Mav,

So much for your treating me with respect

Well, you seem to be right on the edge, but haven't quite earned it yet.

This is an area where we disagree greatly. I believe all humans are worthy of respect by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. But of course how you treat someone says oodles more about you than them. Being mistreated by someone who is in general unpleasant and obnoxious is hardly a cause for sorrow, it's just par for the course.

Do you know what "ad hominem" means?

Of course..to the man. Usually refers to a personal attack, something you do a lot.

No, you are incorrect. You have mistaken etymology for meaning, and you appear to be ignorant of the origin of the term as well.

"Ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad hominem." It is a logical fallacy, brought about when one disputant, in the course of refuting his opponent's argument, instead attacks the opponent. It is only defined as a logical fallacy. Personal attacks which are not part of an argument, i.e. which are not intended to "win" an argument, are not "ad hominems." There is another name for them, but they are not ad hominems.

I wish you'd stop it.

Funny, I feel exactly the same way about you. What can fix this impasse? I've tried to be very generous in my last several posts but you keep attacking me, presumably out of this notion that I haven't "earned" the right to not be attacked yet. Which as I said speaks volumes about you.

Embarassingly, I don't know who Tom Delay is

Whoa! That is embarassing! You didn't know who the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Senate....Billy Jim Bob Byrd democRAT former Klansmen was either. Wasn't your search engine working those days?

I don't see how this comment applies to this discussion at all. A flippant personal attack, versus rational political discussion. Nope, I just can't see it.

Why not, you obviously have very limited information and a blatant negative bias. Are you sure you even know who Newt is?

Nor am I certain how this comment, with its obvious negative (one is tempted to say "nasty") tone, applies to what we have been discussing.

You obviously have a blatant negative bias against Clinton, so that can't possibly be a bad thing in your eyes.

This sounds like a he said/she said problem. Don't see how we can resolve it, seeing as you don't trust my sources and I don't trust yours

Well, since your source is the impeached, disgraced ex-President, convicted perjuror and known pathological liar cLINTON, and mine isn't, I guess you're right.

You're claiming to be able to read my mind again, which is very annoying, and rather makes you look a fool. Just thought you might like to know.

I think it's a stupid idea -- nay, worse, it's thievery -- to have "republican" or "democrat" primaries that are paid for by a state's taxpayers. If the GOP truly wants to just poll its members to find out who to run for an office, let them do it on their own dime. Why should I pay for it?

Gee, I might actually agree with that, except the state allows anyone to get on the ballot in a given primary whether or not they have the blessing of the their party.

Which is as it should be, since it's an election for a state office, run by the state, for the citizens of the state. Where does "party" enter into it at all? If the party can't keep its "members" from running when it doesn't want them to, that's the party's never-mind, not the state's.

In other words, you could call yourself a dem and actually beat the candidate put up by the local democrat committee if you were well known in your community or worked harder (door to door) than the opponent did.

Ain't it grand? Sounds like real democracy at work, to me.

If, on the other hand, a state is holding a primary to winnow down a set of candidates for its final ballot, why should it take marching orders from the political parties?

It doesn't.

Doesn't now. But that's what the parties want.

The best suggestion I've heard so far is to have a totally nonpartisan ballot. Throw everybody on there and vote for your favorite. Top 2 winners run off in the final election. Perhaps this will start the process of undoing the stranglehold the GOP and Democrats have on our country?

Well, I don't care who the parties are, as long as there are only 2 of them. (Well I'd actually like to see the Rs and the Libertarians slugging it out).

Ah, now THERE would be CHOICE.

The reason for that is that in a voting body, 100% divided by 2, is either side of 50% (a majority).

This is why you have a run-off election. Not a terribly hard concept.

Wait, on second glance I see that you have changed the subject. The "voting body" you refer to is no longer the body politic, but the legislature.

Obviously you have a fear of people working together which I do not. I actually LIKE the fact that the Senate is divided 50/50; it means for the most part nothing gets passed that doesn't have at least SOME bipartisan backing, which to me is equivalent to actually having some reason to be a law at all, over and above the backing of one party. Political parties tend to be far more interested in self-preservation than in the good of the nation.

Italy's Parliament is subject to this kind of division and is a total waste and constant melee.

Seems one could come up with other ways to avoid Italian gridlock -- although I'm not certain gridlock isn't a great thing. Government is a necessary evil; having them spinning their wheels most of the time probably is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Everyone has a special interest group, it's called "free speech". I'll be you have at least two "special interest groups" lobbying on your behalf in Washington, whether you know it or not.

I don't mind that, what I mind is when the special interest group with the most chump change calls the shots in Washington. Most of the time that's Big Business.

Hey! It smelled good, I was hungry, the wife was adamant, thus my post was done. It was great!

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Alex