Jul 162014
 July 16, 2014

marijuana cash industry bankingIn a historic vote today the U.S. House passed a bipartisan amendment by Representatives Heck (D-WA), Perlmutter (D-CO), Lee (D-CA) and Rohrabacher (R-CA) preventing the Treasury Department from spending any funding to penalize financial institutions that provide services to marijuana businesses that are legal under state law. The amendment passed 231 to 192.

In May, the House passed an amendment prohibiting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from undermining state medical marijuana laws and passed two amendments prohibiting the DEA from interfering with state hemp laws.

“Congress is yet again rejecting the failed war on marijuana,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “They have read the poll numbers and are doing both what is right and what is politically smart.”

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that nearly three-in-four Americans (72 percent) believe that efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth, including 78 percent of Independents, 71 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Republicans. There is strong support for state medical marijuana programs, with 80 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Independents, and 61 percent of Republicans supporting the sale and use of medical marijuana in their state. A majority of Americans support taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have laws that legalize and regulate marijuana for medicinal purposes.  Eleven states have laws on the books or about to be signed into law by their governors regulating CBD oils, a non-psychotropic component of medical marijuana which some parents are utilizing to treat their children’s seizures. Two states have legalized marijuana like alcohol – Colorado and Washington State. Alaska and Oregon voters will vote on legalizing marijuana in November.

The underlying spending bill that the Heck marijuana amendment was attached to also contains a an amendment, added in committee by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), that would block Washington, D.C. from carrying out any law, rule or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce criminal penalties for marijuana.  That amendment was originally directed at blocking implementation of a recent law the District of Columbia passed replacing jail time for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use with a small fine.

D.C.’s marijuana decrim law, however, takes effect at midnight tonight, long before the Harris Amendment would take effect. It’s also likely that the Harris Amendment will not pass the Senate, where the appropriations process has ground to a halt. President Obama has also threatened to veto the underlying bill.

In a Statement of Administration Policy the White House declared:

“Similarly, the Administration strongly opposes the language in the bill preventing the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally- passed marijuana policies, which again undermines the principles of States’ rights and of District home rule. Furthermore, the language poses legal challenges to the Metropolitan Police Department’s enforcement of all marijuana laws currently in force in the District.”

Advocates warn that if the Harris amendment does make it into law this year it could block implementation of Initiative 71 by local officials, should D.C. voters pass it this November, and block efforts by local lawmakers to tax and regulate adult marijuana sales.  If passed by D.C. voters, Initiative 71 would allow adults over the age of 21 to possess up to two ounces of marijuana on their person at any time, and allow for the cultivation of up to six marijuana plants at home. District law prevents the ballot initiative from addressing the sale of marijuana. However, the D.C. Council is currently considering a bill that will tax and regulate marijuana within the District.

The District of Columbia has the highest per capita marijuana arrest rates in the U.S.  In 2010 African Americans in the District accounted for 91 percent of all marijuana arrests – even though African American and white residents use marijuana at roughly similar rates.

“That Congressman Harris would try to kill D.C.’s efforts to stop arresting people for marijuana possession is beyond disturbing,” said Dr. Malik Burnett, D.C. policy manager with the Drug Policy Alliance. “His amendment is an affront to the District’s right to home rule, while ensuring that thousands of District residents continue to be arrested and suffer the collateral consequences associated with a criminal record. Congress should be following D.C.’s example and end racist marijuana arrest policies, instead of defying the will of the people and reversing their decision.”

Source: Drug Policy Alliancemake a donation

Comments

comments

About Johnny Green

Dissenting opinions are welcome, insults and personal attacks are discouraged and hate speech will not be tolerated. Spammers and people trying to buy or sell cannabis or any drugs will be banned. Read our comment policy and FAQ for more information

  114 Responses to “US House Votes To Allow Banks To Accept Deposits From Marijuana Businesses”

  1.  

    I’ve been saying on here for a long time now that the differences in Republicans and Democrats on this issue is nil. This proves me right

    •  

      When it comes to elected officials, you’ve been wrong. On the last vote (to leave medicinal pot alone), 91% if Democrats voted for it, only 22% of Republicans did. On this vote, even worse: 94% of Democrats for it, only 20% of Republicans did. If you want to relax pot laws, don’t vote for Republicans.

      •  

        Scott you are absolutely right. What I tell people is I never vote for a particular party saying that I have almost always voted demacrat.

        •  

          I sometimes vote green in more local elections if that doesn’t mean the Democrat loses. But where I live now I hardly ever even have a Democrat to vote for.

          But I often chide Glibertarians about not voting for Democrats when they agree on so much… Like, 70% of Democrats voted not to renew the patriot act, only 14% of Republicans did….

          •  

            Scott, I get what you’re TRYING to say, and there is something to be said about looking at certain votes to track how the two major parties are trending, but you’ve given Jetdoc an unfair and potentially DANGEROUS false forced-choice by saying “You want to end the drug war? Vote for progressives.” That’s a terrible idea.

            Yes, you’re absolutely correct about the numbers and yes, he could have googled for them. Something you’ve fundamentally failed to grasp, however — those numbers really shouldn’t affect how Jetdoc votes when electing his Congressman. The reason is that we’re a *representative* government. Individually, each of us only voted to elect ONE person in the House.

            Honestly, I don’t care about the national trends nearly as much as I care how **MY** Congressman voted, because that is the only pragmatically relevant detail.

            The false-choice you think you’ve cornered Jetdoc with is little more than a perpetuation of the same old “sheople” political game, but with the colors reversed from red to blue. What you’re endorsing is “Vote progressive, because there’s a 94% chance yours is one of the good ones on this, specific issue.” Casting your votes for individual representatives based on national trends is why the incumbant re-election rates are always around 90% — everyone (yourself, especially) defaults to blaming the OTHER party for why nothing ever changes and why nothing ever gets done. It’s narcissistic to believe that others are always to blame.

            Given how easily you prescribed “maybes” to Jetdoc, I’m going to say MAYBE you didn’t even bother to check how your representative voted, given how you just suggested voting for anyone with a “D” next to their name.

            Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC Chair, did not vote aye for this amendment. Nor did she vote aye for the amendment that would defund DEA operations in states with reformed cannabis laws, either. So clearly, your “always vote D to change cannabis laws” is not universalizable, at all, especially when a member of the 6% of Democrats is the CHAIR of the Democratic National Convention. I’ll let you in on a secret — my representative is Paul Broun (perhaps you heard of the “evolution is a lie from the pit of hell” guy). Paul Broun voted aye on both of these amendments, along with the 94% of Democrats you’ve prepped for sainthood, but I would never vote for him — because of HIM, not his party.

            You’ve dim-wittedly contributed to the systematic failure of what’s supposed to be a representative government with your blanket endorsement of “progressives.” That’s why nothing ever changes. But I won’t be so arrogant as to demand an apology for it. I’ll simply point out the irony of you suggesting someone *ELSE* should go back to civics class.

          •  

            “Scott, I get what you’re TRYING to say”

            I said what I was trying to say.

            “”You want to end the drug war? Vote for progressives.” That’s a terrible idea.”

            Why? Because you’re a Republican? How is it a terrible idea? Show me the members of the congressional progressive caucus who voted against weed and I’ll try to get some folks I know to put some pressure on them. So, go ahead. Find me a progressive who wants to continue the drug war.

            “those numbers really shouldn’t affect how Jetdoc votes when electing his Congressman”

            He says he votes because of personal liberty. OK… 70% of Democrats voted against renewing the Patriot Act, 14% of Republicans did. So, there’s a damn good chance he voted for a Republican who didn’t vote for personal liberty on that issue. 22% of Republicans voted to keep the DEA out of medicinal programs. So, there’s a damn good chance he voted for someone who wants the DEA to keep busting medicinal programs. 20% of Republicans voted to keep punishing banks that do business with pot shops. So, there’s a damn good chance he voted against personal liberty on that issue. I could go on…

            “The reason is that we’re a *representative* government. Individually, each of us only voted to elect ONE person in the House.”

            As I said in my reply that wasn’t allowed to go up, and in the one from today that’s pending, this is an extremely simplistic view of the process. Our speech can influence other voters in other districts, and our money can influence those other races as well.

            ” I don’t care about the national trends nearly as much as I care how **MY** Congressman voted, because that is the only pragmatically relevant detail.”

            You really couldn’t be more wrong. Speech and money can influence races in districts and states besides your own. Isn’t that kind of the whole point of a blog like this one?

            “The false-choice you think you’ve cornered Jetdoc with is little more than a perpetuation of the same old “sheople” political game”

            I get it. You’re a glibertarian, well versed in their cliches.

            “Voting by national trends is why the congressional re-election rates are always around 90%”

            Wrong again. The main reason incumbents get elected is gerrymandering. Read Sam Wang’s excellent blog for more on that.

            “everyone (yourself, especially) defaults to blaming the OTHER party for why nothing ever changes and why nothing ever gets done. ”

            Again, I know you’re probably required under some kind of contract to repeat glibertarian talking points, but you’re wrong. The reason nothing is getting done right now is GOP obstruction, especially in the Senate. In the comment that was not allowed to get through, I explained that quite well. Record numbers of fillibusters by the GOP in the Senate. Unprecedented. Show me where the Democrats have done anything like that. They haven’t. THey’ve been willing to compromise on almost everything, and the GOP hasn’t. This is such a basic fact that I’m quite surprised at the ignorance, bordering on willful ignorance, surrounding it. Hell, the GOP won’t even vote to fix our infrastrucutre. There are bipartisan bills languishing on the hill right now that would put money into our neglected infrastrucure (we could really use that $2 trillion the GOP Sheeple blew in Iraq right now). I wonder… if terrorists were killing as many Americans as our crumbling infrastructure, how much would the GOP borrow and spend to invade the wrong country?

            “Given how easily you prescribed “maybes” to Jetdoc”

            What maybes? The guy’s as easy to read as the voting results on this amendment. And he came right out and told me he’s a Republican, an INSIDER no less, and then he says he’s really a libertarian and I don’t know how he votes. This is hilarious. He tells me he’s a Republican, but somehow I ASSUMED who he voted for. No I didn’t. He TOLD ME.

            ” I’m going to say MAYBE you didn’t even bother to check how your representative voted”

            And you’d be wrong. It’s the first thing I did. He’s one of the 20% of Republicans who voted for it. I’ll still be voting against him for a Progressive running against him because the progressive would have voted the same way on this, and also represents my position on many other issues, like war and infrastructure and the Patriot Act… etc.

            “Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC Chair, did not vote aye for this amendment.”

            As I said in the pending comment above, she is not a progressive, and the Republicans running against her would most likely have voted the wrong way as well. However, if I lived in her district, I would vote for a more progressive candidate in a primary against her, and as I said above, I would even vote for the Republican if he or she were pro-choice, anti-war, anti-patriot act, pro-infrastructure spending… Problem with that is that no such creature exists.

            “So clearly, your “always vote D to change cannabis laws” is not universalizable”

            I didn’t say it was. I simply said that going by the numbers YOU HAVE A MUCH BETTER CHANCE of getting pro-personal liberty votes from progressives than you do from Republicans. This is such a basic truth that I think it’s quite a tell for anyone to try to argue the point.

            “Democratic National Convention”

            No, DNC stands for Democratic National Committee. And her job as the chair is to get more Democrats elected. You know, the party 94% of which just voted the right way, while the other party only had 20% vote the right way.

            Basic math.

            “You’ve dim-wittedly contributed to the systematic failure of what’s supposed to be a representative government ”

            And, as I’ve just shown, and as will hopefully make it past a censor that apparently disagrees with me, you’re wrong. And you threw in an insult to boot!

            “But I won’t be so arrogant as to demand an apology for it.”

            I should ask for an apology from you for your insult, and for being so wrong about everything I said. But, again, you’ve given plenty of tells about where you stand. Obviously you don’t like the DNC chair, or Democrats in general. I wonder if you have equal amounts of vitriol for the market rigging, upwardly redistributing, warmongering, torturing, immigrant bashing, Patriot Act loving large majorities of the GOP.

          •  

            *sigh* Another gish gallop from a Democrat lap dog. I’m an independent, not a Libertarian or a Republican or a Democrat. I’m so very sorry that your wounded pride got in the way of my message.

            My message was that voting party, no matter what, is stupid. And did you not say precisely these words? “You want to end the drug war? Vote for progressives. Otherwise, don’t blow smoke up my ass.” — Obviously, you’re familiar how cut’n’paste works, as that’s the only way you’re capable of having a conversation (by bullet-point, how sad). I pointed out how the generalization you’ve made here CANNOT be universally applied, and thus, not a good generalization — nothing more.

            You assumed that everyone who wants legal cannabis is an easy sell for Democrats because of these House votes, eh? Do I really need to explain how the ONDCP is under direct executive control, and that the Obama Administration has done, precisely, NOTHING in terms of ending the drug war (other than doubling down on it — there were more SWAT raids on cannabis dispensaries during Obama’s first term than there were during GWB’s two terms, combined).

            Oh, and the Controlled Substances Act, according to Section 812, says that both the Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS can remove cannabis from the federal scheduling system. Both of those are cabinet positions, appointed by the President, a Democrat, right? I suppose you’re going to tell me Obama isn’t a progressive, either (I’m still trying to wrap my head around how you denounced the DNC Chair as “not progressive” while blanket endorsing progressives in the same thread — that’s just, WOW). But then I’m going to tell you about another “progressive” who did something else that wasn’t part of your rosey image of the DNC, and then you’ll tell me why they’re not a progressive, either. Then we’ll talk about yet another one. Then another. Maybe after the 20th “progressive” you’ll figure out, once and for all, what I was trying to tell you in my FIRST reply. Voting by party is always stupid.

            Have you noticed how I don’t cut and paste things, context-free, to discuss in a vaccuum? It’s because I acknowledge things don’t happen in one. It’s also why your gish gallops are pointless. I can and will play this game longer than you.

            Learn how to have an actual discussion, stop using the internet as just an outlet for your wounded pride. And definitely don’t recommend that other people should go back to civics class when yours, obviously, did not cover the fact that the founding fathers never envisioned a two-party system — ever. Or perhaps you were just sick that day, huh?

          •  

            Cut & Paste gives him the opportunity to be SELECTIVE with what he attempts to use as well as changing the meaning of the quote to what HE wants it to be.

          •  

            Cut and pasting your comments gives me a chance to reply to exactly what you said. And I directly quoted you and wowFAD. I didn’t change a thing. In fact, I like doing it my way because I know I’m not misquoting. I’m directly quoting.

            But, please, show me an example of how I twisted what you meant. I’ll try to correct it.

          •  

            Everything’s Unicorns, Cotton Candy and Fairy Farts

          •  

            Bull. I replied to your crap. For some reason, it wasn’t posted. I guess you have a moderator who’s your friend here.

          •  

            Don’t FLATTER yourself. You don’t honestly think that ANY ONE of us matter here? Especially when THEY get millions of hits here daily! When you’re speaking on a “Privately owned” *OH GASP* (there’s that word Progressives HATE) your First Amendment rights go ONLY as far as “Jay Smoker” DECIDES it goes.

            If YOU think you’re the ONLY one that has had posts removed or not published you’re pretty arrogant eh? It’s happened to me as well. The difference is… I’m not ARROGANT enough to think that there’s a CONSPIRACY to censor what I say. I just chalk it up to the FACT that MAYBE just MAYBE I violated the TOS Agreement that I checked when I signed up here. I DON’T go and blame others… (another great Progressive trait)

            Then it was a downright INSULT to the mods of this forum, as well as the owners when you decided to accuse them of favoritism. You really need to grow up bud… You are NOT doing yourself or your cause any justice when you represent it like you are.

          •  

            I’m aware how moderation of blogs goes, dude. And I didn’t say anything about me being the only one who had a post not published. You just made that up so you could call me arrogant. And my comments about my post not being up, when other people’s had been, was not a conspiracy theory. It was a fact. My post had been held for over a day. Probably just because of length. As to my thinking maybe you had a friend, that’s not a real stretch either, since you’re apparently a long-time commenter here, and I’m not. But, after my complaining about it, my comment was posted, and I see you haven’t responded to it.

            Oh, right, you were going to ignore me.

            ” I DON’T go and blame others… (another great Progressive trait)”

            Another over generalization about an entire group of people.

            “when you decided to accuse them of favoritism”

            What I did was suggest that since you’ve been here a long time, your comments might get preference. And when my comments are not going up, while yours are, I would say it’s only natural to wonder why. Perhaps the moderator agrees with you? Perhaps not? Who knows? But it’s certainly not crazy to suspect that something was going on. If it was just an oversight, fine. I stand corrected.

            Now, are you going to get back to the point, or are you going back to ignoring me?

          •  

            Which is awfully arrogant of you!

          •  

            “Another gish gallop”

            Do you even know what a Gish Gallop is? Or did you just borrow the phrase from me? Are the moderator here?

            “Democrat lap dog”

            Heh. Funny. I vote the way my issues tell me to vote. As I said, show me a pro-choice antiwar pro-infrastructure pro-civil-liberties Republican running against a Democrat against all those things and I’ll vote for them.

            “I’m an independent, not a Libertarian or a Republican or a Democrat. ”

            So, for some reason, you occasionally vote for warmongers and torturers who refuse to spend on infrastructure, but will borrow and blow trillions on war? Bully!

            “I’m so very sorry that your wounded pride got in the way of my message.”

            I’m sorry your BS got in the way of your message. My pride is fine. Unless you’re the moderator here who decided not to publish my other reply to Jetdoc. Then I’m a bit pissed off at you.

            “My message was that voting party, no matter what, is stupid.”

            I heard you. And I told you that it just so happens that only one party ever agrees with me on most of my issues, and the other party is ALWAYS almost the complete opposite of what I want. Less war. Civil liberties. Infrastructure. Fair markets. The progressives are with me on every issue, so by YOUR LOGIC, I should vote for them.

            “”You want to end the drug war? Vote for progressives. Otherwise, don’t blow smoke up my ass.””

            Yep. I said it. And if you put it in context you will see that voting for progressives is your best chance to end the drug war. In fact, take my Republican rep who voted the right way on this one issue. I look at other votes of his, and he’s on the wrong side. SO, IN GENERAL, I have a much better chance of getting what I want in regards to the drug war if I vote for the progressive running against him, even though he did get THIS ONE vote right.

            “by bullet-point, how sad”

            Why is it sad to reply to precisely what someone said?

            “I pointed out how the g eneraliz ation you’ve made here CANNOT be universally applied,”

            And when you put my comment in context, you will see that I have also said it shouldn’t be universally applied. Each case is different. But please, show me where the pro-pot Republicans, if any of them can actually be said to be pro-pot, are running against an anti-pot Democrat.

            “not a good generalization”

            Unless you can find a pro pot Republican running against an anti pot Democrat then for this particular upcoming election, it’s a good generalization.But I’m willing to make exceptions if you can show me a case where it would be worth it.

