Not to speak for LWM. He's pretty good at that himself, but it's fair to say you aren't worth a bucket of warm spit to waste pixels on with that stupid illogical statement. Oh, I'm sorry "thesis" you called it.

If my statement is so "stupid" and "illogical" then I'm sure you can provide a comprehensive list of the many federal level liberal politicians who have taken the position that the War On (some) Drugs should be ended.

Do that and I will happily admit I'm wrong and apologize.

Here from the cheap seats, he never called you a liar. He implied that something about your posts "just weren't right ..." And he's not the only one, hence my retort.

He did indeed strongly imply that I'm a liar.

Just one minor data point:

Fifty-percent of voters does not equal half the country.

So you wish to claim that voters are not representative of the population as a whole politically?

If indeed you wish to claim that there are far more liberals than conservatives in the US then that would imply that liberals are far less likely to exercise their right to vote than are conservatives.

Substantive? Dude/Dudette, you really need to learn how-to communicate via the written word. Maybe then, just maybe, you might write something of a substantial nature. Until then, you merely come off as a effing buffoon.

Those who cannot communicate without resorting to cheap, grammar school insults are the buffoons.

A propagandist is someone who knowingly and intentionally disseminates false information.

LOL, perhaps you ought to look it up, not I.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=propaganda

(n) propaganda (information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause)

Silence is the tacit nod of defeat.

How long until Leahy caves on his "I won't vote for Mukasey until he admits waterboarding is torture" position? Anyone?

Umm.. Is there anything shorter than an attosecond?

it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture

If Hillary is the nominee then I think there is a good chance that the Republicans might indeed get 51% of the vote.

And no one has yet supplied that comprehensive list of the liberal federal level politicians who support ending the War On (some) Drugs.

That's all you have to do to get me to admit that I'm completely in error and abjectly apologize.

it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture

Perhaps someone could point out what details I'm leaving out.

All you have to do to get me to admit that I'm totally wrong and abjectly apologize is to provide the comprehensive list of federal level liberal politicians who are in favor of ending the War On (some) Drugs.

Provide a comprehensive list of the liberal politicians at *any* level of government who are in favor of ending the drug war.

It couldn't get any easier than that.

Liberals are so in favor of personal freedom, right?

Also, given that the great majority of arrests and imprisonments in the drug war are for cannabis, I would like to hear a rational argument why cannabis should be illegal.

What does your link have to do with ending the drug war?

Ending raids on marijuana dispensaries != ending the drug war.

Please provide a rational explanation of why human beings should be put in cages for consuming or possessing cannabis.

If you cannot do that then all these liberal politicians who are so in favor of personal liberties are basing their positions on the drug war on sheerest fantasy.

What a surprise.

The problem, Aycharaych, is that, at least as far as I can guess from your numerous letters on the subject, you could give a rat's ass about the plight of people in prison.

I have a loved one doing hard time for drug possession.

That's the primary reason for my obsession.

There goes your mind reading shtick.

"Drug courts" != ending the drug war.

And the abuses in prisons are not generally for the purposes of coercing information, which is part of the definition of torture.

Really?

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=torture

# S: (n) anguish, torment, torture (extreme mental distress)

# S: (n) torture, torment (unbearable physical pain)

# S: (n) agony, torment, torture (intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain) "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"

# S: (n) distortion, overrefinement, straining, torture, twisting (the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean)

# S: (n) torture, torturing (the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason) "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"

That is *one* of the definitions of torture.

Do you wish to argue that *all* torture is inflicted for the purpose of extracting information?

But since we know that torture is not effective in extracting useful information then the use of torture is really to instill fear.

I know good and damn well that the drug war is never likely to end, so my postings on here do not have the purpose of "making it possible for me to smoke pot legally.

All I'm really trying to do is to point out that liberals talk a good game about "individual freedoms" but when push comes to shove they don't give a rat's ass about true freedom.

If we do not have the freedom to do as we wish with our own bodies then how can we be said to even have ownership of our bodies..

Isn't control over our own bodies what the abortion issue is all about?

And in the abortion issue there is also the fact that another at least potential life is at stake. Not so with the drug war.

Prohibition of mind altering substances causes more problems in society than it solves.

Agree or disagree?