How to achieve some political sanity in the Disunited States

[Stuart Mackey]

What exactly has PR got to do with the presidents share of the vote?

Dont you think its a tad wrong that the guy who runs the nation does not have a majority of votes on election day?

In 17 elections, the President of the United States was elected with less than a majority of the vote. This is approximately 1/3 of the elections.

Question: What happens if there are 3 canidates, who recieve 30%, 30% and 40% of the vote? Do you really think that there should be continuous elections until someone gets a majority?

The French do Iirc. If the French, of all people, can make that work, I dont see why thre US should be different.

[SPOOFE]

The Left in America is not extreme left, but the Right is extreme right.

So PETA, which claims that drinking milk is worse than drinking beer, is not Extreme Left?

As for national unity, it is 100% the right's fault.

Bullshit.

Sorry to oppose the common "golden mean" thinking endemic to political discussions, but only one side routinely accuses the other of being "anti-American" and even "treasonous", and that's the right.

Whereas the Left accuses the Right of being fascists and corporate puppets. You think the ad hominems are a Republican-only thing? You know how many times I've been accused of being a murderer because I support gun ownership?

For crying out loud, only one side accuses the other of being worse than Hitler, and that's the left.

Ohh, nice strawman

You don't know what a strawman is, child.

if you had kept your eyes open for the post that you quote of mine, you would realise that I am talking about electoral ligitimacy

Uh... whatever. The fact remains that you are incorrect about your assessment of American politics... pols don't cater to the extreme ends of their party (as they already have that vote), but they cater to "swing" voters... the actual voters that might realistically cause a politician to lose.

That's why, say, Ohio and New Hampshire get so much press during elections... because they're the swing states. Nobody gives a fuck about Montana or California, because everyone already knows how they're going to vote.

Do you really think that the NRA was going to back Kerry if Bush didn't do enough pro-gun stuff?

You have no problem living in a nation where the guy/party that runs the show had a majority of eligible voters vote against him? I feel sorry for you.

You don't understand the system. We don't vote AGAINST people, we vote FOR them. Otherwise, our ballots would be designed to pick everyone EXCEPT the guys you don't want. With that in mind, we can see that just because one guy didn't get a majority of votes, that doesn't mean that the majority specifically didn't want him.

So if the winning canidate is a fundimentalist moron who camapains as such and get elected on 30%..I know its not a good analogy but it sure seems like the US is heading that way.

You're wrong, and once again demonstrate your ignorance of the history of American politics. I bet you think that the 2000 and 2004 elections were the most controversial we've ever had, don't you?

If the French, of all people, can make that work, I dont see why thre US should be different.

The US's system has worked for longer than the French system has worked. I don't fear the disintegration of the US's system any time soon.

[Stuart Mackey]

You don't know what a strawman is, child.

Go fuck your mother. btw..see below.

Uh... whatever. The fact remains that you are incorrect about your assessment of American politics... snip irralivencies

I was not talking about American politics dumbass, I was talking about electoral legitimacy..as such you are putting up another strawman because I was not talking about American Politics.

You don't understand the system.

Bullshit, NZ used to be in the same boat till we changed the boat.

We don't vote AGAINST people, we vote FOR them. Otherwise, our ballots would be designed to pick everyone EXCEPT the guys you don't want.

What the fuck do ballots have to do with how you vote? In case you dont know, when you vote, you vote for the person you want in office.

With that in mind, we can see that just because one guy didn't get a majority of votes, that doesn't mean that the majority specifically didn't want him.

What drivel is this? if a majority didnt vote for a person then they probably didnt want him in office, or they woul have voted for him.

.

You're wrong, and once again demonstrate your ignorance of the history of American politics.

I was not talking about American politics, you moron. Will you quit it with your incessant strawmen?

I bet you think that the 2000 and 2004 elections were the most controversial we've ever had, don't you?

Not really.

If the French, of all people, can make that work, I dont see why thre US should be different.