            “You assumed that everyone who wants legal cannabis is an easy sell for Democrats because of these House votes, eh?”

            I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that people can do math. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that when looking at whom one should vote for, one should consider voting for the progressive. In MOST CASES, that would be the ONLY person one can vote for who is pro-pot. However, as I said, show me the exceptions.

            “Do I really need to explain how the ONDCP is under direct executive control, and that the Obama Administration has done, precisely, NOTHING in terms of ending the drug war ”

            Obama is not a progressive. In fact, if you read the Vote View blog, you’d see he’s actually the most moderate Democrat in a long time. He’s progressive on some issues, but decidedly authoritarian on many that matter to me. Not as authoritarian as Willard Romney or John McCain, but authoritarian none the less.

            And the Obama administration has worked hard to lower the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine. They have worked hard with some success at getting judges to drop the mandatory minimum sentences. They supported the past two house votes that were pro pot. They have stopped arresting patients like Bush did. They’ve done all kinds of things to dial back the severity of the drug war, which you’re apparently unaware of. Hell, Obama went further than any president ever recently when he said weed is obviously not worse than alcohol. Perhaps someday we’ll get a president who says the whole truth… that weed is no where near as bad as alcohol. But as long as people vote for hippie punching republicans, I won’t hold my breath.

            “more SWAT raids on cannabis dispensaries during Obama’s first term than there were during GWB’s two terms, combined”

            Jetdoc would rudely demand a link to such a claim, but, as I said, that was the first term when he was trying to get hippie punching republicans to vote for him for reelection. How’s it going this term?

            “Oh, and the Controlled Substances Act, according to Section 812, says that both the Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS can remove cannabis from the federal scheduling system. ”

            Yep. And I wish they would. But can you imagine the grief they would get from the GOP and even a handful of non-progressive Democrats?

            And do you think Willard Romney would have done it? Please.

            Now that public opinion has raced ahead of the politicians as it did on Gay Marriage (another reason I don’t vote for Republicans), maybe we can get a President elected who will drop weed from the Schedule 1 status. I doubt it. But I do know one thing. We have a better chance with a Democrat than we do with a Republican. I haven’t even heard Rand Paul say he’d drop it from Schedule one.

            “I’m still trying to wrap my head around how you denounced the DNC Chair as “not pro gressive ” while blanket endorsing progressives in the same thread — that’s just, WOW”

            Really? What’s so hard? I provided a link to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. You can look at that list and see she’s not on it. And the President, while progressive on gay issues and a few other things (choice) IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE on civil liberties. Progressives oppose the Patriot Act, for example. He doesn’t.

            And, again, I doubt a real progressive could get elected President in a country full of immigrant hating, war loving, torture fetishists, and hippie punchers.

            But you need to realize that not all Democrats are progressives. We’ve been slowing weeding out the Blue Dogs, but there are still some. And again, I’d argue that we have a better chance of convincing Pryor to vote our way than we would have of convincing Tom Cotton to do it. Just to take a blue dog vs wingnut example….

            “I’m going to tell you about another “progressive” who did something else that wasn’t part of your rosey image of the DNC”

            I gave you a list of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. What’s your problem? See if your example is on the list.

            “Maybe after the 20th “progressive” you’ll figure out, once and for all, what I was trying to tell you in my FIRST reply. Voting by party is always stupid.”

            Go ahead. List Democrats who aren’t in the CPC. And maybe eventually you’ll realize that I didn’t actually SAY ALWAYS VOTE FOR THE SAME PARTY. Honestly, do try to keep up. I said your chances would be better. I get the feeling jetdoc has NEVER voted for a Democrat, and I’m starting to think you haven’t either. I have never had a Republican who agrees with me on enough of my important issues to get me to vote for one. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t. If I had to choose between a warmongering Democrat who hates weed and loves the Patriot Act and wants to force women to give birth to rape babies, then I’d vote for the Republican who is the opposite of all that. Show me that Republican. I’ve never seen one in my long lifetime.

            “Have you noticed how I don’t cut and paste things, context-free, to discuss in a vaccuum? ”

            Have you noticed that I’m not you and I don’t care how you comment? This is how I do it. I’m not complaining that you don’t, so what’s your problem?

            ” It’s also why your gish gallops are pointless.”

            Yeah, you obviously don’t know what Gish Gallops are. Show me my lies. Show me my factual errors.

            “I can and will play this game longer than you.”

            I doubt it.

            “Learn how to have an actual discussion”

            By replying directly to your statements, that’s what I’m doing. You’re the one who’s not. But I don’t complain about your chosen method of commenting. I prefer to focus on what’s important.

            “stop using the internet as just an outlet for your wounded pride”

            You’re not my boss, and my pride is fine, thank you.

            “And definitely don’t recommend that other people should go back to civics class when yours, obviously, did not cover the fact that the founding fathers never envisioned a two-party system — ever”

            I will recommend that people take civics classes whenever they get basic facts wrong, like how amendments are passed in the House, or what a discharge petition is. And we weren’t talking about the founding fathers. We have two parties in this country because the authoritarians, for the most part, want to vote for one kind of politician, and libertarians for the most part want to vote for another. To deny us that basic choice wouldn’t be democratic.

            But then, Glibertarians don’t really like democracy.

            “Or perhaps you were just sick that day, huh?”

            Nope. Maybe you just ignored the part where we had federalists and non-federalists right from the start? Just because they didn’t have formal parties to distinguish the two visions doesn’t mean they didn’t have very real differences.

            Now, I’d really like to know where my other reply to jetdoc went? Are you the moderator or not?

          •  

            First, I’d like to say that I did not mean to up-vote your comment, I meant to hit reply. Second, I’m not the moderator. The moderator is “Jay Smoker” and you can tell he’s the moderator because his username has a little “moderator” icon next to it. Step outside your paranoid delusion in which I’m a Republican war monger who is trying to censor you — believe me, Scott, you’re not that important to anyone.

            And yes, I know what a gish gallop is — it’s drowning your opponent is so many small, individual arguments that they cannot address them all in real time. Yep, often times, in a live debate, a gish gallop will contain a myriad of half-truths and often more than a few flat-out lies. However, I don’t recall telling you that you said anything that was untrue. I’m absolutely certain, had I done so, you would have cut and paste it for me to review. Gish gallops need not contain lies — perhaps you didn’t know that.

            Even so, it’s not that gish galloping is “just the way you do it.” That’s giving yourself far too much credit. I’m not being unfair to your “style” by pointing it out. It’s comical you’d suggest that. Gish galloping is how those who lack the ability to make a SINGLE argument (pro or con) fool themselves into thinking they’ve accomplished something.

            For example, I’m sure you’re accustomed to relying on this tactic because it’s wildly successful in wearing down your opponents… but you’ve never actually convinced anyone of *anything* ever, have you? They don’t say “hey, you’re right” or “you make a good point” or “I never thought of it like that before” or the like. I bet they just go away, right?

            I’d wager you’ve never won any argument on the merits of your position, that you’ve always degenerated into lengthy, point-by-point discussions (such as this one) in which you skip the parts you don’t like, straw-man the parts you do care to mention, and completely abandon any hope of changing someone’s mind, helping someone understand, or otherwise agreeing with you in some way. It’s just a competition to you, not an exchange of ideas. That’s why you’ve completely missed the point I was trying to make to you (which I won’t bother repeating a third time). But more than anything, the worst symptom of your disease, even worse than the gish gallop you’ve developed — you’re completely closed-off to the possibility that you might be WRONG.

            *GASP* That’s correct! You’re convinced you have nothing to learn from me, so you won’t. That’s something about “liberals” and “progressives” that they hate having served up — most are so convinced of their moral and intellectual superiority that they’ve become just as fingers-in-ears closed minded as the Creationists, the climate change deniers, and the marriage equality opponents. You’ve CONVINCED yourself that you know precisely who I vote for and why, when you don’t have a clue how I stand on *any* issue other than cannabis. You don’t even know my gender, and you’ve presupposed my political leanings. That astounds me.

            Getting back to the point… Just because you drive off your opponents doesn’t mean your opinions (or anything you have to say in the process of your bullet-pointed gish gallop) have any merit or worth — it doesn’t mean you win the argument — it simply means you were willing to annoy the person you were conversing with into submission.

            Frankly, the only way your excuse for gish galloping via selective, bullet-point cut and paste could be rationalized is if you didn’t drop any arguments in the process. Formal debates and legal proceedings are decided by dropped arguments. Shall I cut and paste the massive sections of my comments that you skipped, Scott?

            I mean, you did *precisely* what I expected you to do. You cut and paste sentences to talk about them individually, again, because big-picture reading comprehension is asking too much of you. And despite the fact that I explicitly said you would do it, you went ahead and tried to make the case that Obama isn’t a progressive — I simply didn’t expect you to do so *in the passage directly preceding* your paltry defense of his administration’s role in the ongoing drug war. Given how anxious you are to edge the Obama Administration out of your narrow definition of “progressive” (for the sake of convenience, I know — no one is fooled), you sure were quite anxious to defend their sad track record.

            And to think — all of this, because I didn’t agree with you about your petty misconceptions about how our government is supposed to work. Your childish belief that the only way it *should* work is that conservatives should capitulate to progressives, but only the people you narrowly allow to be counted as progressives through your retroactive definition of CPC membership (which, by the way, I noticed). Really? Obama isn’t in the CONGRESSIONAL Progressive Caucus? You don’t say! LOL

            It’s not like I think you’re going to suddenly get the point of what I tried (and failed) to communicate to you. Really, I’m just making sure you don’t have the satisfaction of thinking you’ve accomplished anything, and ensuring that the sole tactic you employ (the gish gallop) doesn’t do anything besides obviate how weak your argument is — a million tooth picks don’t add up to a tree, and a gish gallop doesn’t add up to a sound argument.

            When I said that I can and will play this game for as long as you’re willing to drag it out, I wasn’t joking. I’m eagerly anticipating the dissection of THIS comment, just like the last two. So to quote my favorite line from the third Presidential debate, “please proceed.” For you, it’s not about swapping ideas or changing my mind — you simply want me to go away, but I won’t (just because I know it would make you happy).

            I don’t even have to try to convince you of anything, anymore, to be honest. So it’s probably fair-play to warn you that the reply I will give to your next gish gallop is going to be even longer, and even less enjoyable for you to selectively quote. Think hard about how upset you were when you wrote this last reply, riddled with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and conceptual inconsistencies — watching you squirm to both defend the White House and denounce them as “not progressive” within the space of two paragraphs is a new level of conceptual incoherence. I’m eagerly looking forward to what new, bizarre directions your next gallop will go! This last one touched on abortion, war mongering, and all sorts of other things to sidetrack the conversation. I gotta say, it’s a good thing I’m smarter than you because otherwise, I might not be able to keep up with all the loose threads you’re pulling out.

            Why not try numbering your gish gallop? I find you guys have an easier time of it when you number them. It also helps me, as I can refer to them by number. I bet #57 will be the point at which you give up trying to maintain the illusion of someone who has something worth saying. Maybe #58 is when you’ll tire of dancing on the end of my string like a marionette, and #59 will be a heart-felt confession that you never took a civics class. Oh, what fun there is to be had with someone like yourself, Scott.

          •  

            “I did not mean to up-vote your comment”

            I couldn’t care less about those things.

            Did I say you were the moderator? No. All I did was ask who was.

            “Step outside your paranoid delusion in which I’m a Republican war monger who is trying to censor you”

            I wondered why my comment hadn’t been posted. I did not accuse you of censoring me. But if you voted for Bush in 2004, then you’re a warmonger.

            “believe me, Scott, you’re not that important to anyone.”

            Heh. You wish.

            “it’s drowning your opponent is so many small, individual arguments that they cannot address them all in real ti me. Yep , often times, in a live debate, a gish gallop will contain a myriad of half-truths and often more than a few flat-out lies.”

            Actually, the definition of a Gish Gallop INCLUDES the requirement that all the little “arguments” be non-factual. That’s the problem with refuting a Gish Galloper. It takes a lot more time to debunk lies than to tell them.

            So, show me my lies.

            “Gish gallops need not contain lies”

            Yes, they do. That’s how they got their name. From Duane Gish. Who told so many lies about evolution so fast that it was almost impossible to refute them.

            ” Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the “Gish Gallop,” describing it as “where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate.””

            Note the “torrents of error” part.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

            But perhaps you didn’t know that.

            Yes, if you looked it up on rational wiki, you would find: “More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments” but the actual root of the term from the person who coined it is that the arguments be BS.

            But, hey, if you voted for the “evolution is from the pit of hell” guy, maybe you think Duane Gish wasn’t full of it. Who knows?

            “Gish galloping is how those who lack the ability to make a SINGLE argument (pro or con) fool themselves into thinking they’ve accomplished something.”

            OK, let’s have a single argument. Show me what argument I lost.

            “you’ve never actually convinced anyone of *anything* ever, have you? ”

            Actually, I could put you in touch with a great many people who credit me with the fact they haven’t voted for a Republican since they argued with me. Especially after it became apparent that the Great Threat Inflator Dick Cheney had lied us into Iraq.

            “They don’t say “hey, you’re right” or “you make a good point” or “I never thought of it like that before” or the like. I bet they just go away, right?”

            How much you want to bet?

            “I’d wager you’ve never won any argument on the merits of your position”

            Heh. Since I’m sure you’re too chicken to actually bet me on anything (I always love to bet on global temperature anomalies), I’ll just let you know that as someone who’s been in debates since high school, and as a Philosophy major in college, that I won more debates than I lost.

            “that you’ve always degenerated into lengthy, point-by-point discussions (such as this one) in which you skip the parts you don’t like”

            What parts? Name them. I’ve been very careful to be very specific, while you guys keep depending on generalizations like this one.

            “straw-man the parts you do care to mention”

            What parts? Be specific.

            “completely abandon any hope of changing someone’s mind”

            If your mind is cast in stone, then I can’t change it. But my methods of arguing have had quite a bit of success. It’s particularly good at firing up the people on my side, which is what I care most about. Especially considering that a great many people will vote against their own stated preferences for other reasons they don’t want to mention. For some reason.

            “helping someone understand”

            Why don’t you help me understand by being specific. Show me ONE Pro pot Republican who ran against an anti-pot Democrat. Even if someone was a single issue voter and pot was that issue, I don’t think there have been very many cases of what you haven’t shown me and refuse to show me, preferring instead to attack me with generalizations.

            ” It’s just a competition to you”

            What it is, if you really want to take a break from your overly general assumptions about me, is me being angry at the people who say they want to end the drug war, and then vote for drug warriors. It’s me being angry–which is the response that is lacking in so many debates–that people who say they support personal liberty vote for people who would force women to give birth to rape babies. It’s me putting these facts in the faces of these people who vote for the opposite of what they say they want. Since they vote for the opposite of what they say they want, I wonder why no one has ever asked them why? I wonder why they’ve never had to face someone who actually gets angry that they continue to vote for the people who have screwed things up so badly…

            “not an exchange of ideas”

            Oh, please. I’m 50 years old. I haven’t heard a new idea from a Republican since Reagan, and even he was pretty standard right wing BS. You want to show me some new ideas supported by a majority of Republicans, go ahead. Be specific. I’ve heard all your supply-side, war mongering, torture supporting, immigrant hating, rape baby birth forcing, BS. And so far, I haven’t heard anything new from you. Rand Paul occasionally gets my attention, but when he does, he’s stating a position already held by progressives, not coming up with anything new.

            “That’s why you’ve completely missed the point I was trying to make to you (which I won’t bother repeating a third time)”

            I don’t think I missed your point. I think you missed mine. And the fact that you won’t be specific about it tells me you don’t really care about your point, you just want to make generalizations about me so you can feel superior.

            “you’re completely closed-off to the possibility that you might be WRONG.”

            Wrong about what? Show me where I’m wrong. I’m completely open to the idea. I have been wrong before. When Bush got elected, I said, well, at least he doesn’t seem like a Nation Builder. He did say he didn’t want to go around the world forcing people to do things our way… Boy was I wrong about him.

            “You’re convinced you have nothing to learn from me”

            Actually, the longer you go on without showing me the specific thing I need to learn from you, the thing I haven’t heard from so-called independents about how wrong it is to always vote for the people with whom I most agree, the more I think I have nothing to learn from you. So if you actually have something of substance, spill it. Be specific.

            “That’s something about “liberals” and “progressives” that they hate having served up — most are so convinced of their moral and intellectual superiority that they’ve become just as fingers-in-ears closed minded a s the Cr eationists, the climate change deniers, and the marriage equality opponents. ”

            Heh. Funny how you generalize about all liberals and progressives. Are you really saying all of them are like that?

            Further, I am most certainly not convinced of my moral superiority. I can argue that my positions on the issues I’ve mentioned are better courses for a nation of people with wildly divergent views to take, but I’m always open to hearing better ideas. I just never hear them. And here we are, with a chance for you to tell me your better idea, the moral superiority of which you are apparently convinced, and you’re not doing it.

            As for creationists, climate science deniers, and marriage equality opponents, yes. My view is morally superior to theirs. And I am convinced of it. I’ve never heard a good argument from any of those people. In fact, I almost always hear the exact same arguments from all of them.

            “You’ve CONVINCED yourself that you know precisely who I vote for and why”

            That’s a lie. I specifically asked you for whom you vote. I asked if you voted for Broun. You will not answer. So, I can only say that I don’t know for whom you’ve voted. You said you’re an independent. Since independents don’t exist in many races, I can only assume that you sometimes vote for Republicans. But please, correct me if I’m wrong. I could also assume you have sometimes voted for Democrats. But you won’t tell me. So I cannot know. And I didn’t say I did. And I certainly haven’t convinced myself of anything I have no information about. I might have an educated guess based on tells, but they’re just guesses, and I certainly didn’t state any certainty about them.

            “you’ve presupposed my political leanings. ”

            Show me where I did that. You told me you’re an independent. So I know that about you. But that word is meaningless. If you won’t tell me for whom you vote, then I cannot know, and, therefore, I did not presuppose. So, you lied.

            That does not astound me.

            “Just because you drive off your opponents doesn’t mean your opinions (or anything you have to say in the process of your bullet-pointed gish gallop) have any merit or worth”

            I agree! Driving off my opponents means they can’t argue. If they could, they would stay and offer specific arguments that refute mine. When they run away, it usually means they got nothing other than wild generalizations about ALL liberals.

            “t doesn’t mean you win the argument — it simply means you were willing to annoy the person you were conversing with into submission”

            Yes, it must be quite annoying to have one’s BS called out publicly. I can certainly understand why anyone who had their BS exposed would want to run and hide.

            “Shall I cut and paste the massive sections of my comments that you skipped, Scott?”

            Yes. Show me the specific stuff I skipped. Let’s get down to specifics because I’m a little sick of your big string of non-specific over generalizations about how all liberals are the same.

            “because big-picture reading comprehension is asking too much of you.”

