Wow there's a shocker - a company that's bleeding money doesn't get fixed by throwing more money at it's problems.

It's like putting a bandaid on a giant gash. Really not going to help.

GM
- Government Money
- Got Money?
- Gimme More!
- Gross Mismanagement

This just shows how sophomoric he is. Either we use waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation -- methods the US has classified as torture for decades -- or we " just bring them a birthday cake and ask them what soccer match they'd like to see". That questions is stupid and ignorant, I don't know where to begin.

Memo to torture advocates: read the army field manual on interrogation technique. Then read about the interrogation that lead to the death of the leader of AQI. It does not use torture, but "ego up" and resulted in a dead terrorist leader.

Jeez, what is wrong with these people?

Yeah, let's sue OPEC for antitrust and have the 1970s with oil embargoes and gas lines all over again...

I can't believe how omnipotent some of these politicians think they are...

BTW: The captcha had me enter three K's in a row. I'm offended.

So Freeland calls Scarborough "sophomoric", and then we she explains why torture provides unreliable information he just keeps screaming "YES OR NO, YES OR NO, YES OR NO?!". This is the problem with this sort of discourse, people for some reason have forgotten that the world is not black-and-white, yes-or-no in the vast majority of cases. Scarborough does raise a very valid point, in that answers gotten through torture are unreliable answers because people will say anything to make it stop. This is why torture was abandoned as a method of interrogation for law enforcement in the United States. Moving it off US soil and doing it to people you've called terrorists doesn't make it any less wrong, or any less unreliable.

And what happens if the person you're torturing honestly doesn't know, or is innocent? Neal brought this up yesterday with the "would you torture someone to save your kid" dilemma. Yes, most sensible people would -- but what happens if it doesn't work? What happens if you have an innocent person on your hands that you're torturing? Do you just say "oops, sorry about that buddy" like our government does?

Especially considering that 'terrorists' aren't given trials and don't even have to have any proof brought against them, allowing torturous interrogation methods is a dangerous abuse of human rights. There are people in the intelligence community that have been quite successful getting information from terrorists without resorting to torture, by using proper interrogation techniques. When you have to resort to inflicting fear and pain to accomplish your goal, you are at the same level as the 'terrorists' you are supposedly fighting.

I don't see how OPEC is subject to US anti-trust law. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC and scroll down to a list of member nations. Hmmmm, the US is strangely not there. I am all up for cheap gas but I don't see how we can prosecute another nation under US law if they are not subject to US law.