The US's system has worked for longer than the French system has worked. I don't fear the disintegration of the US's system any time soon.[/quote]

And yet another strawman... I was addressing a question of Beowulfs that did not include the length of time a political sytem had been in operation letalone if anyones sytem was about to collapse.

[RedImperator]

And I would love to see you justify having a nation run by a man who whom the majority did not vote for. Fuck the legalities of the matter, It was legal once to own slave in the USA, but that never made it right but it was still accepted as legitimate at the time.

Power derives from the consent of the governed; in the American system, it flows from the people through the Constitution. You can't say "fuck the legalities" because the legalities, in this society, are a very large part of legitimacy in the eyes of the people. And ultimately, that's what determines legitimacy. The people of the United States accept that the President may not win a majority of the votes cast. That's how they've decided they will determine their leader. So long as they decide that's the method they want to use, whoever wins by that method is the legimate president. It's the height of hubris for you to sit on the other side of the planet and tell them--tell us--that our judgement isn't valid because it doesn't meet requirements that you've baldly asserted must be met with no legal or philosophical justification.

And as for slavery? Blow me. The two situations aren't even slightly analogous and it's nothing but a first degree appeal to emotion to try to associate them.

I never once claimed anything of the sort, your putting words in my mouth again, and I do not appreciate it. If he did not have a majority of votes cast on election day...............

It's not putting words in your mouth to take your assertions to their logical conclusion. You've repeated, over and over, that a president who doesn't win a majority of the popular vote isn't legitimate. Clinton did not win the majority of the popular vote either time. Therefore, according to you, he wasn't legitimate. It's not my fault your theories produce ridiculous real-world results.

Because people might wake up and realise that one should only hold power if you have an actual majority of the votes? Not hard to understand really.

An assertion you've utterly failed to demonstrate, and one not borne out at all by history or a cursory understanding of the American political system.

[SPOOFE]

I was not talking about American politics dumbass, I was talking about electoral legitimacy..as such you are putting up another strawman because I was not talking about American Politics.

Please tell me what the title of this thread is. I'm really curious.

What the fuck do ballots have to do with how you vote? In case you dont know, when you vote, you vote for the person you want in office.

Uh... you cast a ballot when you vote. You know this, right?

What drivel is this? if a majority didnt vote for a person then they probably didnt want him in office, or they woul have voted for him.

Assuming only two candidates.

I was not talking about American politics, you moron. Will you quit it with your incessant strawmen?

It's a strawman to mention American politics in a thread about American politics?

Wow. I'm astounded.

I was addressing a question of Beowulfs that did not include the length of time a political sytem had been in operation letalone if anyones sytem was about to collapse.

Sure. You stated that the French managed to get their system to work, and ended with a statement wondering why the US should be different. I asked you why it SHOULDN'T be different.

The strawman is your'n, you intellectual dwarf.

[Darth Wong]

The Left in America is not extreme left, but the Right is extreme right.

So PETA, which claims that drinking milk is worse than drinking beer, is not Extreme Left?

How influential is PETA? Oh yeah, not at all (do I need to find the sales figures for meat products in the US to prove this point to you?). How influential are the people who say that federal funds should go to church-run charity groups, the supreme court should be altered to make abortion illegal, "indecency" needs to be forcibly wiped off the media, gay marriage should be made illegal? Oh yeah, those guys are in the White House and 59 million people voted for them. Next bullshit remark, please.

As for national unity, it is 100% the right's fault.

Bullshit.

Sorry to oppose the common "golden mean" thinking endemic to political discussions, but only one side routinely accuses the other of being "anti-American" and even "treasonous", and that's the right.

Whereas the Left accuses the Right of being fascists and corporate puppets.

But they do not accuse them of being "unAmerican" or traitors. The fact that the Right insults the Left is not the point, hence your retort is meaningless. The kind of insults the Right uses against the Left are what matters. The Right does everything in its power to convince Liberals that their values are simply incompatible with the very fundamental nature of the country, hence the difference between calling someone an asshole and a murderer and calling him a traitor to the nation (especially in a best-selling book or on national TV networks).