            More BS. The big picture comprehension is that you guys have lied about what I said in order to argue with some mythical liberal. What I said is that if one wants to end the drug war, you should vote for progressives. You countered with “Debbie Wasserman Shultz voted against weed,” and I said, well, she’s not a Progressive. You didn’t like that argument, but it’s the truth. I gave you a list of the members of the CPC, and she’s not on it. As far as I know, and PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I”M WRONG, ALL the members of the CPC voted the right way on this, and every other weed issue they’ve had a chance to vote on.

            The other part of my big picture is that voting for Republicans will, MUCH MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, result in a representative who will vote against weed. I KNOW my GOP Representative has sometimes voted against weed issues, and sometimes for them. He’s quite inconsistent. Broun might be one of those who consistently supports state’s rights on this issue, but I’m not a state’s rights guy on this. I want the Federal Government to drop the drug war. I want EVERY AMERICAN to be able to buy weed legally. So, you might find the occasional consistent conservative who will vote the way you like, but he’s not doing it because he wants all Americans to have this freedom. He’s doing it because he’s consistent on state’s rights. In this view, states that want to keep weed illegal could.

            But, again, if I’m wrong… If there’s a Republican (besides Rand Paul–and I’m really not that sure about him as he might just be a state’s rights guy) who is for making weed legal all over the country, then please, tell me.

            And if you can’t, then it sure seems like you’re going to have to concede that “big picture” point. Huh?

            “Obama isn’t a progressive — I simply didn’t expect you to do so *in the passage directly preceding* your paltry defense of his administration’s role in the ongoing drug war. Given how anxious you are to edge the Obama Administration out of your narrow definition of “progressive” (for the sake of convenience, I know — no one is fooled), you sure were quite anxious to defend their sad track record.”

            Your selective reading is funny considering how you accuse me of it. First of all, NO PROGRESSIVE WOULD SUPPORT THE PATRIOT ACT. Civil liberties are one of the defining points of being a progressive. So, right off the bat, the 30% of Democrats who voted to renew the Patriot Act are not progressives. By definition. Further, I made it quite clear that federal progressives are members of the CPC. Since president’s aren’t Representatives, he can’t be in the CPC. Duh. So I look to other markers, like the Patriot Act, the drone wars, the violations of the 4th, the continuations of the drug war, at least in his first term. And I even said he’s progressive on some issues, like gay rights. But he is certainly not progressive on all the progressive issues, like the members of the CPC.

            And I specifically condemned Obama’s actions I disagree with, while I also give him credit where it’s due. I do this for any politician. I can even find a few things Bush did that I agreed with, like his help for AIDS in Africa.

            “because I didn’t agree with you about your petty misconceptions about how our government is supposed to work. ”

            Petty misconceptions? Like what? Like I shouldn’t encourage people who claim they care about personal liberty to vote for the people who consistently vote for personal liberty? You think that’s petty?

            Yeah, you keep telling yourself that’s a petty misconception of representative government. In fact, you’re so convinced of your moral superiority that you have told me that I”m ALWAYS wrong to ALWAYS vote for those with whom I most often agree. You also criticized me for leaving out things you said, and yet here you are leaving out the fact that I said if you could find a pro-pot, anti-war, pro-civil-liberties and rights, pro-choice, pro-infrastructure spending, pro-single payer health care Republican running against a Democrat that’s the opposite of all those things, THEN I WOULD VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN.

            But in 32 years of voting, I have never found ONE Republican with whom I agree on enough issues to vote for them. You tell me this is wrong! So, what are you saying then? That for the sake of not being a party line voter I should vote for someone with whom I disagree on almost everything?

            “Your childish belief that the only way it *should* work is that conservatives should capitulate to progressives,”

            Where did I state this supposed belief? Show me. Otherwise, quit making stuff up. Argue with me, not your straw man.

            “what I tried (and failed) to communicate to you.”

            Funny that you blame me for not understanding what you’re apparently quite unable to state clearly.

            “Really, I’m just making sure you don’t have the satisfaction of thinking you’ve accomplished anything”

            The more you talk in generalizations and avoid the points you seem so concerned about, the more you become the very thing you claim to not like.

            “sole tactic you employ (the gish gallop)”

            Since I quote your words and answer them directly, using facts and figures than one can easily find are true, I’m not Gish Galloping.

            “doesn’t do anything besides obviate how weak your argument is”

            What argument? Here you have a chance to be specific… to make this elusive point you claim to be trying to make, and yet you again don’t do it.

            “you simply want me to go away”

            Wrong again. I want you to spell out this argument you’re so convinced your right about. The best I can tell it’s that I shouldn’t tell people who want more personal liberty to vote for the people who want more personal liberty. You’re suggesting that voting straight party line is wrong and stupid. And yet you have yet to tell me of one Republican for whom I could have voted that agrees more with me than the opposing Democrat. How is it stupid for me to vote for the people who happen to agree with me the most?

            My argument is that it’s stupid, and counterproductive, to vote for people with whom you disagree! In fact, it seems that you’re arguing that one should vote for the person with whom you agree most on the issues that are important to you. OK. That’s exactly what I do. So, when someone says personal liberty is important to them, I say, ME TOO! You should vote for progressives like I do! What on earth could possibly be wrong with that?

            “Think hard about how upset you were when you wrote this last reply, riddled with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and conceptual inconsistencies”

            Oh, boy… Now you’re going to bitch about grammar and spelling… Please, show me the mistakes. And then I’ll go rip apart your messy responses. What a fun game! Oooo… look, you have a typo! I win! And I just thought hard about it and realized that I’m not upset when I write these replies, I’m just annoyed like I always am when people who supposedly cherish personal liberty vote for authoritarians and get angry at those who don’t do it their way.

            “watching yo u squirm”

            Boy, you must’ve been angry when you wrote that, because you put a space between the o and u in you. And if I was squirming, my responses would be generalizations with few specifics. You know, like yours.

            “both defend the White House and denounce them as “not progressive” within the space of two paragraphs is a new level of conceptual incoherence.”

            When the WH does something I like, I say so. When they don’t, I say so. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Do you not do the same? Did you like EVERYTHING GW BUSH DID? If not, then are you conceptually incoherent?

            ” This last one touched on abortion, war mongering, and all sorts of other things to sidetrack the conversation”

            I thought the conversation was about how I’m wrong to suggest that people who want personal freedom shouldn’t vote for Republicans? In that case, then abortion, warmongering, and those other things are all directly on point. I can’t think of a bigger violation of personal freedom than the state of Nebraska torturing a woman for 10 days because their 20 week abortion ban has no exceptions for health of the mother. Well, I guess lying us into a $2 trillion dollar war that killed a half a million people and injured many more was quite an affront to the personal freedoms of those who were affected.

            ” it’s a good thing I’m smarter than you”

            I sincerely doubt it. But, please, show me your bonafides and I’ll show you mine!

            “you’ll tire of dancing on the end of my string like a marionette”

            Heh. Cute. Tug harder. I don’t feel a thing.

            “heart-felt confession that you never took a civics class”

            You think someone gets a BA in philosophy and graduates with honors without taking a civics class? But, hey, you don’t have to have taken one to know what how amendments to bills work in the US House. Or how a discharge petition works. All you have to do is Google it.

          •  

            I NEVER told you I’m a REPUBLICAN. NOT ONCE! I told you “I work INSIDE the Party, to help change minds of those who OPPOSE us. NOT ONCE did I EVER say I was a Republican. As a matter of fact Mr Cut & Paste, you should go back and C & P where I tell you I’m actually a Libertarian.

            Secondly i NEVER ONCE told you that “Personal liberties” was my ONLY issue. Just because you’re a “single issue”voter doesn’t mean the test of is are!

            Your upset because YOU have tried to define me from your little Wikipedia definition of a Republican even though I NEVER ONCE said I was one. People MAY agree with you, but when you’re being a duck, your message gets lost. When you’re more interested in scoring points in a debate and blaming someone for being something they NEVER said they were. Everything you have defined me with are YOUR sentiments. Even though you’ve been told otherwise, you’d rather fight because you wanna score points against a Republican. I don’t know if it’s because you wanna be able to tell all your friends you did our if you just enjoy being rude to not just me… But EVERYONE you’ve addressed so far.

          •  

            OH, I’m quite aware of who Paul Braun is. Did you vote for him?

        •  

          You contradicted yourself within 2 sentences. Which is it? You tell people NOT to vote for a Party, yet then state you’ve “almost always voted Democrat”. You’re doing EXACTLY what you’re telling others NOT to do.

      •  

        That’s why I’m STILL working on it from the INSIDE of the Party, because 70% of Republicans WANT medical marijuana at the VERY least. If I were to stand on the sideline and YELL how much they SUCK, they’ll NEVER listen to me. But if I’m on the INSIDE, I stand a much better chance of getting them to listen. We’re making headway but the legalization of marijuana definitely transcends PARTY lines. It’s a VERY non-partisan issue. I can’t speak to the numbers you quoted because you have NO reference for those numbers. I’m not being an ass, just sayin… Up until that point in time those numbers mean nothing to me. Secondly, it was a MUCH bigger Bill than JUST Medical Marijuana. The “Defunding of DEA Bill” had more to it than just that ONE statement. Finally the fact of the matter IS… The bill PASSED the Republican controlled House of Representatives. So for how ever much you despise Republicans, at least they were FAIR enough to allow it to come to a vote. Something that the Democratic controlled Senate, is yet to do. But there’s all kinds of bills sitting on Harry Reid’s desk that will go NOWHERE cuz he’s more concerned about what puts money in HIS pocket than what will HELP the American people.

        •  

          “That’s why I’m STILL working on it from the INSIDE of the Party”

          So, you vote for candidates who become elected officials and 80% of them will vote against that which you want? You do this in order to better convince them to do what you want?

          OK, then. But you know, you could just vote for the people who, at about a 94% success rate, do what you want.

          The fact that you don’t tells me there are other issues about which you care more. Warmongering, forcing women to give birth to rape babies, or torturing women by denying medically necessary abortions. Maybe it’s guns? Of just taxes? Must be something, though, because your arguing from inside that party isn’t having much success. Meanwhile, we democrats have grown the progressive wing of our party, kicked out quite a few corporocrats, and 94% of our guys voted the way you want.

          “We’re making headway but the legalization of marijuana definitely transcends PARTY lines.”

          Yeah. 20% of the House GOP didn’t want to punch hippies.

          ” It’s a VERY non-partisan issue”

          Maybe in the real world. Not on the hill it’s not. 20% of your party voting for liberty is pretty sad.

          ” I can’t speak to the numbers you quoted because you have NO reference for those numbers. I’m not being an ass, just sayin… ”

          No, you’re being an ass. I provided the actual percentages by going to the roll call vote on the amendment and doing the math. That you question the numbers is quite insulting.

          http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll418.xml

          Please. Go look. If my math is wrong, I apologize. Otherwise, you should.

          “Up until that point in time those numbers mean nothing to me. ”

          I have no idea what that even means.

          “Secondly, it was a MUCH bigger Bill than JUST Medical Marijuana.”

          The vote above, at the link I provided, is on the Heck of Washington Amendment to the larger House Bill (H R 5016), so you’re wrong again. The numbers I provided are on the amendment which would stop any punishment of banks for taking deposits from marijuana shops in states where they are legal.

          So, yes, those numbers are the numbers on pot ONLY. And it’s not just about medicinal. It’s also about the new recreational legal shops in CO and WA.

          “The “Defunding of DEA Bill” had more to it than just that ONE statement.”

          So, see how you’re wrong? IN this case, the amendment on which they were voting was specifically about banks taking deposits from pot shops.

          I will await that apology.

          “Finally the fact of the matter IS… The bill PASSED the Republican controlled House of Representatives. So for how ever much you despise Republicans, at least they were FAIR enough to allow it to come to a vote.”

          Amendments to bills aren’t handled the same way as the whole bill. It’s much easier for the Dems to bring up the amendment than to get a discharge petition to the floor for a vote. So, no, your right wing friends, all 20% of them, didn’t get this done all by themselves. It took 94% of the Democrats to do it.

          ” all kinds of bills sitting on Harry Reid’s desk that will go NOWHERE cuz he’s more concerned about what puts money in HIS pocket than what will HELP the American people.”

          Again, you apparently need to go back to civics class. 41 Senators can stop all most anything in the Senate. Heck, one Senator can put a hold on anything. It’s insane. But not as insane as blaming Harry Reid for Republican foot dragging and filibustering.

          You want to end the drug war? Vote for progressives. Otherwise, don’t blow smoke up my ass.

          •  

            First of all, you’re NOT getting an apology of any kind. So get that out of your mind, NOW! It’s not deserved! My comments on your numbers was NOT meant to be personal. I was just pointing out that you didn’t have anywhere linked that PROVED your numbers. You know what they say about statistics and percentages given on the internet! “99% of the statistics given on the internet are generally 100% pulled out the authors ass”!

            If you would’ve provided a link to prove your stats, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Instead you just threw numbers out there WITHOUT any explanation of said numbers.

            “So, yes, those numbers are the numbers on pot ONLY. And it’s not just about medicinal. It’s also about the new recreational legal shops in CO and WA.”

            You’re getting on ME for not understanding your post? Had you put ALL the information in your FIRST post, as you did while ATTEMPTING to insult me. Again we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

            Your biggest problem with me is… You don’t like ME, simply cuz you don’t like Republicans, and you THINK that I AM one by my statements.

            You don’t know anything about me. But you’re SO sure that you do… I’m actually a Libertarian that heads an organization to legalize marijuana. I COUNT votes among legislators. I work WITHIN the GOP to change the parties stance on the issue because THEY are the ones we have to convince. Your said Democrats would be a waste of my time then wouldn’t it? UNTIL we can CONVINCE the up and coming Republicans to realize that the “Legalization of Marijuana” is actually a Conservative belief. That it’s a “personal liberties” issue as well as a “States Rights” issue. Instead of just writing them off as a definite NO, isn’t it more prudent to keep this issue front of those in power NOW? Until the 70% of Republicans that DO believe in legalization can come into office? Isn’t it best to keep this issue in front of the NEW generation of politicians who believe like we do, UNTIL they can get elected to office? Sorta “prime the pump” to get this done?

            See, you don’t know ANYTHING about me! But that’s what “progressives” do best. They attempt to LABEL everyone with being something. Everybody’s got a hyphen to separate then from other groups. Further dividing our country. When they don’t have an argument they make PERSONAL INSULTS! Next thing ya know I’m gonna be a RACIST as well.

            Secondly, YOU don’t have ANY idea of how I vote. You ASSUME you do, but that makes an ASS out of U more than ME. I’m a voter who doesn’t vote SINGLE issues. If that’s wrong…So be it! There have been times, I’ve even voted AGAINST my own interests because it was for the betterment of the ENTIRE country. Anyone who DOES vote “single issue” is downright SELFISH and doesn’t give a shit about anyone other than themselves.

            “Again, you apparently need to go back to civics class. 41 Senators can stop all most anything in the Senate. Heck, one Senator can put a hold on anything. It’s insane. But not as insane as blaming Harry Reid for Republican foot dragging and filibustering.”

            This is gonna be short and sweet because I’m not going to debate the merits of an obstructionist because this is about marijuana. But the FACT of the matter is… Harry Reid is that ONE Senator that STOPS legislation, as you stated… Harry Reid CONTROLS the Legislative agenda in the Senate. It is HE and HE alone who decides what bills will be brought to the floor and IF they’re EVER brought for a vote. He’s allowed LESS legislation to be brought before the Senate than ANY previous Senate Majority leader in history. THEN he has the balls to call Republicans obstructionist? ROFLMAO! So that’s it with Harry Reid for me. He’s going to be irrelevant in 6 months anyway.

            “Amendments to bills aren’t handled the same way as the whole bill. It’s… easier for the Dems to bring up… amendment than to get a discharge petition to the floor for a vote. So, no, your right wing friends, all 20% of them, didn’t get this done all by themselves. It took 94% of the Democrats to do it.

            THERE YOU GO AGAIN! I don’t think I EVER said Republicans did this themselves. I don’t think I even insinuated such. The only thing I can say however is… at least the GOP allowed the “Defunding of the DEA Amendment” to come to a vote. Even though it’s, as you say… AGAINST everything they ALL (Well 80% anyway) believes in? They brought it to a vote even though they were gonna lose? That makes a BUTTLOAD of sense eh? Bottom line is… it PASSED a Republican controlled House. IF they wanted to, they COULD’VE blocked it, could they not?

            So your arguments are actually more about ME, and what you THINK I am. Not so much about my questioning UNVERIFIABLE (in your original post) numbers. If you’ve read ANY of my other posts, you’d see that I don’t ever try to INSULT anyone. All I EVER ask for is a link to be able to verify what you say. I don’t CARE what you say, as long as you can PROVE it. In your original post you just threw out numbers. You didn’t say that YOU “did the math”, you didn’t provide a link to those numbers, etc… If you’ve ever read ANY of my other posts, I generally provide links to verify my statements as well. YOU just wanted to ATTACK me because of what you THINK I am!

          •  

            ” you’re NOT getting an apology of any kind”

            Well, you ARE a Republican, aren’t you?

            “It’s not deserved!”

            I put forward the percentages of members of each party who voted for an amendment that was specifically about banks doing business with pot shops. This isn’t a question of how much the world warmed last month (I am willing to bet on just about any measurement of global temperatures by the way, like I used to do at Intrade). This is a question of how many US Representatives from each party voted for that particular amendment.

            You not only questioned my source (which I gave you and I apologize for not including it in the first place since I figured anyone rude enough to suggest I was bullshitting would just go look it up) but you continue to suggest that I’m lying about it. To wit:

            “You know what they say about statistics and percentages given on the internet! “99% of the statistics given on the internet are generally 100% pulled out the authors ass”!”

            I guess I’m in the 1%, huh?

            “If you would’ve provided a link to prove your stats”

            They’re the easily verifiable through Google party line breakdown of a vote in the US House. You could have just checked, but no! You have to go off on me with the suggestion that I just pulled it out of my ass. And now you have the balls to blame me for what you actually did first.

            Again. You definitely are an insider to the Republican party.

            ” I’m actually a Libertarian that heads an organization to legalize marijuana. ”

            Great! I suggest you vote for progressives if you want to accomplish that goal.

            Wait… You said you were on the “inside” of the Republican party, and now you disown them and call yourself a Libertarian. Great! You can easily provide Americans with more liberty tomorrow by helping elect progressives. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is now the largest on the hill, with more members than the Tea Party Caucus.

            Progressives vote for liberty. 70% of Democrats (mostly progressives) voted against renewing the Patriot Act. Only 14% of Republicans did. And these two marijuana votes in the house, which the GOP majority DID NOT WANT TO LET TO THE FLOOR but had to when they saw that a discharge petition (look it up) would easily win a floor vote, so it went up as an amendment and won. That WAS NOT BECAUSE of Republicans. It was because Almost every Democrat + a few Republicans had the majority that could bring it to a vote. So, yes, thank you for that small handful of Republicans who put us over the top. But don’t forget the VAST MAJORITY of who voted for it.

