>>>I don't think I suggested anything was "good". I was suggesting that an oft-repeated adage is false.
>>>
>>>To be clear I am a free market capitalist with socially libertarian views. I regard both parties as contemptuous leeches, slowly sucking the life from this once great nation in the name of their own money and power. I regard professional politicians as the single greatest threat to this republic as they and they alone have the power to legislate it from existence and have been actively using that power to undermine our founding documents for decades. I believe the promise of a "more perfect union" has been actively betrayed by those elected to represent us in pursuit of an unachievable "ideal" to which humanity by its very nature cannot achieve.
>>
>>Ok, so if I understand you correctly, it is your opinion that politicians do not represent the epitome of human standards?
>
>There must be a language barrier between us. Lemme try again in Canadian. They're like hockey refs, eh?
>
>;)

LOL (for real).

>
>>>That being said, I fully understand how I can come across. Quack, quack!
>>
>>>
>>>>From your previous posts here, it's clear that you're far more Republican than Democrat. IMHO, Republicans in general are far more in favor of using EITs than Democrats. You bring up articles that talks about the good side of the EITs.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't hard then for someone to conclude that you support EITs. If it look like a duck, quack like a duck, walk like a duck...
>>>>
>>>>I'm not Nick so I cannot talk for him, but he may have strong feelings toward those who support torture and may have responded too fast (or was having a real bad day). Only him can tell, but he's can't express himself no more...
>>>>
>>>>>Logically, this makes no sense. Consider the case in point, my thread on torture. I'm presenting a case for including new facts regarding an old adage on the subject of torture. At no point did I suggest that I agree or disagree with torture, nor have I stated whether or not I even think that the most extreme cases of EITs are, in fact, torture. Nick decided that the mere bringing up of the idea was reason enough to conclude my motives and/or beliefs and proceeded to launch a personal attack rather than engage the specific argument at hand. Why respond at all?