You think the ad hominems are a Republican-only thing? You know how many times I've been accused of being a murderer because I support gun ownership?

What the fuck do "ad-hominems" have to do with the point I made? Did you even bother thinking about it for two seconds before rattling off your knee-jerk response?

[Beowulf]

In 17 elections, the President of the United States was elected with less than a majority of the vote. This is approximately 1/3 of the elections.

Question: What happens if there are 3 canidates, who recieve 30%, 30% and 40% of the vote? Do you really think that there should be continuous elections until someone gets a majority?

The French do Iirc. If the French, of all people, can make that work, I dont see why thre US should be different.

French's system restricts the second round of voting to two people. There can be no third party taking votes. The system is rigged to prevent such an occurance.

[SPOOFE]

How influential is PETA? Oh yeah, not at all

They're an example of an extreme leftist organization. You really think all right-wingers are Jerry Falwell types?

Then there's MoveOn.org. Michael Moore. Liberal Celebrities (like Tim Robbins).

I'm not saying the extreme left is more powerful than the extreme right, or that the American extreme left is the same as, say, the Europeans.

How influential are the people who say that federal funds should go to church-run charity groups, the supreme court should be altered to make abortion illegal, "indecency" needs to be forcibly wiped off the media, gay marriage should be made illegal? Oh yeah, those guys are in the White House and 59 million people voted for them. Next bullshit remark, please.

So you believe that all 59 million Bush voters are Fundies?

You couldn't be more wrong, buddy. Stick with Canadian politics.

But they do not accuse them of being "unAmerican" or traitors.

False. The left has an idea of what is "American" and what isn't just like the right.

The fact that the Right insults the Left is not the point, hence your retort is meaningless. The kind of insults the Right uses against the Left are what matters.

Isn't that a style over substance fallacy, Mr. Wong?

You're saying it's worse to be called a terrorist than, say, a fascist?

You're saying being called a Nazi is not a bad thing?

The Right does everything in its power to convince Liberals that their values are simply incompatible with the very fundamental nature of the country

And it goes both ways. You're proving nothing here, buddy.

What the fuck do "ad-hominems" have to do with the point I made?

Go back and re-read your first post, man. I'm not telepathic.

[Stuart Mackey]

And I would love to see you justify having a nation run by a man who whom the majority did not vote for. Fuck the legalities of the matter, It was legal once to own slave in the USA, but that never made it right but it was still accepted as legitimate at the time.

Power derives from the consent of the governed; in the American system, it flows from the people through the Constitution. You can't say "fuck the legalities" because the legalities, in this society, are a very large part of legitimacy in the eyes of the people. And ultimately, that's what determines legitimacy.

And when was the last time anyone asked what people wanted from the system has there ever been a comprehensive reveiw?

The people of the United States accept that the President may not win a majority of the votes cast. That's how they've decided they will determine their leader. So long as they decide that's the method they want to use, whoever wins by that method is the legimate president.

Well, you do get the government you deserve.

It's the height of hubris for you to sit on the other side of the planet and tell them--tell us--that our judgement isn't valid because it doesn't meet requirements that you've baldly asserted must be met with no legal or philosophical justification.

Be very carefull on that point, given your nations behaviour in the international stage. Heaven forbid that a person dare to suggest that a nation might be better governed if its leaders actually have a majority of votes cast.

And as for slavery? Blow me. The two situations aren't even slightly analogous and it's nothing but a first degree appeal to emotion to try to associate them

And perhaps you should not apply the reasoning of this day and age to that period of time?. Slaves were property, remember?

It's not putting words in your mouth to take your assertions to their logical conclusion. You've repeated, over and over, that a president who doesn't win a majority of the popular vote isn't legitimate. Clinton did not win the majority of the popular vote either time. Therefore, according to you, he wasn't legitimate. It's not my fault your theories produce ridiculous real-world results.

Didnt I say that a person who didnt get a majority of votes might not claim electoral legitimacy? Did Clinton get a majority of Vote? Shall I draw it for you in crayon for you?