            So, I will ask again… What are the other issues that you think are more important than ending our idiotic and blow-back-filled drug war? Guns? Taxes? A general hatred of liberals?

            “I work WITHIN the GOP to change the parties stance on the issue because THEY are the ones we have to convince.”

            No they’re not. The ones we have to convince are the Glibertarians like you who don’t get it. The hippie punching GOP is going to keep punching hippies every way they can. And the young people of this country agree with progressives on almost every major issue. They are the future of America. Not the old, angry, warmongering, Republicans.

            “Your said Democrats would be a waste of my time then wouldn’t it?”

            Only if we failed to convince more people to vote for the party that OVERWHELMINGLY supports weed.

            ” “personal liberties” issue as well as a “States Rights” ”

            Dude, you’re talking about a party that recently, because of a ban on abortions in Nebraska, tortured a woman who needed an abortion for 10 days. 10 frigging days. Don’t tell me that Republicans, who are taking away a woman’s right to choose, and even passing laws that result in TORTURE are for personal liberties. You want personal liberties, you know, like repealing the Patriot Act, you need to vote for Progressives.

            LINK: http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/nebraska-anti-abortion-law-tortures-mot

            Or, you can vote for the people who disagree with you because, um, you’re going to convince them to stop doing the thing that got them elected?

            “See, you don’t know ANYTHING about me! But that’s what “progressives” do best. ”

            Oh boy…

            “They attempt to LABEL everyone with being something.”

            See what you just did there? You labled all progressives as labelers.

            “Everybody’s got a hyphen to separate then from other groups”

            So? We’re not all the same. We don’t all agree. I don’t like war, I do like freedom, I do like free AND fair markets. I do love the 9th amendment. Why should I not be divided from the racists and the warmongers and the torturers and the forced birthers?

            “When they don’t have an argument they make PERSONAL INSULTS! ”

            Dude, you started this whole thing by suggesting that I was lying about the vote totals.

            “Next thing ya know I’m gonna be a RACIST as well.”

            WTF? That’s mighty presumptive of someone who’s accusing me of being presumptive. Projection! Another interesting trait of the GOP.

            “Secondly, YOU don’t have ANY idea of how I vote.”

            You told me you were a Republican. In fact, you told me you were an INSIDER!

            “You ASSUME you do, but that makes an ASS out of U more than ME”

            Cliches! Oh goodie.

            “voter who doesn’t vote SINGLE issues. If that’s wrong…So be it!”

            That’s an awful lot of assuming about what I think there. I don’t think there really are many single issue voters. I think most people take a kind of overall look at where they are and vote for the people closest to them. My priority issues are personal liberty, less war, more infrastructure, and fair markets. Yours are apparently personal liberty and a bunch of other stuff that makes you vote Republican.

            “This is gonna be short and sweet ”

            I wish.

            “Harry Reid is that ONE Senator that STOPS legislation, as you stated”

            I stated no such thing. Some Republicans so love putting words in people’s mouths…. I said ANY one senator can put a hold on anything. They all do it. But our current problem with passing anything through the US Senate is GOP obstruction. Record numbers of filibusters. This is such a basic fact that I’m surprised you don’t know it. Again… Problems with basic facts like the unprecedented number of filibusters by the current GOP in the Senate… And you say you’re not a Republican. You’re such a kidder!

            “I don’t think I EVER said Republicans did this themselves. I don’t think I even insinuated such.”

            Hmmm… You said: “at least they were FAIR enough to allow it to come to a vote. ”

            This is wrong. And it insinuates that a majority of the GOP said, sure, vote ON it, and then didn’t vote FOR it. That’s not how it works. When enough representatives from both parties come together and have a majority for something, they can get it on as amendment. They can also pass a discharge petition that would then REQUIRE the floor vote. In this case, they saw they had the numbers, and the majority went for it. The vast majority of that majority was Democrats.

            “at least the GOP allowed the “Defunding of the DEA Amendment” to come to a vote.”

            See? You did it again. The “GOP” didn’t allow diddly. A majority, made up of almost ALL Democrats teamed up with 20% of the GOP reps to pass this. If we had Nancy Pelosi as Speaker still, I bet the Dems wouldn’t have needed any GOP votes. And now, the bill will stall in the Senate because of Mitch McConnell, not Harry Reid.

            Get a clue, man. Record filibusters by the GOP. Unprecedented.

            LINK!

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

            “They brought it to a vote even though they were gonna lose? ”

            The GOP did LOSE! 80% of them voted against the amendment! So, the way the vast majority of the GOP voted was the losing position!

            AGAIN… 94% of the Dems and 20% of the Repubs brought it to a vote. It takes two to tango that way in the US house.

            “So your arguments are actually more about ME”

            They are about what you say. I don’t give a damn who you are. I care about what you say and do. And when you support personal liberty destroying authoritarians while you profess to love personal liberty, I’m going to stand up and note the incongruity for all to see.

            “Not so much about my questioning UNVERIFIABLE (in your original post) numbers”

            Facepalm. You ever use Google? It’s pretty cool.

            You can put in cleverly worded searches that will reveal facts about things, like the party line breakdown of a vote in the US House. This is SO BASIC that I assumed everyone at a blog, on a post about an amendment passing the US House, would know how to do it. My numbers are EASILY verifiable to anyone who, for some reason, wants to call any BS they think I might be spewing. I suggest you check these things before suggesting someone is lying about them.

            “If you’ve read ANY of my other posts, you’d see that I don’t ever try to INSULT anyone.”

            I never even knew about this blog until it came up on my search for the party line vote. And yet the first thing you did was insult me by questioning EASILY verifiable numbers.

            “All I EVER ask for is a link to be able to verify what you say.”

            Even for something as simple as a vote in the US HOUSE? Please…

            “I don’t CARE what you say, as long as you can PROVE it. In your original post you just threw out numbers.”

            No I didn’t. I went to Google. I looked up the fact. And I did the math. And then I posted it. All you had to do is ask, hey, how’d you get those numbers. But NOOOO… you have to suggest that I’m lying.

            So, yeah, your indignation is far from righteous.

            For the record, I’m following this blog now. So, when I find something of interest, I’ll pipe up. You’ll see that I often provide links to stories I find support my case.

            IN THIS CASE, we were talking about the vote in the US House. Please excuse me for thinking that an insider like you would know how to verify that if, for some reason, you think I’m BSing.

            “YOU just wanted to ATTACK me because of what you THINK I am!”

            OK, finally. Man, I hate dealing with Gish Gallopers. YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE A REPUBLICAN. You even claimed to be on the “inside”–whatever that means. This means that you have, at least recently, voted for Republicans. Like, say, the neocon 1%er Willard Romney. Or, say, some wingnut Senator who votes for the Patriot Act, abortion bans, war, or hell, even against marijuana issues. You do this despite your supposed support for personal freedoms. So, I now KNOW that you vote contradictory to your stated aims on this issue. The only logical conclusion I can reach, then, is that there is some other issue, or a multitude of them, that are more important to you than pot. That is not me assuming anything. That is me deducing something.

            Now let me know if you want to bet on global warming.

          •  

            Thank you, mystery moderator!

          •  

            You owe HIM an apology!

          •  

            Who? And I thought you were ignoring me?

            Tell me, what social liberals have you ever voted for? Or do you ALWAYS vote against your socially liberal interests in favor of debt-ballooning, war mongering, infrastructure ignoring trickle downers?

          •  

            Debt ballooning? Now THAT takes balls considering the Federal deficit as well as a $17 TRILLION debt. This President and Progressives have voted us $7 TRILLION into debt in 6 years and the previous 136 years of this country TOTALED $10 TRILLION worth of debt. He’s NOT done yet either.

            Infrastructure ignoring? Surely you jest? They’ve allotted enough money for infrastructure. Your President decided to spend it on FAILED Green Companies that turned out to be HUGE Obama donors. He put that money elsewhere. Now they wanna raise the Gasoline tax in order to raise money for infrastructure, when already done that 3 times. However when the GOP demanded an AUDIT of the Federal Transportation Tax fund, PROGRESSIVES WENT NUTS!

            Trickle downers? Obviously nothing that this President has attempted has worked. NOT the 1st Stimulus, not the 2nd stimulus, the 3rd stimulus nor their continued stimulation has worked. A TRUE Unemployment rate of over 13% when ALL numbers are taken into account. (UE-6 numbers) A Labor participation rate at it’s LOWEST since the “Great Depression”. Americans on Federal subsistence at rates NEVER before seen. More than 40 Million Americans on SSDI in the past 5 years. Welfare recipients as well as SNAP recipients numbers that have DOUBLED under Progressives WHY? Because their Unemployment ran out and they STILL couldn’t find a job. Most of those affected were in my age range. THEY were too old to retrain them for job when it’s NOT going to be a Full Time job anyway. They’re NOT going to be PAID what they’re worth. They’ll probably NOT get benefits anymore So,, ANYONE who’s surprised at these numbers should have their head examined. Therefore they choose to utilize that disability that they WERE previously ignoring and working because Americans WANT to WORK! Your Progressives have created an Unemployment rate amongst Blacks of over 32% http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3050611/posts
            More Americans have QUIT LOOKING for a job because they can’t find one than has ENTERED the workforce since 2009. Your Progressives have also presided over the destruction of the 40 hour workweek. Thanks to Obamacare people will be moved to a 28-30 hour workweek. For whatever reason he’s doing this it’s DONE!

          •  

            Ah, so you lied when you said you were going to ignore me.

            “This President and Progressives have voted us $7 TRILLION into debt in 6 years ”

            A zombie Republican lie. The debt that accrued under this president was all Bush’s. Do you have any idea how long we’re going to be paying for the Iraq war? Do you have any idea how much of a dent in revenues the Little Bush Depression caused? Do you have any idea how much revenue was lost and not generated by more economic activity because of the Bush Tax cuts?

            Reagan tripled the debt. Bush doubled it. And then Bush’s debt kept accruing, especially for the war and because of his recession.

            http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3849

            http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/06/cbpp_bush_tax_cuts_deficit_1cef5.jpg

            And, the deficit has been dropping under Obama.

            http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/budget-deficit-shrinks-103092.html

            “nfrastructure ignoring? Surely you jest? They’ve allotted enough money for infrastructure.”

            Wrong again. The JOBS Act, and a few other bills for more infrastructure spending (which is WAY DOWN because Bush blew all that money on a war he lied us into) have not passed. The American Society of Civil Engineers says we need to spend about 300 billion a year to make up for the neglect. And the money they just passed was a paltry amount borrowed from pension smoothing that we’ll have to pay back later. The stimulus money you’re referring to that supposedly went to green companies is not what happened. The money that went to green company loan guarantees was the same as it was under other presidents, with a small boost in the stimulus, which was too small, and included a lot of tax cuts to lower income folks.

            The JOBS Act, though, is the big one I referred to. It would fund an infrastructure bank to take the politics out of what projects get chosen (in order to avoid bridges to nowhere), an idea that was bipartisan, and a favorite of Kay Baily Hutchinson.

            When Bush left, things were much worse than people thought. Ergo, the stimulus was too small. But it certainly did work, or we’d still be where Bush left us, with GDP at NEGATIVE 9% and 800,000 people a month losing their jobs.

            http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/08/fiscal-policy#

            “Now they wanna raise the Gasoline tax in order to raise money for infrastructure, when already done that 3 times”

            And you wanted me to provide links to prove what I say… The gas tax hasn’t been raised in a very long time. That’s a big part of the problem. It wasn’t indexed to inflation, and higher mileage cars pay less of it.

            “Americans on Federal subsistence at rates NEVER before seen.”

            More GOP Bull. As a percentage of the population, the Great Depression (also caused by Republicans) was much worse. And when you crash the economy like Bush did, then the safety net kicks in, just as it should.

            “More than 40 Million Americans on SSDI in the past 5 years”

            If you cared about facts, you’d know what BS this is… The main reason SSDI has gone up? Ronald Reagan made it easier to get.

            http://www.nber.org/bah/fall06/w12436.html

            But drops in the labor force participation rate, and increases in SSDI, and even increases in other programs have a lot to do with the aging of the Baby Boom generation. These are all things we expected, and we could have used that $2 trillion Bush blew in Iraq to pay for them.

            “Welfare recipients as well as SNAP recipients numbers that have DOUBLED under Progressives”

            Evidence? Links? Or is this part of the 99% of BS you like to talk about? Again, The Little Bush Depression was larger than the previous 4 recessions combined. People sign up for food stamps and other programs when Wall Street crashes the economy, forecloses on their homes, and destroys their jobs.

            “More Americans have QUIT LOOKING for a job because they can’t find one than has ENTERED the workforce since 2009.”

            Wow. You really are a Republican. You get your talking points from what? Fox? Newsmax? Please, provide a source that shows more have quit looking for a job than have found one since 2009. Here’s a little stat for you… I like it because it let’s Bush off the hook for both HIS recession and the one he got from Clinton.

            Average monthly job growth per NON RECESSION month for Bush: 68,000

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/yes-bushs-economy-was-terrible/2012/05/01/gIQAsNNkuT_blog.html

            Under Obama, about double that.

            http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USPRIV.txt

            “Your Progressives have also presided over the destruction of the 40 hour workweek. Thanks to Obamacare people will be moved to a 28-30 hour workweek. For whatever reason he’s doing this it’s DONE!”

            More BS for which you provide no evidence. A drop in the hours worked would actually be a good thing for people who need a job. Germany instituted work sharing during the recession. Some people work less hours so some other people don’t have to work none. We’ve done some small pilot programs in states to do this (economist Dean Baker was involved). But not nearly enough to help the unemployment rate much.

            Any more BS talking points you want to throw at me from the party you’re on the inside of but are not a member of? Any other un-sourced statistics you want to spew without any kind of evidence to prove them? Any lies about ignoring me? Maybe you want to defend the Bush economic record? Or maybe you want to defend his lies that got us into a $2 trillion war we’ll be paying for for decades? And by “paying for” I don’t just mean money. Lives are still being lost. PTSD victims committing suicide at very high rates. Wonder what impact that has on the economy? Iraq is a freaking mess and your Boy Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter” Cheney is out there lying still, trying to make more money for his warmongering buddies.

          •  

            Same team, fellas.

            Jetdoc, I’m really sorry, but he’s made several solid points. He wasn’t delicate or succinct, but that doesn’t make him completely wrong. I won’t rehash the whole argument, here. Suffice it to say, he wasn’t totally out of bounds, although it is very frustrating to read such a huge block of text in which the main idea is “you’re very wrong and here’s why…” It wasn’t directed at YOU, specifically, even if it felt that way. It was directed at a bunch of elected officials he’s never met. Scott made the same mistake most people make, which is to look at the party and not the candidate.

            He shouldn’t have been looking at House voting trends. We have what’s called a representative government. He shouldn’t care how everyone else votes nearly as much as he should care about how HIS representative voted. Why? Because that’s the only person in that room his vote counted towards.
            Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a progressive and the chair of the Democratic National Convention, but she didn’t support this amendment, nor did she vote in support of the amendment that would defund DEA raids in states that have reformed their cannabis laws. If Scott lives in her district, he’ll blindly and hypocritically vote for her because he fundamentally does not understand how representative government is supposed to work.

            By giving you that “vote progressive if you want to change the law” pitch, he’s encouraging “sheople” politics. Under Scott’s pitch, the Democrats who consistently vote against cannabis would STAY in office, and the Republicans who support cannabis reform would be edged out.
            Vote person, not party, no matter what Scott says. Your vote only counts towards electing YOUR representative.

          •  

            I had a whole reply that didn’t make the cut for some reason. I’d like to know why.

            As for this…

            “Same team, fellas.”

            Wrong. We’re on opposite teams. He votes for warmongering torturers and I don’t.

            “”you’re very wrong and here’s why…”

            That is not all I said. Apparently you have problems with reading comprehension as well.

            “He shouldn’t have been looking at House voting trends”

            Bull. I work for national groups that try to elect progressives all over the country. I post comments where people from all over the country will see them. My free speech to try to influence the makeup of the House IS NOT limited to my own representative.”

            ” It was directed at a bunch of elected officials he’s never met.”

            I don’t have to meet them to know how they vote on EVERYTHING. I can just look it up. I don’t care who they are when they vote the way I don’t want them to. And the GOP votes the wrong way on almost everything, and when some of them do vote the way I like, only a small sliver of them do.

            “such a huge block of text”

            Gee, I’m sorry if I have too much to say for you.

            “look at the party and not the candidate.”

            Please. Go read the vote view blog. The GOP votes monolithically on almost everything. That’s why we’re all so suprised when a small group of them breaks from the pack. But find me a pro-life Republican. Find me an anti-war Republican (Rand Paul in the Senate, maybe a handful otherwise). Find me a Republican that’s not a supply-sider economically. But on the weed issue, the facts are clear. Vote for Democrats and on this vote you’d have a 94% chance that you got a pro-weed vote. Vote for Republicans, and you have a 20% chance. Simple math.

            “Because that’s the only person in that room his vote counted towards.”

            I have more than a vote to add to the process. I have a voice. I have money to donate. The idea that one can only affect his own house race is quite simplistic. In fact, a recent supreme court ruling says people can donate the maximum to as many candidates they want. And I can certainly argue the people voting Republican should stop it. And not just because of marijuana.

            “Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a progressive and the chair of the Democratic National Convention”

            Wrong and wrong. She is not a progressive.

            http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/

            And she’s the chair of the Democratic National Committee.

            ” If Scott lives in her district, he’ll blindly and hypocritically vote for her because he fundamentally does not understand how representative government is supposed to work.”

            What a load. I have a BA in philosophy with all kinds of education and experience with our civic processes. And as I said in the comment that was not allowed to post, I have a whole host of issues that I use to weigh who I will vote for. If there were a pro-choice, pro-pot, anti-war, pro-infrastructure Republican running against her, I’d vote for them. However, I have NEVER had such a Republican to vote for, and I don’t think one even exists.

            So, you’re just making stuff up about me. Interesting.

            “By giving you that “vote progressive if you want to change the law” pitch, he’s encouraging “sheople” politics.”

            I’m so sick of this Glibertarian cliche. I’m also sick of people just making things up to argue with me about, since they can’t argue with what i actually say.

            “Under Scott’s pitch, the Democrats who consistently vote against cannabis would STAY in office, and the Republicans who support cannabis reform would be edged out.”

            More lies and lack of understanding of my position. Under my pitch, the 6% of Democrats who voted against this amendment would get primaried by a progressive. The Republicans who are pro pot would be edged out for a progressive. Because, as I said in the post that wasn’t allowed to go up, I am not a single issue voter and I think very few are.

            Now, I’d like to know why my reply to Jetdoc wasn’t posted.

          •  

            I understand that he pointed out very solid numbers. The problem with them was the fact that in his FIRST post he never REFERENCED any link to the numbers or ANY particular place or entity from which they came. He just said “(to leave medicinal pot alone)”. I was simply pointing out that those numbers really don’t mean anything to me unless he can PROVE them. He got all butt hurt cuz I DARED question him. As if he’s ANYTHING special?

