. And that wasn't the first time. Truth be told I prefer Warner Bros' characters to Disney's, however Goofy is just too apt a character to serve in office, and there is no more iconic cartoon character than Mickey.

But on a serious note if you don't vote for Republicans, and I know you won't vote for Democrats, then who would you vote for? This last election, I wrote in Micky Mouse, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam (for Sheriff), Goofy, and Bugs Bunny. I had considered Marvin the Martian but he didn't meet the residency requirements. It's too early to tell for certain, but right now it's looking like I'll be voting for them again next election. " Mickey Mouse " Typos happen. And 'Micky' wasn't auto-corrected. Thanks.

But on a serious note if you don't vote for Republicans, and I know you won't vote for Democrats, then who would you vote for? This last election, I wrote in Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam (for Sheriff), Goofy, and Bugs Bunny. I had considered Marvin the Martian but he didn't meet the residency requirements. It's too early to tell for certain, but right now it's looking like I'll be voting for them again next election.