An assertion you've utterly failed to demonstrate, and one not borne out at all by history or a cursory understanding of the American political system.

Lets see, if one were to assume that a person should have the consent of the governed to govern then how does having a majority vote against you give that consent?

[Stuart Mackey]

In 17 elections, the President of the United States was elected with less than a majority of the vote. This is approximately 1/3 of the elections.

Question: What happens if there are 3 canidates, who recieve 30%, 30% and 40% of the vote? Do you really think that there should be continuous elections until someone gets a majority?

The French do Iirc. If the French, of all people, can make that work, I dont see why thre US should be different.

French's system restricts the second round of voting to two people. There can be no third party taking votes. The system is rigged to prevent such an occurance.

Indeed? I did not know that. Probably logical as you can only have on head of state.

[SPOOFE]

Heaven forbid that a person dare to suggest that a nation might be better governed if its leaders actually have a majority of votes cast.

The problem isn't that you're daring to suggest it, the problem is that you refuse to believe that there are other ways to achieve legitimacy.

[SPOOFE]

Didnt I say that a person who didnt get a majority of votes might not claim electoral legitimacy? Did Clinton get a majority of Vote? Shall I draw it for you in crayon for you?

I thought you weren't talking about American politics.

Dishonest fuck.

[Beowulf]

France's system restricts the second round of voting to two people. There can be no third party taking votes. The system is rigged to prevent such an occurance.

Indeed? I did not know that. Probably logical as you can only have on head of state.

How the hell is that logical? I see no logical chain connecting those two statements.

Oh, and the source for the above info is wikipedia.

[Darth Wong]

How influential is PETA? Oh yeah, not at all

They're an example of an extreme leftist organization. You really think all right-wingers are Jerry Falwell types?

Then there's MoveOn.org. Michael Moore. Liberal Celebrities (like Tim Robbins).

I'm not saying the extreme left is more powerful than the extreme right, or that the American extreme left is the same as, say, the Europeans.

Then, yet again, you are knee-jerking and avoiding the point. In America, it is considered "extreme left" to suggest a socialized health care system, never mind something like PETA. Meanwhile, it is not considered "extreme right" to alter the nation's constitution for the purpose of writing homophobic discrimination into it, force science teachers to teach creationism, etc. Those are considered fairly mainstream opinions.

So you believe that all 59 million Bush voters are Fundies?

On the political spectrum of the rest of the first world, they are extreme right-wingers.

You couldn't be more wrong, buddy. Stick with Canadian politics.

You couldn't be more of a fucking idiot if you think that a description of the Bush platform followed by "59 million people voted for it" means "100% of Bush supporters are fundies". You're obviously resorting to strawman distortions because you have no case.

But they do not accuse them of being "unAmerican" or traitors.

False. The left has an idea of what is "American" and what isn't just like the right.

Could you show me the best-selling books where leftists accuse rightists of being traitors?

The fact that the Right insults the Left is not the point, hence your retort is meaningless. The kind of insults the Right uses against the Left are what matters.

Isn't that a style over substance fallacy, Mr. Wong?

Don't be a sophistic bullshit artist. It is hardly a fallacy to point out that different kinds of insults have different implications.

You're saying it's worse to be called a terrorist than, say, a fascist?

It's more harmful to national unity to call half of the country "traitors" than to call them "ignorant".

You're saying being called a Nazi is not a bad thing?

Please find me the best-selling books that call all rightists Nazis.

The Right does everything in its power to convince Liberals that their values are simply incompatible with the very fundamental nature of the country

And it goes both ways. You're proving nothing here, buddy.

Please find the best-selling books that call all rightists treasonous anti-Americans.

What the fuck do "ad-hominems" have to do with the point I made?

Go back and re-read your first post, man. I'm not telepathic.

You don't have to be telepathic to avoid using strawman distortions.

[Stuart Mackey]

Please tell me what the title of this thread is. I'm really curious.

I would have thought the content of the OP to be more relivant.

Uh... you cast a ballot when you vote. You know this, right?