            Bottom line is… I’ve NEVER hidden on here that I’m Conservative. Everything he got on me for voting FOR Conservatives, is exactly SOME of the reasons I vote conservative. He’s trying to conflate me with what he THINKS I am, comparatively to what I am! I NEVER ONCE in my posts to him SAID “I was a Republican”. Not ONCE! I told him, “I work INSIDE the GOP” trying to change the minds of those who are now voting AGAINST us”. My point has ALWAYS been that “… I stand a better chance of getting them to LISTEN to me, if I am ALWAYS in front of them and NICE to them, giving them FACTS about Cannabis and showing them HOW beneficial cannabis be than I do if I stand on the sidewalk and YELL to them how much they SUCK because they don’t yet believe what we do.” My God, we’re fighting 75+ years of “Reefer Madness” mentality. SOME of these BASTARDS are in their 80’s and ALL they’ve been told their ENTIRE life was how bad cannabis is. Things aren’t going to change overnight, but SOMEBODY’S got to work on changing the mindset of those who so OPPOSE us now.

            His degradation of me is doing nothing to win me over to HIS side. What he says about me doesn’t bother me. I actually quit reading his posts after the second insult. What I pointed out was, I’m a “Fiscal Conservative” and a “Social Liberal” and HE’S NOT going to change that. I’m NOT a Republican, but he’s got a hard on for ANYONE who doesn’t think like he does. WHY would I vote for a Candidate who I agree with on ONLY one issue?

            YES, I’ve voted AGAINST my own interests before. Does that make me a bad person? I don’t think so! But things WON’T change unless we change the minds of those who OPPOSE us now. Thinking we’re EVER going to have a Congress full of Progressives is just a UTOPIAN dream. This country’s NEVER been so divided. Well not since 1864 anyway. Thinking that “Progressive rule” is going to take place is ridiculous and out of touch with reality.

            But seriously, he doesn’t bother me… I’ve been INSULTED by MUCH better people than him. ;-)

          •  

            “The problem with them was the fact that in his FIRST post he never REFERENCED any link to the numbers or ANY particular place or entity from which they came.”

            Why would you say this when we can easily look at my first comment and see that you are wrong?

            Here’s what I said:

            “On the last vote (to leave medicinal pot alone), 91% if Democrats voted for it, only 22% of Republicans did. On this vote, even worse: 94% of Democrats for it, only 20% of Republicans did.”

            It’s quite clear what I was talking about. Two votes. One on med pot, and then the one this post is about.

            “He got all butt hurt”

            Read my reply. Show me the butt hurt. I simply said that you could easily Google the numbers and that the fact you thought I was lying about them shows more about your butt hurt.

            “I DARED question him”

            You didn’t question me. You suggested I was pulling the numbers out of my ass. It was an insult.

            “He’s trying to conflate me with what he THINKS I am”

            You just admitted you’re a conservative, so what I think you are is precisely what you said you are.

            ” I NEVER ONCE in my posts to him SAID “I was a Republican”. Not ONCE! I told him, “I work INSIDE the GOP””

            So, you work INSIDE the GOP, but you’re not a Republican? OK, then. Have you ever voted for a Democrat? Have you ever voted for a non-Republican? If so, do your fellow insiders know this about you? They might not like it.

            “if I stand on the sidewalk and YELL to them how much they SUCK because they don’t yet believe what we do”

            How many Republicans are for gay marriage now? I personally know Republican voters who have politely tried, in vain, to get their GOP reps to back gay marriage. How many do? Very few, if any. Again, plenty of Republican voters do, but not many elected Republicans. And the elected Republicans who do don’t support it on a federal level. They would let states discriminate So, all these pro-gay marriage Republican voters keep trying, nicely, to get them to vote for gay marriage are unsuccessful.

            So, I’ll yell at them how much they suck, and maybe, just maybe, it’ll get some progressives off their lazy asses to go vote against the people who suck instead of reelecting them.

            “SOMEBODY’S got to work on changing the mindset of those who so OPPOSE us now.”

            Fair enough, but I’m pretty sure you’re wasting your time. Better to just replace them with people who will vote for personal liberties, as you want them to. Or, you can keep voting for people who do the opposite of what you want them to do so you can what? Keep pleading with them not to do the thing that got them elected?

            Further, I do the same thing on my side. I try to replace blue dogs with progressives whenever feasible. But a progressive candidate for Senate is not going to win in Arkansas or Alaska or Georgia or Louisiana. So, I’d vote for the blue dog if I were there as a vote for the least evil.

            “His degradation of me is doing nothing to win me over to HIS side.”

            I don’t think there’s anything I can do to get you on my side, since you seem intent on voting for people who do the opposite of what you want on these personal liberty issues. Instead, I’ll just try to fire up some folks on my side who are WAY TOO NICE to the people who gave us GW Bush, a $2 trillion dollar war based on lies, torture, and a half a million dead people.

            ” I actually quit reading his posts after the second insult.”

            Had I stopped reading your posts after the second insult, I’d have never finished your first one.

            ” I’m a “Fiscal Conservative” and a “Social Liberal” ”

            And yet you vote for people who balloon the debt and oppose gay marriage and personal liberties. Does that cognitive dissonance bother you at all?

            ” I’m NOT a Republican”

            Not only did you say you were, but you claimed to be an insider. I really wish you’d pick a story and stick to it. How can you be an “insider” in the GOP and not be a Republican?

            “WHY would I vote for a Candidate who I agree with on ONLY one issue?”

            Who said only one issue? Do you oppose the Patriot Act? 70% of Democrats voted against renewing it. Only 14% of Republicans did.

            Do you support gay marriage? How about less war? Cutting the pentagon budget? Reigning in the CIA? If you’re socially liberal, show me the social liberals you’ve voted for? Or do fiscal issues always take precedence?

            “YES, I’ve voted AGAINST my own interests before.”

            So have I when it was the least evil of votes.

            “Does that make me a bad person?”

            Did I say it did?

            “But things WON’T change unless we change the minds of those who OPPOSE us now.”

            Wrong. We have another option. We can replace them with people whose minds are already on our side.

            “Thinking we’re EVER going to have a Congress full of Progressives is just a UTOPIAN dream.”

            Who said anything about “full” of progressives. The Congressional Progressive Caucus didn’t even exist a few decades ago. Now they’re the largest on the hill. Before the GOP filled the House up with a bunch of hippie punchers (despite the fact that a million more people voted for Democrats, thank you gerrymandering), the CPC had members chairing HALF the committees in the house. We could be so much further along on weed issues had the Progressives stayed in charge.

            “Thinking that “Progressive rule” is going to take place is ridiculous and out of touch with reality.”

            HALF THE CHAIRS were members of the CPC. So, yeah, reality.

            What’s ridiculous and out of touch with reality is thinking you’re going to change the minds of wingnut Teabaggers who will punch your hippie pot smoking face every chance they get.

            ” I’ve been INSULTED by MUCH better people than him.”

            You can’t even dish it out very well, but you sure can’t take it.

          •  

            Cut & Paste the EXACT quote where I say I’m a Republican. You CAN read right? “Working from the INSIDE of the Party” in NO WAY imaginable says I stated I’m a Republican. I said I was Conservative FISCALLY and a SOCIAL Liberal. I told I’m a Libertarian. My WORK puts me in contact with Conservatives so that I can work on changing minds about cannabis. YOU read INTO things what YOU want them to say, then somebody winds up that Key on your back and OFF you go! Insulting EVERYONE you come into contact with. If THIS is the way you “try to get Progressives elected, nationally”, you NEED to refine your skills cuz NOBODY listens to you when you treat everyone like THEY’RE stupid! You’ve INSULTED EVERYONE on this site since you’ve been here. HELL you even INSULTED the moderators! You should probably read that book “How to win friends and INFLUENCE people” by Dale Carnegie. It’s available on Amazon, HELL it’s even available for Kindle. It’s also an easy read! Comprehension’s another thing though… I can’t guarantee you’ll retain it.

            I quoted exactly what you said in your FIRST post. If you can find in your quote where you SPECIFICALLY say… ” The last 2 votes in the US House of Representatives that were taken to DEFUND the DEA, or (leave medicinal marijuana alone) would say you’re wrong. I took the overall voting record, did my own math and found that… ” OR provided a LINK to these numbers, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Instead you wrote this

            “On the last vote (to leave medicinal pot alone),”

            You didn’t say WHERE that vote came from. WHO you were talking about, NOR did you give a link to your numbers. Butt hurt? ABSOLUTELY you are. I DARED ask for you to PROVE those numbers and YOU got indignant. Answer me this? How come YOU are the ONLY person on here that hasn’t had ONE person fully agree with you? I said “…that UNTIL that point in time, these numbers mean nothing to me.” That’s NOT an insult, just a sentence asking for PROOF! Had you provided ANYTHING where we could look at those numbers, NONE of this would have happened.

            I think where you got all butt hurt was when I referred to the quote regarding numbers given on the internet… which was just a quote.

            “You know what they say about statistics and percentages given on the internet! “99% of the statistics given on the internet are generally 100% pulled out the authors ass”!”

            Whether I’ve EVER voted for a Democrat or a NON-Republican is actually NONE your business. But just to PROVE you WRONG again I’ll answer your question. BOTH answers are YES, I have! As a matter of fact it was LAST election. But you can rest assured that “ALL politics are LOCAL”.

            This’ll damned sure blow you away! You seem concerned about my belief structure, yet when you’re TOLD what I am, YOU don’t seem like it s want to argue.

            “Do you support gay marriage? How about less war? Cutting the pentagon budget? Reigning in the CIA?”

            1) Yes I support Gay marriage. NOT because I LIKE the idea, but because it doesn’t make ANY difference in MY life. It’s no skin off my ass! Oh I’m sure this’ll piss you off though… I AM A CHRISTIAN! I support it cuz I’M NOT the one that’ll have to answer for it. THEY will!

            2) Less war? Check! I believe we need to stay out of other people’s business. BUT what that also entails is NO MORE FOREIGN AID to countries who oppose everything we do in U.N., as well as Nations that illegally send their people here and NATIONS that HATE US unilaterally.

            3) Cutting the Pentagon budget? More so reallocation of those dollars. I believe they’ve ALREADY got enough money. However I support an AUDIT of every Department in the Govt. to CUT redundant programs, unnecessary programs and reallocate the money where BEST be used! I also support an AUDIT of the Fed

            4) Reigning in the CIA? I think you’re again conflating the CIA and the NSA. I think INTERNATIONAL use of the CIA is imperative. We saw what happens to us when we neglect “boots on ground” (NOT soldiers) intelligence resources. When we lowered those standards and went to strictly Satellite Intel, we didn’t know what was TRULY going on. Now on to the NSA… ABSOLUTELY they need reigned in. I’m PISSED that they data mine us like they do. I believe that’s unconstitutional! But I’m going to even further here and you the BIGGEST problem have is NOT the CIA our NSA. The most dangerous agency America the DEA.

            5) Patriot Act… most parts I DESPISE. I also am against the NDAA, but that was a Democrat OOPS… Progressive idea. I’m sure THAT’S okay with you though…

            So I guess that “Fiscal issues” DON’T always reign supreme do they? Now if the ABOVE doesn’t tell you I’m NOT a Republican, you just don’t WANT me NOT to be a Republican.

            I’ve now explained myself and answered most EVERY question yours i could find. But you’ve accused me of being everything a white man, so I’m not holding my breath ANY manner.

            I DO have one question for you though… Have YOU ever voted for a Republican or a NON Democrat?

            I’m ALSO DONE with you. This blog is called theweedblog.com. Therefore I’m NOT discussing ANYTHING other than what is posted BY theweedblog.com. I will speak to those who can speak without INSULTING EVERYONE they’ve come into contact with, their VERY FIRST trip to the website. I’m SURE that theweedblog.com is ECSTATIC to have someone your character FOLLOW them.

          •  

            To some extent that’s true, but when democrats have the majority, they get the house speakership, they get to chair all the committees, get to decide which bills get a vote, etc. And given all of that, just statistically speaking, would it be better to have dem control of the house and have to deal with a few prohibitionist dems, and maybe primary them, or vote for the occasional “weed-friendly” republican, who may individually have a decent position, but with a GOP majority, the ultra-conservative ideologues tend to get put in charge of most committees?

          •  

            Using the flip side of that, when Dems had control of BOTH houses of Congress, Ultra-Liberal ideologues got put in charge of most committees.

            Each side has their problems. What’s good for one is just as good for the other. There’s NO difference between the 2 parties in charge NOW nationally. Especially when it comes to cannabis.

          •  

            “Ultra-Liberal ideologues”

            Like who? List them. I’ll look up their votes on weed issues. Unless you choose this moment to go back to ignoring me.

            “There’s NO difference between the 2 parties in charge NOW nationally. Especially when it comes to cannabis.”

            Complete BS. I could list ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENCES. Choice. War. The Patriot Act. Infrastructure spending. And when it comes to weed, there is, as I SHOWED with solid numbers, THERE’s a HUGE difference. 94% of Democrats voted for this amendment. 20% of Republicans did. To you this equals “NO difference”?

          •  

            It’s ALWAYS the Ultra-conservative or the Ultra-Liberal that will get the attention nationally. But ALL politics are local. I don’t CARE what he says

          •  

            I see I got a long and overly general response, but your quite specific question was ignored… Note as I said elsewhere, before 2010, the Congressional Progressive Caucus had people chairing HALF of the committees in the House. Apparently, this is not desireable for some supposed proponents of personal liberties. One can only conclude that there must be other issues that are more important to those people.

    •  

      Apparently someone forgot to remind Andy Harris and Mitt Romney of that.

      •  

        It’s not 100% of Republicans support medical marijuana. They’re in the 30% that DON’T! ;-)

      •  

        WIllard Romney didn’t even know what hemp was.

        And I’d bet Jetdoc voted for him. Considering the crap I had to listen to about my supposed blanket support for progressives (as far as I can tell, 100% of the Congressional Progressive Caucus has voted for weed in both of the latest chances to do so), where is the same kind of bashing of Jetdoc for his blanket support of a group of politicians who have very small minorities that vote the right way on this issue?

        •  

          Very true, but it isn’t just the GOP (but yes, mostly the GOP). We too need to lean on dems such as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who voted against both bills and is DNC chair, and DiFi, who is now holding up those same two bills in the senate. Yes, the GOP is mostly hostile to cannabis freedom, but we must take on those in our own party who are also standing in the way of progress, and who treat us with such hostility, as JetDoc claims to be doing in his party.

          •  

            It doesn’t seem as if there’s ANYTHING wrong with the Dem party. According to him anyway! It’s ALL me! I’m what’s wrong! He doesn’t like anything Conservative, hence why he insulted me over Abortions of Raped women, Guns, Taxes, etc… yet he knows NOTHING about me, he just painted me into the corner HE wanted me to fit inside.

          •  

            What a liar you are. I have stated many times that there’s a big problem with Democrats, ALL 6% of them in this case, who don’t vote the right way. And I’d like to see stellavoyager show me the story about DiFi holding up these bills in the Senate. First someone says it’s Harry Reid. Then someone says it’s DiFi. So, please, one of you must be wrong, if not both. Let’s see the proof. Apparently, Jetdoc only wants to see easily provable facts proven by me, like vote totals.

          •  

            Oh, I definitely do that. I support progressive challenges in Democratic primaries all the time. I give money. I speak out. And since 94% of my Party in the House voted the right way, and only 20% of Jetdoc’s (although we can’t be sure because he says he’s a Republican AND NOT a Republican) did, then it seems we’re doing a much better job than he.

        •  

          Wow… He’s PSYCHIC as well. He KNOWS who I voted for! Secondly there is no “blanket support”for ANY party, especially since I’ve continuously TOLD you I’m NOT a Republican! I don’t know how many times I have to say that! I can’t get it through your head… I’M NOT A REPUBLICAN!

        •  

          So in other words… You REALLY don’t know CRAP! You’re NOW using that 99% of statistics given on the internet. As much as you’ve been on MY ass, you’re NOT going to get away with the statement “… As far as I know….” which MEANS you actually DON’T know, but you’re assuming you do. We’re NOW back where this ALL started! PROVE WHAT YOU SAY!

          And just to think they say things don’t come full circle…

  2.  

    Pot messes up “family values” lol I saw those family values beating his wife.

  3.  

    Cannabis legalization at the federal level will allow states to decide whether or not their state wants to legalize marijuana. Legalization at the federal level will allow businesses to flourish because if a certain state allows legal sales then they would be subject to rigorous guidance at the federal level.
    Federal guidelines will require complying states to have state control boards to regulate marijuana sales with regular audits of each registered product distributor of cannabis. Purity guidance will be at a premium and each state will determine its own state tax percentage which will be collected at the point of sale. Minors will be excluded from be able to purchase product from these retailers.
    In this way, there will be no law at the federal level to prohibit anyone from engaging in the business of cannabis product sales at any point. The criteria that must be met will be of the locality where business is engaged. If the locality prohibits legal sales of cannabis then one would have to locate to another state or locality where it would be legal however, at the federal level there would not be any restrictions other than quality control requirements guidance that is issued to participating states where sales are legal under their state law.
    Money will flow, our gross national product will flourish, jobs will appear in all sectors and participating state tax bases will explode.

  4.  

    Call, email your politicians be nice always and let them know how you feel

  5.  

    Tell them what you want, if they don’t listen, vote their a55e5 out.

  6.  

    I would really like to know where my comment from yesterday is, and why it wasn’t posted.

  7.  

    So, any progressives in here? Or just a bunch of Republican voters who deny they’re Republicans? Has Jetdoc or wowFAD ever voted for a Democrat? If not, why not? And if not, why the vitriol for straight ticket voters if you are one yourself?

    •  

      LOL — Happens every time. The conservatives always call me a Democrat, the liberals always call me a Republican, and the Libertarians always try to recruit me, simply because I denounce the silly “us and them” model as being fundamentally flawed, and the root of all government dysfunction.

      But ya, you go ahead and have your little pity-party. I won’t be attending.

      •  

        I’m done here man.. I’m not even gonna respond to anymore of his posts. I really wish discus had an ignore feature, I’d use it!

        •  

          You shouldn’t ignore cancer, buddy. And the “us vs them” mentality is certainly a cancer.

          •  

            And yet you have an us vs them mentality on weed issues.

          •  

            Oh really? I’d like to see the evidence, thanks.

            In fact, it’s a little surprising that you haven’t already cut and paste the relevant sentences. Probably because, once again, you’re making huge assumptions, Scott. I bet you won’t have to go very far back in my comment history to realize how horribly incorrect your presuppositions have been.

          •  

            What presuppositions? Do you not have an us vs. them mentality on weed issues?

