coalition

I would have to agree with the valid assessment in which you’ve demonstrated how false logic can skew the real meaning behind the message therein. Further to your observation of the fallacy, it is rather a form of misconception which is attempting to make the reader believe something that is not really there to begin with. I believe that same author is using a similair objective, to conclude, (i.) Harper is ‘right’ in order to abdicate or thereby dimiss the coalition perogative (ii.) this follows ~ because Harper is under no moral obligation that he’s being out done by ridicule hithereto false pretense of a mock coalition government. (Even if it’s perfectly legal).

My own summation of the author’s view is territorial, insofar as the campaign against Harper is being seen as a Vampire-hunt. It is as such the author implicates a clever hidden medium within which creates metaphor: The coalition government is being lead under false pretense, history of such-and-such show us so. . . therefore, illegal. (Ad Hominem) Not only is it a misnomer: but this “allows” the reader freely to imply that a coalition is also forcing (i.e. purging) the populous into a mock form of government which Harper is the rightful heir/furor. (Ad Baculum)

In all honesty, that is exactly my own argument which should defeat any false notions herein. I appreciated your take on this important issue, norm. A coalition government will be truly historic. I see Harper reminding me of Max Headroom, not really knowing the effects from a tzar.

Posted 07 Dec 2008 at 2:10 am