Right, so what does that have to do with voting someone in or out?

Assuming only two candidates.

Assume four canidates if you like, people vote for whom they want not those they dont want.

It's a strawman to mention American politics in a thread about American politics?snip

No, its a strawman to misrepresent what I was talking about. Shame you cant distinguish the two.

Sure. You stated that the French managed to get their system to work, and ended with a statement wondering why the US should be different. I asked you why it SHOULDN'T be different.

Did you read what I said? Do you recall what you said? I dout it. What has lenght of time a system has been working got to do with it?

The strawman is your'n, you intellectual dwarf.

I would take you seriously were it not for your inability to read. But dont take it too hard, I blame your parents, must be tough to have as parents people who are inbred.

[RedImperator]

And I would love to see you justify having a nation run by a man who whom the majority did not vote for. Fuck the legalities of the matter, It was legal once to own slave in the USA, but that never made it right but it was still accepted as legitimate at the time.

Power derives from the consent of the governed; in the American system, it flows from the people through the Constitution. You can't say "fuck the legalities" because the legalities, in this society, are a very large part of legitimacy in the eyes of the people. And ultimately, that's what determines legitimacy.

And when was the last time anyone asked what people wanted from the system has there ever been a comprehensive reveiw?

The people can write a damn letter to the editor. Now we need a "comprehensive review" to determine if the people like the system, rather than assuming they like it if they don't try to change it? They didn't like that the state legislatures appointed senators, and they changed that. They didn't like the idea that the president could run for unlimited terms, and they changed that. They didn't like that the system could routinely produce a president and vice president from different parties, so they changed that.

If they didn't like the system, they'd try to change it. They haven't. There's no movement at all to change the widely recognized fact that the president can be elected with a plurality. If you think the people are unhappy with the system, I invite you to prove it.

The people of the United States accept that the President may not win a majority of the votes cast. That's how they've decided they will determine their leader. So long as they decide that's the method they want to use, whoever wins by that method is the legimate president.

Well, you do get the government you deserve.

No attempt to refute the point. Concession accepted.

It's the height of hubris for you to sit on the other side of the planet and tell them--tell us--that our judgement isn't valid because it doesn't meet requirements that you've baldly asserted must be met with no legal or philosophical justification.

Be very carefull on that point, given your nations behaviour in the international stage. Heaven forbid that a person dare to suggest that a nation might be better governed if its leaders actually have a majority of votes cast.

Complete red herring. We're not talking about if we would be better governed--it's perfectly possible we would be better governed by a general who siezed power in a coup, or a hereditary absolute monarch, or a guy who won a hot dog eating contest. This discussion is about legitimacy, and so far you've yet to actually prove a single element of your case.

And I have no problem with you or anyone else suggesting we might do things better if we tried it your way. What I'm growing increasingly annoyed with is you baldly restating your opinion as fact.

And as for slavery? Blow me. The two situations aren't even slightly analogous and it's nothing but a first degree appeal to emotion to try to associate them

And perhaps you should not apply the reasoning of this day and age to that period of time?. Slaves were property, remember?

Who gives a shit? It still has nothing to do with how the president is elected, and it's still underhanded and dishonest for you to try to pretend otherwise in order to associate my position with that of slavery's defenders.

Didnt I say that a person who didnt get a majority of votes might not claim electoral legitimacy? Did Clinton get a majority of Vote? Shall I draw it for you in crayon for you?

So you ARE claiming Clinton was not the legitimate president of the United States. Thank you for demonstrating how absurd your position actually is.

Lets see, if one were to assume that a person should have the consent of the governed to govern then how does having a majority vote against you give that consent?

Because the majority accepts the results of the election and accepts the system which makes it possible to win with a plurality. The exact mechanism by which legitimacy is conferred is a technicality.

[SPOOFE]

Then, yet again, you are knee-jerking and avoiding the point. In America, it is considered "extreme left" to suggest a socialized health care system, never mind something like PETA. Meanwhile, it is not considered "extreme right" to alter the nation's constitution for the purpose of writing homophobic discrimination into it, force science teachers to teach creationism, etc. Those are considered fairly mainstream opinions.