          •  

            Jeez, Scott — this is why I hate gish gallopers. You go off the handle, rant for thousands of words, dozens of paragraphs, forcing me to pick up all the little tiny arguments you make (for no other apparent reason than getting under our collective skins) and make HUGE replies, myself.
            Look! I just made a HUGE reply. I had to, lest I drop arguments you haven’t already dropped (ceding those arguments to me, but hey, lets not get sidetracked for the seventeenth time).

            Your reply, predictably, ignored everything you no longer wanted to discuss, which was clearly the overwhelming majority of my last comment. Do I seriously need to discuss the virtues of dropped arguments for a third time? All you want to discuss — the only thing important to you — concerns, once again, your PRIDE. Were I to give you a neat, numbered LIST of the presuppositions you’ve made about me (and others) on this comment thread alone, I have absolute confidence you’ll IGNORE IT like every other empirically demonstrated counter argument I’ve made, so far.

            THIS, Scott, is why it’s intellectually dishonest to gish gallop (truth values of statements not withstanding) because they are, by nature, impossible to manage in any productive sense. Issues should be discussed in the light of the *most* important details, first and foremost — learn the virtues of having and defending a single MAIN idea, because your gatling gun approach accomplishes nothing.

            Raising issues, demanding I address them, and then pretending they no longer exist after they’re addressed, then raising *more* issues, constantly shifting goal posts — those are tactics used by people who cannot defend their position on the merits. So you need to stop doing it, because from what I’ve been able to sift out of the huge pile of indignation you’ve been shoveling, the overwhelming majority of your policy stances CAN be defended with sound, valid arguments succinctly.

            Your method does those policy positions NO FAVORS. Because, if your intent was to transmogrify conservatives into progressives, you’ll have better luck squeezing water from a stone with your approach — you’re attitude makes it a futile effort as your temperament makes people WANT to not be on your side. You’re seemingly more satisfied having a verbal temper-tantrum than actually having a discussion, so who would *want* to agree with you, Scott?

            Frankly, you argue *just* like the majority of conservatives I’ve bashed heads with. You’re using their favorite tactics. I trust you’ve seen how effective those tactics are in preserving egos, so I understand the draw. But don’t be a cheater simply because it works to preserve your internet dignity. Strive to be better than what you’ve demonstrated for us, here, which hasn’t been the least bit impressive.

          •  

            Again, there’s a big difference between Gish Galloping, and putting together a string of logical and factually correct arguments.

            None of my arguments are tiny. If I mention it here, it’s because it’s pertinent to the discussion. If it’s too much work for you to deal with, then stop.

            “ignored everything you no longer wanted to discuss”

            And again you give no specifics. The one specific you did give, I just proved you wrong. I did reply to it. So, if you think I”m ignoring something, instead of just saying I ignored something, WHY DON”T YOU SAY WHAT THAT SOMETHING IS?

            “Do I seriously need to discuss the virtues of dropped arguments for a third time?”

            You need to do it with specifics so I can reply to it.

            “numbered LIST of the presuppositions you’ve made”

            Every single supposed presupposition that you’ve mentioned, I’ve proved you were wrong about. If you would be more specific, I could address the ones you apparently can’t, or won’t, remember my reply to.

            “IGNORE IT like every other empirically demonstrated counter argument I’ve made, so far”

            Again. Nothing specific.

            “THIS, Scott, is why it’s intellectually dishonest to gish gallop (truth values of statements not withstanding) because they are, by nature, impossible to manage in any productive sense.”

            If you are not specific about them, then it’s impossible to manage them. If a long string of statements are true, then they’re not a Gish Gallop. A Gish Gallop must, by definition, contain a majority of bullshit.

            ” Issues should be discussed in the light of the *most* important details, first and foremost — learn the virtues of having and defending a single MAIN idea, because your gatling gun approach accomplishes nothing.”

            It’s funny how your propensity to vote against your own policy preferences has turned you into the bullshitting thing you supposedly don’t like, but vote for anyway. I have addressed the SINGLE MAIN IDEA of personal liberties throughout this thread. There is NO QUESTION of the facts… If you believe in personal liberty, you should NOT vote for Republicans.

            The fact that I’ve spent so much time on this main idea, only to have you say that I have not, proves that you are full of it.

            “Raising issues, demanding I address them, and then pretending they no longer exist after they’re addressed, then raising *more* issues, constantly shifting goal posts”

            Ugh… Again. Examples? I’ve taken great care and a lot of my valuable time to address the issues you’ve raised. You just can’t seem to get past the fact that you don’t care for my replies.

            “those are tactics used by people who cannot defend their position on the merits.”

            If you are for personal liberty, you should note vote for Republicans. Unless, of course, you think the personal liberty of a tiny glob of cells is more important that the personal liberties of the woman in whom those cells are multiplying. I have argued the merits of this position to the point of wasting my time with you, since you just continue to say I haven’t, even though I obviously have.

            “the overwhelming majority of your policy stances CAN be defended with sound, valid arguments succinctly.”

            And I have defended them with sound, valid arguments. I just like to pile the indignation onto people who vote for liberty hating, rape baby forcing, warmongering, science denying wingnuts. If 8 years of GW Bush didn’t make you feel the same way, then you apparently don’t really agree with me on most policy positions.

            “You’re seemingly more satisfied having a verbal temper-tantrum”

            Funny. When I do these kinds of things, I like to practice my writing while I’m at it. My so-called temper tantrums are just me slapping Bush voters around. But since Jetdoc wants to keep voting for authoritarians, I decided to focus my words on you, who, while disagreeing with Jetdoc on most issues, still apparently thinks it’s better to occasionally vote against them. In many ways, I find you the more problematic person. He’s voting for Republicans because he agrees with them on many issues. You apparently vote for Republicans, despite the fact that you agree with Democrats more, in order to be able to say you belong to the non party party.

            “who would *want* to agree with you, Scott?”

            You did. You might not like my style, but you agree with my policy positions. The difference between us, apparently, is that I vote in alignment with those positions, and you don’t. Because you want to belong to the “independent” party.

            But anyone who sees the facts, understands what I’m saying, knows damn well that when it comes to personal liberties, one party is horrifically authoritarian (to the point of lying us into a mass murder of innocents that cost 2 trillion) while the other is not.

            “Frankly, you argue *just* like the majority of conservatives”

            I doubt if the conservatives with which you argue use facts to back up their statements.

            “You’re using their favorite tactics.”

            They wish.

            ” But don’t be a cheater simply because it works to preserve your internet dignity”

            Now you’re calling me a cheater? Not one specific mention of anything in particular that I dropped or ignored. Not one specific example of how I’m “cheating.” Just more BS from the mouth of someone who actively encourages people to vote against their interests.

            “Strive to be better than what you’ve demonstrated for us, here, which hasn’t been the least bit impressive.”

            You think I give a damn about impressing you? And you want to talk about MY ego?

            I’m not going to be so presumptive as to boss you around. But I will say that when it comes to impressing with detailed, logical, and consistent arguments, you have a lot to learn.

            So, who you going to vote for for the next Senator for Georgia? Too bad Max Cleland won’t run again. You want to understand the roots of my indignation toward anyone who would even suggest people should vote for Republicans? Look no further than what they did to that honorable man.

          •  

            Didn’t even see this one. Not reading it, either.

          •  

            wowFAD, fingers in ears, screaming “LALALALALALA.” Then calls me petulant.

          •  

            Look! You failed to gish gallop! I’ve won.

            And yet, a part of me is sad it’s over so soon.

            Just to give you a single, solitary dollop of satisfaction — no, I can’t recall voting for a Republican anytime in the last 22 years.

            It was fun. For me, at least.

          •  

            Me: long, thought out, reasoned response directly to the specific statments.

            wowFAD: [fingers in ears] “LALALALALALA”

            pet·u·lant

            ˈpeCHələnt

            adjective

            (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.

          •  

            Sorry, Scott. Even though I’m so very proud of you for recognizing your gish galloping and finally stopping, I’m not going to let you have the last word.

            I will keep replying, forever — not because I disagree with you, but because I don’t like you. And there’s nothing more enjoyable on a slow Monday night than watching you dance on the end of my string, like this.

            I bet you haven’t even noticed your comments disappearing.

          •  

            ” I’m not going to let you have the last word.”

            You think I care about something so petty as your last word?

            “I will keep replying, forever”

            No. You will die someday.

            ” I don’t like you.”

            The feeling is mutual.

            “And there’s nothing more enjoyable on a slow Monday night than watching you dance on the end of my string”

            Your smug fantasies of control over me reveal a sad little man with little control. But disagreeing with Republicans when you live in Georgia, especially when you can’t bring yourself to vote for a Democrat, must be quite frustrating.

            “I bet you haven’t even noticed your comments disappearing.”

            What comments? Looks like they’re all here to me.

          •  

            Of course you care about that, Scott! You’re, by far, the pettiest person I’ve ever had the misfortune of interacting with. Do you not recall your delusion that I am secretly the moderator? LOL That’s about as petty as you can get within the confines of a comment thread — assuming that you are so important that you would garner the moderator’s attention.

            I bet you’re sitting there, right now, fantasizing about my real identity — wishing there was some way you could shut me up. Sadly, I’m not dumb enough to put my real name on the internet.

            Odds are very good this thread is no longer under moderation, which means you can go ad hominem with something besides “chicken.” Let loose, Scott. If you were trying to hide how crazy mad you are, you’ve failed miserably.

            Oh, and as for your comments disappearing — MADE YOU LOOK. LOL

          •  

            “Do you not recall your delusion that I am secretly the moderator?”

            It’s right there. Anyone can see that you are bullshitting. All I did was ask if you were the moderator.

            But, please, continue…

            “assuming that you are so important that you would garner the moderator’s attention.”

            I was trying to get the moderators attention because my comment in reply to jetdoc had not been published. These simple facts seem to confuse you for some reason….

            “I bet you’re sitting there, right now, fantasizing about my real identity”

            You really think you’re that important to me? Honestly? Or is bullshit just what you do for fun? I guess things are kinda slow down there in dixie.

            “wishing there was some way you could shut me up. ”

            I like it when people like you keep talking.

            “Sadly, I’m not dumb enough to put my real name on the internet.”

            What are you afraid of? Some big bad liberal you agree with but won’t vote the same as becuase, well, who cares why, huh?

            I use my real name because I’m not ashamed of afraid of people like you. But if you’re threatening me, come on up and do it in person. You won’t be the first.

            “you can go ad hominem ”

            Heh. I’ve tried to keep this specific. You’re the one who dropped the subject for over-generalizations and bullshit that has nothing to do with the points at hand.

            “MADE YOU LOOK”

            What? Are you 14 years old?

            If you are old enough to vote, and you’re really where you say you are, you have some options at the voting booth in November when it comes to who you send to the US House as your Representative:

            Vote for Jodi Hice.

            Write in someone, maybe a gay Muslim.

            Vote for the Democrat, Ken Dious.

            Probably best to go for the write in. You wouldn’t want you to seem PARTISAN to yourself.

          •  

            Again, not reading it.

            Although I did notice the indignation pouring off of this one. The only question I’m pondering at the moment is how long will you continue typing and typing and typing *knowing* that I’m not reading these replies? Given how difficult it is for information to penetrate your world view, I’m betting this goes on for months, until Jay finally locks the thread.

            If you go back far enough, you can find an example or two of this occurring. You see Scott, you’re not the first troll I’ve stomped silly on these comment threads. You won’t be the last. Although you certainly are the first liberal I’ve met who gets his jollies in this way. For a while, I thought perhaps both sides of the fence were different, but I’m glad you’re here to remind me that liberals are just as convinced of the righteousness of their “side” as any conservative.

            The fact that you fight so hard for your “side” is evidence enough of that. The fact that you *still* believe that having a “side” is going to accomplish anything, however, isn’t funny at all. But ya, you keep thinking you’re doing the right thing. Clearly, there’s no teaching an old dog new tricks, in this case. You’re set in your ways (see how to use those words correctly, Scott? — “your” vs. “you’re”) and there’s no changing it.

            In 30 years, people like yourself will populate the DNC with the exact same indignation Republicans demonstrate, now. You’ll put a posthumous crown on Clinton’s head the same way the Republicans do so for Reagan (the FDR quote is proof of that — FDR gave executive order 9066, if I have to remind you).

            Frankly, it’s a little sad that I can predict with 100% accuracy *every* vote you’ll cast for the rest of your life, simply because I know which “side” you’re on. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so depressing. You see, you’re not just satisfied to be in your little categorical box on the shelf, you are driven to pull other people into the box with you, and lambast anyone who tries to tell you to throw the box away. You are, of course, free to stay in your box, Scott. I’m sure the conviction that you’re doing the right thing is more than enough to keep you lulled into following all the other sheople.

            It’s just sad, really — every soap-box liberal I’ve ever talked to has always shared this odd conviction that they’re the open-minded free thinkers, while conservatives are closed-minded, despite the fact that the liberal parrots back MSNBC drivel with the same volume and frequency as Fox News fans. Both of you convinced you’re on the “correct side” of the political fence — a fence that, again, was never supposed to exist.

            I’d like to take this moment to double-dog-dare you to cut and paste a single instance of me disagreeing with a single policy point. The reason? So that you can finally figure out that you’ve been stomping your feet and beating your chest trying to get me to follow you down any one of several dozen rabbit holes, simply because you were under the mistaken impression THAT was the conversation I was having with you — that I was trying to defend conservatives.

            That’s what I have meant every time I’ve said you’ve been having an argument “all by yourself” for the duration of this conversation. I made a point that sailed so far over your head, you convinced yourself I was saying something *else*, and have been behaving as if that were true.

            So please, locate even a single instance of me indulging one of the loose threads you’ve been all too happy to yank out, over the last week or so. The reason I never did so — again — was that wasn’t the conversation I started, so it won’t be the conversation I finish, either.

            This has all been one, huge lesson in following the MAIN IDEA instead of jumping to a conclusion and chasing after it. I’ve let you chase this false assumption of yours, all by yourself, hoping that you’d get lonely arguing with *nobody* and let a few thoughts congeal that weren’t first bullet-pointed by Rachel Maddow.

            I would hope that maybe someday you’d realize what a mistake you’ve made, but I’m aware such revelations require a person to employ a certain presence of mind that you’ve demonstrated you are incapable of employing. So really, all I’m doing is ensuring that, at the very least, the chain of positive reinforcement is broken — whatever sick satisfaction you got out of annoying Jetdoc won’t be repeated, here. In fact, the memory of your, ehem, “victory” over him will be a faint, distant memory that pails in comparison to the personal shame you’re *still* accumulating from this conversation. The fact that you haven’t realized it yet is astounding — you’ll be upset if you quit this conversation this week, but you’ll be livid when you quit next month.

            See, you were able to simply annoy Jetdoc into going away, after he allowed you to bait him into indulging your rabid liberalism by chasing you down one of those aforementioned rabbit holes, which, no doubt, you’ve conflated into some sort of “victory” for yourself. Objectively speaking, however, you’ve won nothing, and ironically, anyone who would witness this seven day tantrum of yours would agree that, between you and Jetdoc, *you* are the loser.

            After all, I still respect him. He won my respect by demonstrating an ability that you fundamentally lack — the ability to rewrite dogmatic belief. Your mistake, Scott, was refusing to even question your belief that political party distinctions are necessarily opposing sides of a coin, and that every exchange of ideas (an argument, to you) is supposed to end with one person’s coin being flipped. Again, for the umpteenth time, that’s not how it’s *supposed* to be, and never was.

            I’m so tempted to try a fourth time to make the original point, but I won’t. We’re way beyond saving you, Scott.

            Just to once again remind you if it’s not clear — I didn’t read your comment. I won’t read the next one. I won’t read the one you posted in the time I’ve been writing this comment. But let’s keep this going, Scott. I’m interested to see whether you stick around as long as the other trolls have. So far, you’re not even close to holding the crown. It’ll be another few weeks of this before you rival one of the trolls I bother to remember.

            We’ll see how many different ways I can make you feel rotten in the next reply, although that one may need to wait until I’m home. Although it’s not like you’re not taking days between replies, which just confuses me. You’re obviously not editing them for spelling, grammar, or content — you certainly aren’t trying to “craft” your speech for my benefit (at least you shouldn’t bee — again, not reading them). So why does it take you so long to produce these replies, Scott?

            Yes, I recognize the irony of asking a question that, even if you *DO* answer it, I won’t read the answer. And I find it hilarious! LOL

          •  

            94% of Democrats voted the way you want on a pot issue.

            20% of Republicans did.

            I said, vote for progressives.

            when I said “Vote for progressives,” which has a higher than 94% success rate on this issue, you went apoplectic–condescendingly ranting about how that was a terrible idea. Right. 94% odds vs. 20%. The 94% option is a terrible idea. Vs. the 20% idea.

            OK, then.

            Since you have long since dropped this subject, and the other about incumbent reelection rates, and instead gone on an epic rant of willful ignorance, it’s obvious you can’t argue the points.

            Now go back to your little game where you put your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself while you type with your elbows.

          •  

            Before I send an actual reply from home this evening, I’d just like to note how pleased I am that I was able to trick you into gish galloping, again, by simply leaving a reply small enough for you to handle. Must feel good getting back to “basics” huh, Scott?

            Keep dancing on the end of my string, Scott.

            The reply I give to this comment will dwarf the one I made during lunch. I dare you to work your cut-and-paste magic on it. Maybe you can type a little faster, this time? Spreading this out just makes it harder to remember your username.

            Although don’t get me wrong — I am having a good time. I just never remember you until I see the notification. And I *would* reply now, but it would be irresponsible to indulge myself when lunch was over 15 minutes, ago.

            But do not be concerned — I’ll get back to you after dinner, tonight. Wait with baited breath, my love. LOL

          •  

            I still look forward to seeing some equally demeaning comments to Republicans from you.

          •  

            Take the hint, Scott — you need only look BACKWARD to see some equally demeaning comments to/about Republicans from me.

            Click on my username, and sift a little bit. In fact, you need only go back a month to get to some really juicy denouncements of conservative hypocrisy. THAT’s why myself (and several other Weedblog regulars) are so amused by your accusing ME of being biased in favor of damn-near *any* conservative policy and candidates.

            It’s positively laughable, Scott, because you’ve been attacking someone who you legitimately AGREE WITH on most policy issues, simply because I tried to teach you something your civics teacher *FAILED* to teach you — our democracy was never intended to be party-based, and would work exponentially BETTER if it weren’t. See? I repeated it a THIRD time for you. Stop looking at national trends to drive party-line “straight D” or “straight R” ballots that don’t mean anything, which maintains the current “nothing ever gets done” system on both sides of the fence of this unintentional (yet now indispensable) party-based political system. Telecommunications and “town halls” being what they are, our elected representatives are not above one-on-one reproach. Therefor, the party system is unnecessary; we can hold OUR representatives’ feet to the fire, ourselves.

            I’m absolutely aware of the percentage chances that any given Republican has some whacky and oftentimes dangerous policy ideas. At no point did I *ever* dispute that fact, yet you’ve treated me (and others) as hostile from the get-go — you were demanding apologies for imagined slights. By the time I joined this conversation, you were already too butt-hurt to learn a damn thing. One of those passages that you DIDN’T cut and paste — the one about the incumbent re-election rates — was the important part you skipped.