False. There's a reason the anti-gay marriage amendment flopped tremendously. It wasn't a realistic hope... it was an attempt to kill off some of Kerry's support by trying to force him to vote on the issue (he has consistently been against gay marriage).

Holy crap! They're playing politics in America! Those wacky right-wingers!

On the political spectrum of the rest of the first world, they are extreme right-wingers.

All of them? Every single one of 'em? Are you certain? Is Zell Miller an extreme right-winger?

You couldn't be more of a fucking idiot if you think that a description of the Bush platform followed by "59 million people voted for it" means "100% of Bush supporters are fundies". You're obviously resorting to strawman distortions because you have no case.

Then clarify, Mr. Wong, because your statements sure do look that way. What percentage, do you believe? 80%?

Hell, I've lost track of the issue. Weren't you saying it's 100% the Right's fault that there's political fragmentation? What does any of this have to do with it?

Could you show me the best-selling books where leftists accuse rightists of being traitors?

So "traitor" is the worse thing you can call someone? Because if not, your point here is pathetically empty. Go look up "Al Franken" sometime and you'll see an example of the left being just as divisive as the right. Or go see Farenheit 9/11.

I've never called anyone a traitor. Am I still an asshole?

Don't be a sophistic bullshit artist. It is hardly a fallacy to point out that different kinds of insults have different implications.

But it IS a fallacy to assume that one kind of insult is worse than another. I see no difference between calling a political opponent a "traitor" or a "fascist".

It's more harmful to national unity to call half of the country "traitors" than to call them "ignorant".

I didn't say "ignorant". I said "fascist". "Nazi". "Bush is worse than Hitler". You're telling me those aren't nearly as bad as being called a "traitor"?

Tell me, Mr. Wong... you ever been called a Nazi to your face? It ain't pleasant.

::snort:: Oh yeah. It's 100% the right's fault that the US political climate is fragmented.

Please find me the best-selling books that call all rightists Nazis.

Can't recall, though Mr. Moore's new book does call Bush a traitor.

I guess it's only bad when liberals are called traitors, eh?

Please find the best-selling books that call all rightists treasonous anti-Americans.

Wait wait wait.

Why is it that only things printed in books are now bad?

Or are you simply demanding evidence that you guess I can't provide? Fine, whatever, I haven't read every book in existence. Good job.

[Stuart Mackey]

Heaven forbid that a person dare to suggest that a nation might be better governed if its leaders actually have a majority of votes cast.

The problem isn't that you're daring to suggest it, the problem is that you refuse to believe that there are other ways to achieve legitimacy.

Given that I live in a nation that went from FPP to MMP, and I agree with that change, proves that wrong.

[RedImperator]

Could a mod who isn't invovled in this discussion (i.e., not me) split the argument between SPOOFE and Mike off into its own thread, seeing as it's gotten away from the argument between Stuart and I?

[Stuart Mackey]

Didnt I say that a person who didnt get a majority of votes might not claim electoral legitimacy? Did Clinton get a majority of Vote? Shall I draw it for you in crayon for you?

I thought you weren't talking about American politics.

Dishonest fuck.

. Your reading ability is very poor, for if it was better you would realise that I was talking about the same thing I always have been..electoral legitimacy and that applies to Bush as well as Clinton.

[SPOOFE]

Your reading ability is very poor, for if it was better you would realise that I was talking about the same thing I always have been..electoral legitimacy and that applies to Bush as well as Clinton.

As was I, yet when I mentioned American politics, you accused me of "strawman arguments". I'm now simply noting your inconsistency.

[Darth Wong]

This whole third-party argument (and debate over ways to improve the possibility of one) should probably be considered a distraction from the main point. We in Canada have a third party and I don't see how it has significantly improved our sense of national unity.