            Either you’ve never EVER wondered why the incumbent re-election rate is so high for candidates who are completely crazy, or at least you *believe* you already know the reason. The reason is simple: too many lazy people vote by party, not by candidate. The result, primaries have become the only important contests. Progressives, liberals, and democrats in areas that are Republican-controlled aren’t even polled anymore, as the pragmatic political operators recognize no Democrat will ever get elected in “red states.” So encouraging Jetdoc to “always vote progressive” to end the drug war is simply perpetuating the party-based system that keeps huge swaths of the population believing their votes “don’t count anyway.”

            I can’t spell this out any more clearly than this. The only point I was EVER trying to make to you is that voting via labels makes less sense than buying clothes via labels because *SO MUCH* more is at stake! And to once again answer a question I already answered in a reply to you, NO, I never voted for Paul Broun — I wrote in Charles Darwin. However, I would vote for him if he changed his position on reproductive rights and removed the specks of Jesus from his policy decisions. He jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon that my state is still riding, and won’t get off until we start voting for CANDIDATES instead of PARTY. Because a given election in a red state is already decided to be a win for Republicans, the contest becomes a race exclusively between conservatives to win the primary, as that’s the only contest that matters so long as the party system exists.

            The fastest growing descriptive category within “religious beliefs” is atheist/agnostic non-believers, and the fastest growing (and most dramatically untapped) category of voters are the non-party affiliated independent voters (not the ones who are just masquerading liberals and conservatives trying to trick people). Telling someone “vote by MY party, not yours” won’t solve anything, and NEVER HAS.

            So in closing, I invite you, once again, to just LOOK at the comments I’ve made roasting conservatives — it’s just a click away. I’m astounded you have the time and energy to pick through my comments and publish these rants of yours, and yet you haven’t take 15 minutes to click on my username and attempt the understand who, precisely, you’re talking to. I did. Which is why I haven’t *ACTUALLY* insulted you, yet — I’ve been pointing out how poor your reasoning has been, but it’s impossible to point that out delicately in such a way that would spare your tender feelings, apparently.

            Believe me, if I wanted to drive you up the wall, I could. My reputation on these comment threads isn’t a nice one. This exchange between you and I has been *very* tame in comparison to others. This is what it looks like when I’m trying to be polite. Again, review my past comments, you need not go any further back than a few weeks (which isn’t much) to see what a huge mistake you’ve made — how your wounded pride INDEED made you gish gallop.

            A gish gallop, by the way, “more often than not” (I’m quoting you) includes incorrect information, which semantically is not identical to “always” — so yes, you were gish galloping, you simply say MANY things that are true, albeit contextually restricted. And no, given your demonstrated history of dropping arguments you can’t address, I don’t expect you to reply, the same way you failed to cut, paste, and address the passages from my comment concerning the Attorney General, the Secretary of HHS, and section 812 of the CSA with regards to executive inaction — you simply did what I encouraged you *NOT* to do, which was attempting to edge Obama out from underneath the definition of “progressive.”

            So for goodness sake, Scott — pull the stick out, already. I’m still waiting for your last dissertation to pass moderation so I can reply to it.

          •  

            “THAT’s why myself”

            And you criticized my grammar…

            “you’ve been attacking someone who you legitimately AGREE WITH on most policy issues”

            So, you vote for Republicans even though you disagree with them on almost everything? Just so you can denigrate anyone who doesn’t?

            ” simply because I tried to teach you something your civics teacher *FAILED* to teach you — our democracy was never intended to be party-based, and would work exponentially BETTER if it weren’t. ”

            Civics teaches don’t teach opinion. Our Democracy had parties even before the parties had names. Those for a powerful central government and those for a weak one. And alignment into parties is a perfectly natural evolution for a democracy where, say, one side thinks black people are inferior and the other does not. Or one side ignores and belittles science while the other does not.

            The idea that we’d be better without parties is an OPINION, and a pretty lousy one at that. Not some fact that all civics teachers should teach.

            “Stop looking at national trends to drive party-line “straight D” or “straight R” ballots that don’t mean anything”

            You sure are bossy.

            I am pro-choice. Show me a pro choice Republican. I can count them on one hand. I’m want to put a price on carbon. Show me a Republican that wants to do that. I want to LEGALIZE weed. How many Republicans agree with me? I want to cut pentagon spending. How many Republicans want to do that? I want to increase the minimum wage. Last time that came up in the House, NOT ONE Republican voted for it.

            But, again, you accuse me of voting a straight ticket blindly. I do not. I don’t know anyone who does. I just happen to vote a straight ticket because on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, the GOP is the opposite of what I want.

            “which maintains the current “nothing ever gets done” system on both sides of the fence ”

            Bullshit. We’ve seen plenty get done. When the GOP was in power, they ran up the debt with unpaid for tax cuts, war, medicare part D… When the Dems were in power, they passed a PAID for MASSIVE health insurance revamp. Lots gets done. I just don’t like what the GOP gets done and I do like what the Dems get done. The reason we can’t get anything done now, like infrastructure, which used to be bipartisan, is because the GOP has gone crazy.

            “you were demanding apologies for imagined slights.”

            What a bullshitter you are. Jetdoc questioned my numbers and suggested I pulled them out of my ass. That is not an imagined slight. What’s your problem? Can’t argue with reality, so you just make stuff up?

            ” you were already too butt-hurt to learn a damn thing”

            And you say I’m presumptive. If you had something worth learing, I’d learn it. So far, all you’ve got is BS.

            “the incumbent re-election rates — was the important part you skipped.”

            More BS. I specifically addressed that. Look again. Incumbents get reelected because of gerrymandering. Partisan politics plays a part in that, yes, but that can easily be overcome, as CA did.

            “The reason is simple: too many lazy people vote by party, not by candidate.”

            Show me some proof. Polling. Studies. Anything but what you pull out of your ass.

            “So encouraging Jetdoc to “always vote progressive” to end the drug war is simply perpetuating the party-based system that keeps huge swaths of the population believing their votes “don’t count anyway.””

            Wrong. It’s encouraging people to vote in a way that will increase the odds of me getting the policy outcomes I want.

            “The only point I was EVER trying to make to you is that voting via labels makes l ess sens e than buying clothes via labels because *SO MUCH* more is at stake! ”

            You were trying to make more points than that. But on this point, I wasn’t just encouraging blind adherence to a D next to a name, but a specific type of D who, in the vast majority of cases, votes for personal liberty. On issue after issue, I support progressives over corporocrats or Blue Dogs. But in its current crazification state, I can’t think of A SINGLE Republican who deserves anyone’s vote if that person believes in personal liberty. Even Rand Paul supports a personhood amendment.

            So, what’s a poor personal liberties voter to do? Say, oh well, I really don’t like this Republican, and the Democrat is much better on many issues that are important to me, but I really don’t want to be a partisan?

            Seriously. This whole thing is because you pulled my “vote for progressives” statement out of context. The important part you left out is “if you want personal liberty.” I gave concrete examples that you both conceed are correct. But if you think (wrongly) that liberals are out to get your guns, or liberals are baby killers, or that global warming is a hoax, then DUH! Of course you should vote for the idiotic BSers with whom you agree.

            ” I would vote for him if he changed his position on reproductive rights and removed the specks of Jesus from his policy decisions.”

            The chances of Paul Broun doing that are approximately nill.

            “and won’t get off until we start voting for CANDIDATES instead of PARTY”

            Again, this might be true of people who vote Republican against their own interests (eg, personal liberty), but show me the people who vote for Democrats against their personal interests.

            “Because a given election in a red state is already decided to be a win for Republicans”

            This is because a majority of the people in those states agree with Republican BS about guns and so-called baby killers. In fact, abortion is the single issue that will tell you someone’s party faster than anything. And I don’t see anything wrong with that. If people feel so strongly about an issue that it causes them to vote for one party over another consistently, then isn’t that just those people expressing their most important policy priority with their vote? What should they do? Vote the other way just so they can be like you?

            “non-party affiliated independent voters”

            They are a myth. I’m busy today but you can find the research on this if you google it. Most independents actually lean quite strongly one way or another. The recent increase in independents is largely a result of embarrassed Republicans who lean libertarian in an authoritarian party. They’re embarrassed by what Bush did, as well they should be.

            “Telling someone “vote by MY party, not yours” won’t solve anything, and NEVER HAS.”

            Oh yes it has. In this case, I said vote for Progressives, not just my party. I want Corporate Dems primaried. I want true progressives to go up against authoritarian Republicans. But even in the case of, say, your Senate Race, as conservative as Michelle Nunn is, she’s going to be MUCH BETTER on issues of importance to me than Phil Gingrey, that peach.

            “LOOK at the comments I’ve made roasting conservatives”

            I spend too much time on you already. That’s why I asked if you saved your vitriol for the people responsible for screwing up the country, or just for those of us doing our best to clean up their mess.

            “spare your tender feelings”

            Again you ascribe something to me that doesn’t exist. Why? Reality too tough for you? Dude, fire away. I have very thick skin.

            “I wanted to drive you up the wall, I could”

            Again you assume that I let shit someone I don’t know says on the internet get to me. I have an acerbic style of writing because I’ve finally gotten sick of anyone even suggesting that we should occasionally vote for a Republican, and that never voting for one is wrong. I’m proud of the fact that I’ve never voted for one. I can’t stand their authoritarian BS. Apparently, you, on the other hand, will occasionally vote for one even though someone else in the race better represents your position.

            “This is what it looks like when I’m trying to be polite.”

            I am also trying to be polite. But I’m curious. The TOS doesn’t allow much more than you’ve dished out here, so how’d your more vile comments get past moderation?

            “how your wounded pride INDEED made you gish gallop.”

            Again… Seriously? You need to get out of Georgia, man. It’s warping your sense of reality.

            ” dropping arguments you can’t address,”

            I just addressed this by pointing out that your ONE example was, in fact, addressed by me, and you just missed it and went on as if your error hadn’t happened. As if the fact that you didn’t see my reply was my fault.

            “Attorney General, the Secretary of HHS, and section 812 of the CSA with regards to executive inaction — you simply did what I encouraged you *NOT* to do, which was attempting to edge Obama out from underneath the definition of “progressive.””

            Again. I directly responded to this. I want them to change the scheduling of weed. I am aware that they could. I am also aware that Bush could have. Who do you think we have better odds with? A GOP president elected by hippie punchers, or a moderate (yes, Obama is not progressive on this issue) Democrat who has been more progressive (not enough for me, but still) on this issue than any Republican EVER. Honestly… People can be progressive on some issues and not on others, but so far, this president has been MUCH BETTER on this issue than any other. Certainly better than any Republican.

            “pull the stick out, already”

            SO bossy… And so out of luck.

            “still waiting for your last dissertation to pass moderation”

            How do you know if there’s something that hasn’t gotten out of moderation? I went straight to this comment via my email, but I’m pretty sure everything’s been posted.

            Take a hint, whatever your name is. The facts are quite clear. Parties are mearly representations of policy preferences. The fact that my policy prefernces line up perfectly with progressive Democrats isn’t BECAUSE I identify as a progressive and just agree with everything they do. It’s because I look at the issues, weed throgh them, reach a conclusion, and then find the party, or the wing of the party, that best represents that conclusion.

            You, on the other hand, apparently reach conclusions, and then say, well, I don’t want to seem partisan, so, I’ll vote against my conclusions.

            Genius.

          •  

            Didn’t even read it.

            You know why? The first axiom of this so-called “logical argument” you have is another spelling/typography/grammar error. How, exactly, does that play into making *any* sort of argument? BTW — there’s nothing wrong with shortening “that is” into “that’s.” They’re called contractions. Or were you objecting to the phrase “myself and others”? No, forget it — the point is, it is completely unimportant.

            Also, while we’re on the subject, you should be aware that I have no idea why your browser is inserting random spaces into the things you cut and paste from my comments. They’re not there in my browser when I write them, nor do they appear there when they’re displayed after I post them. I have a spell-check plugin, so “y ou” has a little red line underneath it. And again — I still don’t see how that obviously irrelevant detail could possibly play into *any* logical argument you claim to be making with these tedious gish gallops.

            Gish gallops, again, need not contain incorrect or misleading lies or half-truths. I noticed, once again, that you failed to cut and paste the precise portion of my reply in which I quote your own words and explain that a gish gallop need only be a long, tedious accumulation of contextually independent “arguments” (i.e., the random junk like very first line of your reply). Maybe my use of contractions bothers you, but I don’t see how that could *ever* be part of any logical argument — again.

            Honestly, Scott — If you were legitimately trying to prove some point or make some sort of argument (with your gish galloping) you wouldn’t still be here, acting so petty. Unless of course the point you’re trying to prove is that your intention is, was, and always has been getting under someone’s skin. In which case, I feel sorry for you. You’ve been kicking that dead horse for two days. If the point you were trying to demonstrate is that *this* sort of behavior is how you get your kicks, that your life really is *this* small — again, point demonstrated.

            You’ve been having an argument (more of a digital fit) all by yourself for at least three or four days, now. And just to remind you — you’re accomplishing NOTHING. You’ve convinced no one to agree with you, on anything. You’ve had no one rush to your defense or support your arguments. You’ve certainly made no friends, Scott. No one is going to remember what you’ve said here. You’ve accomplished, precisely, NOTHING.

            Do you not understand yet, Scott? You haven’t accomplished *anything* because of your petulant attitude. You will not accomplish anything because of your attitude. I’ve known college freshman with more maturity (and intellectual acuity) than you, Scott.

            So keep it coming, Scott. I’m perfectly willing to continue pointing out your multiple failings and shortcomings. The important question is, can your delicate sensibilities take the criticism?

          •  

            “Didn’t even read it.

            You know why?”

            Because you’re a bullshitter who really wants to vote for Republicans for some reason you don’t want to explain?

            “The first axiom of this so-called “logical argument” you have is another spelling/typography/grammar error.”

            Um, you were the one who criticized my grammar first. Of course, you weren’t specific about what my grammatical mistakes were. You just said I made them with no evidence to support your claim.

            “How, exactly, does that play into making *any* sort of argument?”

            I don’t know. Ask yourself why you criticized my grammar.

            “Or were you objecting to the phrase “myself and others””

            I’m not Runionesque when it comes to contractions. Your sentence was “THAT’s why myself (and several other Weedblog regulars) are so amused.” Since you saw fit to criticize my supposed grammar mistakes, I thought it would only be fair if I pointed out that you should have said “that’s why I and others.” But you don’t like fairness, apparently.

            “it is completely unimportant.”

            And yet you thought it would be worth doing to me.

            “your browser is inserting random spaces”

            I use chrome. And I cut and paste EXACTLY what I find. That’s the whole point. But you’ve now continued a conversation you deem unimportant.

            “I noticed, once again, that you failed to cut and paste the precise portion of my reply in which I quote your own words and explain that a gish gallop need only be a long, tedious accumulation of contextually independent “arguments””

            How could you have noticed something you didn’t read? I posted the definition of Gish Gallop from Wikipedia. The basis for the whole phrase is that the guy was Bullshitting about evolution. Go to Urban Dictionary for an even better definition!

            “If you were legitimately trying to prove some point or make some sort of argument (with your gish galloping) you wouldn’t still be here, acting so petty.”

            Says the man who first criticized my grammar, then says it’s unimportant, then does it again.

            “Unless of course the point you’re trying to prove is that your intention is, was, and always has been getting under someone’s skin. In which case”

            No, my point is that if you have a problem with something specific, then state the specific thing you have a problem with. Instead, you have now told me you didn’t read my comment, then you complain about my comment you didn’t read, and you again refuse to offer specific policy or factual complaints.

            “You’ve convinced no one to agree with you, on anything”

            You assume that the reason behind any commenting is to convince someone of something. If you want to keep voting for Republicans with whom you disagree on almost everything for the sake of not being a partisan, by all means, go ahead. But I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I just want to berate you for your bullshit in public.

            The fact that you will not argue with any specificity, but instead result to general bullshit and idle insults tells me that you can’t really argue with me on the specifics because you know damn well that blind party line voting isn’t what causes high incumbent reelection rates. You know damn well that your supposed independence means that you must occasionally vote for Republicans for some reason you refuse to discuss, when voting for the Democrat would be a better fit.

            “You’ve had no one rush to your defense”

            I don’t need any help. You haven’t argued with my specifics at all. I asked. You refuse.

            “You’ve certainly made no friends, Scott”

            You can’t possibly know that. You have no idea who’s read this and agreed with me, or enjoyed my specifics vs your generalizations. You couldn’t possibly know how many people laughed when I answered your specific points and then you claimed I had not.

            “No one is going to remember what you’ve said here.”

            They don’t have to. It will be here for as long as this blog is.

            “You’ve accomplished, precisely, NOTHING.”

            I have accomplished a detailed argument about why people who say personal liberty is important should vote for progressives. I’ve also put forward many facts that people who agree might find helpful. In fact, I just spent about 10 minutes refuting the GOP talking points from the non Republican INSIDE the Republican party, as you can see below. Refuting bullshit is NOT NOTHING.

            “petulant attitude”

            This from the guy who refuses to talk specifics, admittedly won’t read what I’ve read, and continues to insult me while insinuating that insulting people is bad.

            “I’ve known college freshman with more maturity (and intellectual acuity) than you, Scott.”

            You don’t know me. So your claim is a joke. I have answered your specific points, and you come back with insults and generalizations. The fact that you continue to run away and hide (talk about petulance) into your rhetorical corner, full of exactly ZERO specific arguments tells me that you don’t really want to talk about incumbent reelection rates, or the differences between the founding fathers, or the fact that when it comes to personal freedoms, you shouldn’t vote for Republicans.

            You certainly don’t want to talk about why someone who agrees with me on so much policy would ever vote for those who propose doing the exact opposite.

            And I’ve met high school seniors who can put together more coherent arguments using specifics.

            “I’m perfectly willing to continue pointing out your multiple failings and shortcomings.”

            I’m sure you are. If only you would go after the specific points instead of committing the genetic fallacy and attacking me, the source. And it’s so funny that many of what you see as my failings and shortcomings, like my delicate sensibilities, are just bullshit you made up.

            “The important question is, can your delicate sensibilities continue to take the criticism?”

            Yeah, go read the comment you say you didn’t read. Then get back to me. My skin is thick. Let loose. Don’t hold back! Push the limits of the TOS. My sensitivities are not delicate.

            But do try to be specific about the arguments instead of just insulting me. Maybe if your insults were creative instead of the same old boring, over-generalized tripe you’ve regurgitated from your years of attacking people you don’t like while avoiding the specifics of the arguments in question….

          •  

            Look, you posted something else I won’t read.
            Thousands of words, and I don’t know how much time wasted, again, to accomplish precisely nothing. It’s hilarious! And yet, here you are, doing it again. It’s a little masturbatory, don’t you think?
            I’m almost tempted to reply immediately so that you know I didn’t read it, but I have a promise to keep, which is to continue to give you every opportunity to further demonstrate how childish and petulant you can be. Fact is, I need not try any harder than this, because I can tell you’re getting more and more unhinged with every reply I give you (because I still refuse to read your comments).
            These little temper-tantrums of yours will not be read by anyone, least of all myself. As you’ve noted elsewhere, this is a blog with at least four or five new entries, daily. Which means this conversation is already thoroughly buried where nobody will read it. It’s really just you and me.
            It’s an imbalanced relationship, however. I’m not reading anything you’re posting, I’m just flagging it all for moderation before I reply. One of two things will probably happen — you’ll give up, or you’ll be banned for reasons I’ll leave up to the moderator to determine. Needless to say, you won’t be missed, Scott.
            What’s funny is that your “style” requires you to read every last word I’m writing, while I’m ignoring everything you say. You’re even going to cute and paste this very passage, knowing I will not read it. And I have the unique satisfaction of knowing you’ll be combing through everything in this reply, my next reply, and every reply afterwards until you finally crack.
            It’s probably a good time to tell you what, specifically, the difference is between tenacity and stubbornness. The difference is that people admire and respect the former. Respect and admiration are things you haven’t acquired, here. I trust you can do the math?
            In fact, I had a neat discussion this afternoon with a coworker about the difference between arrogance and confidence. There’s no question which category you fall into in this case, either. I’m sure you have no doubts on that matter. This is just for your personal edification. Confidence is the dispassionate attitude one displays when they know, given the context, that they know what they are saying and/or doing. Arrogance, on the other hand, is the passionate belief that you know what you’re saying and/or doing regardless of the context. This is why a person who is confident in a familiar context will simply display uncertainty when confronted with an unfamiliar context, while an arrogant person will fall apart and become completely unhinged when it becomes apparent they don’t know what they’re saying and/or doing. The difference between arrogance and confidence is, indeed, a subtle distinction.
            You don’t strike me as a confidant person. Your behavior tells me that you’re desperately seeking some sort of validation online that you’re not getting in real life. Otherwise, I expect you wouldn’t still be *here* publishing rants no one will read (not even me).
            Again, I’d just like to point out how amusing it is to know that you WILL be reading every last word I’ve written, so far, as well as every word in every future reply. I don’t think my dissertation ever got this much personal attention from anybody. So thanks again for wasting your time for no other reason than my entertainment.
            Although I should start making dinner, so I’ll wrap this up and anxiously look forward to your next gish gallop, Scott. Not that I’m going to read it. ;-)

          •  

            “Look, you posted something else I won’t read.”

            Because your a chicken who knows if he gets into the specifics of this argument, he’ll lose.

            “Thousands of words”

            Just as many from you.

            “I don’t know how much time wasted”

            And yet your PRIDE makes you keep coming back to talk when you won’t listen.

            ” to accomplish precisely nothing”

            I addressed this, and all your other BS in the comment you won’t read.

            “And yet, here you are, doing it again. It’s a little masturbatory, don’t you think? ”

            You’re the one who refuses to take your medicine by ignoring what I say and arguing (masturbating) instead with your favorite straw men.

            Hell, at least I read what you have to say.

            “I’m almost tempted to reply immediately so that you know I didn’t read it”

            No, I believe you didn’t read it. That’s how bullshitters roll.

            “give you every opportunity to further demonstrate how childish and petulant you can be.”

            You’re the one sticking your fingers in your ears going “LALALALALALALA…. I’m not listening!”

            “Fact is, I need not try any harder than this, because I can tell you’re getting more and more unhinged with every reply I give you (because I still refuse to read your comments).”

            You have such a high opinion of yourself that you think your sticking your fingers in your ears bothers me?

            “These little temper-tantrums of yours will not be read by anyone, least of all myself.”

            The temper tantrum is you sticking your fingers in your ears.

            ” this conversation is already thoroughly buried where nobody will read it”

            Oh, you never no. My blog gets hits on pages that are years old.

            “It’s really just you and me. ”

            Since you’re sticking your fingers in your ears, it’s really just me, HUH?

            “I’m not reading anything you’re posting”

            It shows. And you’re repeating yourself.

            “flagging it all for moderation before I reply”

            So you admit that you are giving the moderator work without actually reading it to see if that work is warranted. Nice.

            “One of two things will probably happen — you’ll give up, or you’ll be banned for reasons I’ll leave up to the moderator to determine. ”

            Well, there is another possibility. The comment could be posted.

            “What’s funny is that your “style” requires you to read every last word I’m writing, while I’m ignoring everything you say.”

            That’s because my “style” is based on specifics, and yours is just bullshit about the person who you admit you’re not reading.

            “You’re even going to cute and paste this very passage”

            In order to make sure I reply to precisely what you say, instead of just making stuff up about you.

            “And I have the unique satisfaction of knowing you’ll be combing through everything in this reply, my next reply, and every reply”

            If you don’t read what I write, then by definition what you are doing is NOT replying.

            Ah, here… More non specific bullshit… Until…

            “Your behavior tells me that you’re desperately seeking some sort of validation online that you’re not getting in real life.”

            Heh. You’re funny. Wild assumptions and generalizations about someone you don’t know, won’t read, and yet feel the need to insult in general terms… Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

          •  

            *You’re — that’s a contraction of “you are.” “Your” is the possessive case of “you.”
            Just FYI, seeing as how I know how much you adore correct grammar.

            Oh, by the way, I’m not getting into the “specifics” because I never delved into any of your silly tangents, Scott. You see, I understand that nothing unnerves a person like yourself more than refusing to play the game by their rules, especially when I also refuse to stop playing, and there isn’t a thing you can do to stop me.

            So please, encore! Encore! LOL

          •  

            Again, I did not assume anything. I asked if you only save your BS for liberals. I didn’t say you did.

          •  

            Talk about points that get ignored or dropped…

          •  

            I look forward to you telling a Republican that they need to cooperate with the other side more. In fact, I’d like to see just one example. Or do you save your vitriol for liberals only?

          •  

            If we quit responding to him, maybe he’ll go away! I’m ignoring this PARTICULAR cancer. He’s EVERYTHING that he’s accused me of being he just doesn’t see it.

          •  

            “I’m ignoring this PARTICULAR cancer”

            Says the guy who has now responded to me twice since he said this.

          •  

            I’m havin fun now! I just hit a spliff

          •  

            I wonder if the guys you voted for disapprove? I wonder if they want to put you in jail? Or maybe they’re fine with you toking up as long as you’ll send your kids to fight in the wars they lie us into?

          •  

            Further, judging by your overly general statements about liberals, it seems you have a real us v them mentality yourself. Unless you can show me where you’ve been equally overly general and rude to Republicans.

        •  

          Yeah, because you don’t like truth being put in your face.

          •  

            And not to spike the football too much, but you are aware that all you’ve done (other than amuse me) is ensure Jetdoc will never EVER vote for a liberal, progressive, or Democrat, just to spite you.

            I know what you’re thinking, but that’s not his failing. It’s yours.

            He and I are on polar ends about a lot of different issues, and yet he doesn’t hate MY guts. He even listens to what I have to tell him because I don’t condescend to him.

            You, on the other hand, have made a permanent enemy of him, I’m certain. Although it’s obvious (to anyone who sees your posts) that was your intention from the start. You were never trying to convince him of anything. The way you describe your behavior as if it were a legitimate way of having an argument/discussion is a *very* thin veil for your online penis measuring contests. No mistaking it for anything else.

            Well it’s not going to get any bigger, Scott, no matter how many times you do this, so maybe it’s time to zip up, for good.

            God forbid anyone you know finds this thread. Just skimming the comments, I’m embarrassed for you.

          •  

            “is ensure Jetdoc will never EVER vote for a liberal, progressive, or Democrat”

            Yeah, right. I’m so powerful that I alone am responsible for the future voting patterns of a wingnut who spewed out so much right wing garbage in his I’m-ignoring-you-but-not-really comment that he could work for Fox. Dude never voted for anyone but a Republican, and what I do or say will have absolutely no impact on that. But thanks for thinking I’m so powerful that I can control how people vote.

            “I know what you’re thinking”

            No you don’t.

            “but that’s not his failing. It’s yours”

            I’m thinking you’re freakishly fixated on my amazing powers!

            “He and I are on polar ends about a lot of different issues, and yet he doesn’t hate MY guts.”

            “I welcome their hatred”–FDR

            Give him time. But maybe he doesn’t hate you because instead of voting for the Democrat in the race, you write in Charles Darwin.

            “You, on the other hand, have made a permanent enemy of him,”

            Good. Anyone who can pile on the BS like he did about Bush’s debt being Obama’s is my enemy.

            “Although it’s obvious (to anyone who sees your posts) that was your intention from the start.”

            Not too bright, are you? My intention was to show that if you care about personal liberties, you should vote for progressives and not Republicans. His hating me is just a bonus.

            “You were never trying to convince him of anything.”

            I put up a fact. He called me a liar. But now that I know he’s a wingnut, I don’t care what he thinks. His party of warmongering bullshitters will become a regional rump party soon enough.

          •  

            Wow — deflate your ego, Scott. Nobody said you were “powerful” except you. I believe I stipulated quite clearly that you’re that big a jerk, not “powerful.”

            I gotta say it again, Scott. You’ve been a terrible disappointment. Most people realize they’re being led by the nose, by now. You’re clearly more satisfied being despised than you are being correct. You’ve certainly only demonstrated one of those two characteristics, after all.

            Ha. I just noticed the FDR quote. You do realize that quoting a famous person (wildly out of context) is not a valid response, ever? It’s just sad that you’re committing the fallacy of appealing to authority, but you’re not even doing it correctly.

            By the way, you do realize that I’m not even expanding these responses of yours to even look at the length, right? I might do so when you finally quit, just so that I can show people. I’ll probably cut and paste all of it so that I can get a total word count on your gish galloping. Maybe I’ll add it as an appendix to a book entitled “Counter-trolling: Squashing The Manic Wimps of Cyberspace”

            I would, of course, give you full bibliographical credit. Not to avoid plagiarism — I simply never want to be accused of producing your huge smelly piles of drivel, myself.

            The first time I talk about the book in regards to your gish gallops, I think I’ll say something along the lines of “Look at how small this man’s life has become. The total number of words is inversely proportional to his overall satisfaction with his real life. See how he’s been playing Ping-Pong for over a (time period) with a wall, and yet his pride has him convinced it’s tennis? Here he is (time period) later, having completely snapped.”

            And just to remind you, I’m not reading your replies. I’m just skimming to make sure you’re reading mine.

            Again, thanks for all the personal attention. I thought lunch would be boring, today.

          •  

            “Nobody said you were “powerful” except you.”

            So you’re also incapable of detecting sarcasm? How do you manage living in one of the most right wing districts in the country if you can’t enjoy sarcasm? Watch some Colbert before his show is over.

            “You’ve been a terrible disappointment.”

            Dissapointing you is a success.

            “clearly more satisfied being despised than you are being correct.”

            Those are mutually exclusive? Most wingnuts despise me because I am correct.

            ” You’ve certainly only demonstrated one of those two ”

            Telling people who care about personal liberty that they’re better off voting for Democrats is correct.

            “You do realize that quoting a famous person (wildly out of context) is not a valid response, ever?”

            “Go F[…] yourself.”–Dick Cheney

            “the fallacy of appealing to authority”

            You just proved that you don’t know what the appeal to authority is. And I don’t even have to refer to my education as a Philosopher in order to know you got it wrong.

            See how that works? Free education day.

            “you’re not even doing it correctly”

            So, if I’m not doing the appeal to authority correctly, then I’m not committing the fallacy of the appeal to authority, which you just said I did. So which is it?

            ” I’m not even expanding these responses of yours to even look at the length”

            Of course you’re not. You’re a bullshitter. You don’t care about facts, only about making an impression of yourself. In this case, the impression of yourself that you’re making is that you’re a bullshitter.

            ” just so that I can show people”

            Look, Mom! I made this guy look foolish by replying to my bullshit!

            ” I’ll probably cut and paste all of it so that I can get a total word count ”

            Oh, thanks. Let me know. I get paid by the word.

            ” a book entitled “Counter-trolling: Squashing The Manic Wimps of Cyberspace””

            So, an autobiography?

            “I would, of course, give you full bibliographical credit.”

            What you should give me is a check for my share of the profits. But then you’re probably a bullshitter and a cheat.

            “”Look at how small this man’s life has become.”

            There’s nothing small about calling out bullshitters. If you want personal liberty, vote for Progressives. If you don’t, write in Charles Darwin. Or vote Republican. Either way, you’re not helping the people who will vote for your personal liberty.

            ” The total number of words is inversely proportional to his overall satisfaction with his real life. ”

            Ever read Infinite Jest? War and Peace? I guess not.

            “See how he’s been playing Ping-Pong for over a (time period) with a wall,”

            You’re the wall, you know.

            “having completely snapped.”

            You’re the one who’s avoided specifics, dropped the points, and resorted to personal attacks without the least bit of substance.

            ” I’m not reading your replies.”

            Well, you’re reading part of them. You just said so. Unless that was just bullshit too.

            That took me 4 minutes. I type very fast. How about you?

      •  

        The GOP is the root of the current dysfunction. Unprecedented number of filibusters. But please, tell me why you would ever vote for a Republican.

      •  

        Please, tell me who you vote for. Name the Democrats you voted for. Name the Republicans. Let’s see your pattern of cooperation between the parties. Maybe you voted for a Republican who’s currently willing to compromise in congress? Oh, wait.. there aren’t any.

    •  

      You would represent your political stripe better if you would learn to read the site header and get it through your thick head that this is a WEEDBLOG, and that the only politics appropriate to discuss here are those that pertain DIRECTLY to marijuana politics.

      •  

        My thick head? I started this whole thing DIRECTLY on point about 94% of Democrats voting the right way on the subject of this post. Only 20% of the Republicans did. The rest of the stuff is all about two other guys getting upset at my suggestion that if you care about WEED, or any other personal liberty issues, you shouldn’t vote for Republicans.

        Also, I guess the TOS about personal attacks isn’t so strict, since I’ve been insulted in all kinds of ways besides just having yet another apparent liberal hater say I have a thick head.

      •  

        Ya — another troll. He’s been calling me a Republican War Monger, if you can believe it, simply because I didn’t roll over and present my belly to him. Saying something as unforgivable as “vote for the candidate, not the party” makes me a conservative.

        I’m still waiting for his main reply to clear moderation so I can reply, in kind. It’s going to be very, very long, I’m sure. What’s hilarious, though — I’m not going to read it before I reply. I don’t have to. Really, all he does is cut and paste your individual statements to say “something” about them because he feels he must, as if the act of quoting and replying is the same thing as defeating… It’s quite amusing.

        What’s more, he gets more and more angry as well as less and less coherent the more you drag it out, so he skips over what he doesn’t like the most. Although I suspect the parts he forces himself to skip unnerve him *more* than the stuff he deems worthy of cut-and-paste. Watching him become completely unhinged has made my weekend.

        •  

          “He’s been calling me a Republican War Monger”

          Show me where I did that, liar.

          “Saying something as unforgivable as “vote for the candidate, not the party” makes me a conservative.”

          Show me where I said that, liar.

          “I’m still waiting for his main reply to clear moderation so I can reply”

          The reply that was caught in moderation was to Jetdoc. And it’s up.

          “I’m not going to read it before I reply”

          Well, that’s quite telling. Ignore what someone says and just make shit up about them.

          “cut and paste your individual statements to say “something” about them”

          I do it in order to be accurate when I do reply. This is something your writing, as you just admitted, could use quite a bit more of.

          “as if the act of quoting and replying is the same thing as defeating”

          No, it’s called refuting. I address what people actually say, not stuff I made up about what they said, as you do.

          “he gets more and more angry as well as less and less coherent”

          The more you talk, the more general you get, and the less actual examples of what you say are put forward. This is known in the business as “bullshit.”

          “Although I suspect the parts he forces himself to skip unnerve him *more* than the stuff he deems worthy”

          See? No examples. You admit you don’t even read what I say, and then you make blanket bullshit statements about what I say.

          So, tell me what I skipped. So far you have a couple of examples… Incumbent reelection rates, and party loyalty. I have addressed them both. Apparently you didn’t like my replies, because your retort was that I didn’t make them.

          “Watching him become completely unhinged has made my weekend.”

          Your definition of unhinged is as suspect as your voting patterns.

  8.  

    I’ll tell ya what… I’ve thought about this and I KNOW that Jay Smoker would rather enjoy his Sunday than have to deal with this shit! From this point forward I will not talk about anything other than cannabis on here. SECONDLY, I’m done playing with you. You’re so ignorant you can’t even keep your statements straight without C&P. I know disqus doesn’t have an ignore feature but I DO.

    Jay I’m sorry for MY part in this!

    •  

      I’m not sorry. I’m following the TOS. Dude runs a blog, he’s gotta deal with the comment section. And since he runs a good blog that gets a lot of hits, he’s going to have to deal with a lot of comments. Small price to pay for having such a beacon of free speech on an important issue.

      Now, I’m going to say it again. Anyone who believes in personal freedoms and votes for Republicans needs to seriously look at what they’re doing. If other issues, like taxes or guns or whatever are more important to you, then fine. But in that case, one shouldn’t go around saying how important personal freedom issues are to them. They’re not important enough to get you to vote for the dreaded liberals you obviously hate for some reason, even though those liberals, IN VERY LARGE NUMBERS, vote the way you want on the issues you say are important to you.

      So far, I’ve been attacked for making this statement. I’ve had generalizations shot at me for it. I’ve been ridiculed for it. But I haven’t seen one decent explanation from you, the person who SAID HE WAS A Republican and then said he wasn’t, for why you would vote for those who do the opposite of what you want.

      You suggested it was because you’re trying to convince them to change their minds. Why would they do that? They got elected by running on the anti-pot platform. What can you possibly offer them? Logic? They don’t care about that! They care about getting elected. If the big majorities of Republican voters who support weed would just vote for the people who support weed, then the problem would be solved! Instead you vote for people who do not support weed. If you have other issues you find more important than personal liberties, fine! No problem. I completely understand that. But if personal liberties really are your most important issue, then shouldn’t you just vote for the people who vote the way you want them to? Wouldn’t that be the best way to teach the people who don’t vote the way you want them to a lesson? Or do you just want to keep electing them and then pleading with them to change their minds?

  9.  

    Got some exclusive email me if your interested firecalibud@live .com serous buyers only.Dont waste my time.

  10.  

    Bankers should not have the job of being the police. They will just charge more interest to make up the costs and leaves them open to an unjust liability.

  11.  

    Medical marijuana ,Bud,different strains we got here,patients suffering from Depression,Glaucoma,Anxiety and Tension,Headaches,Chronic Pain and Nausea,Mental and Physical Fatigue and for Calming Aromatherapy,we
    do have a wide range of weed,text or email…drugfloor@gmail.com

 Leave a Reply