Part of the problem is excessive activism; when a government is too eager to quickly accomplish what its constituents want (particularly when a lot of those interests conflict with those of others in the nation, which is often the case), it will have a natural polarizing effect. Too many changes, too fast and you have a recipe for a house divided against itself.

[Stuart Mackey]

France's system restricts the second round of voting to two people. There can be no third party taking votes. The system is rigged to prevent such an occurance.

Indeed? I did not know that. Probably logical as you can only have on head of state.

How the hell is that logical? I see no logical chain connecting those two statements.

You can only have one head of state and they must be selected by some mechanism. I presume that the French have the two highest scoreing canidates in the seconed round as a result of a desire to only have one head of state.

Oh, and the source for the above info is wikipedia.

Not to worry, Ill trust it this time

[Beowulf]

How the hell is that logical? I see no logical chain connecting those two statements.

You can only have one head of state and they must be selected by some mechanism. I presume that the French have the two highest scoreing canidates in the seconed round as a result of a desire to only have one head of state.

I still can't see a logical chain, unless you have the assumption that a president must have a majority. Which goes back to the original discussion. And the second statement definately doesn't logically follow.

[Darth Wong]

False. There's a reason the anti-gay marriage amendment flopped tremendously. It wasn't a realistic hope... it was an attempt to kill off some of Kerry's support by trying to force him to vote on the issue (he has consistently been against gay marriage).

That's because a supermajority is required. That does not change in any way the fact that it had mainstream support, unless you figure that half the population of the country is not "mainstream". To equate this to PETA and its insignificant membership is simply head-in-the-sand bullshit.

On the political spectrum of the rest of the first world, they are extreme right-wingers.

All of them? Every single one of 'em? Are you certain? Is Zell Miller an extreme right-winger?

I'm unfamiliar with his platform. Doesn't change the fact that the Republican platform is extreme-right by any standards which are larger in scope than your own country.

You couldn't be more of a fucking idiot if you think that a description of the Bush platform followed by "59 million people voted for it" means "100% of Bush supporters are fundies". You're obviously resorting to strawman distortions because you have no case.

Then clarify, Mr. Wong, because your statements sure do look that way. What percentage, do you believe? 80%?

The exact percentage would be difficult to determine, but the fact remains that your "rebuttal" was a strawman distortion. The point still stands that positions which are considered far-right in most parts of the world are considered mainstream right in America. You have not said one damned thing to refute that, apart from your absurd attempt to equate half of the nation's population to the pitiful membership of PETA.

Hell, I've lost track of the issue. Weren't you saying it's 100% the Right's fault that there's political fragmentation? What does any of this have to do with it?

Yes I was, because they have tried to paint leftists as traitors. Simply naming their national-security bill the "PATRIOT Act" was a fine example of their rhetorical methods. According to the government, it's almost as if you could say that if you aren't with them, you're with the terrorists. Wait a minute, didn't a prominent person say those exact words?

So "traitor" is the worse thing you can call someone?

No, you fucking idiot; it's the worst thing that you can call someone from a standpoint of maintaining national unity. Calling leftists naive or stupid is not the same thing as arguing from the highest platform that they are actually traitors to the nation and that the nation should disown them.

Don't be a sophistic bullshit artist. It is hardly a fallacy to point out that different kinds of insults have different implications.

But it IS a fallacy to assume that one kind of insult is worse than another.

Really? What fallacy is it? I'd love to see a definition of the fallacy which is committed when one says that not all insults are equal. Please, by all means, show me this definition.

Can't recall, though Mr. Moore's new book does call Bush a traitor.

I guess it's only bad when liberals are called traitors, eh?

Does he call all conservatives traitors? Or just the Bush Administration? If the latter, then you are just wasting time with yet another irrelevant non-rebuttal.

Wait wait wait.

Why is it that only things printed in books are now bad?

I never said that, moron. I was simply pointing out sales figures. But by all means, if you can find me an extreme-left news network in the US that has viewership to rival FOXNews, let me know.

Or are you simply demanding evidence that you guess I can't provide? Fine, whatever, I haven't read every book in existence. Good job.

See above, dipshit.