Speculation alone: “I wonder if Stephane Dion is really a separatist mole?”
Speculation with suggested result (like Shae): “If Stephane Dion turns out to be a separatist mole, then the Libs should remove him as party leader.”
Adoption of speculation as fact in order to promote result (like Saskboy): “That’s right! The Libs should remove Dion as leader!”

Speculation alone: “I wonder if the Greens will be at 1% in the polls by Canada’s next election campaign?”
Speculation with consequence: “If the Greens are at 1% in the polls at election time, then they should be excluded from the leaders’ debates.”
Adoption of speculation as fact: “That’s a good point! The Greens should indeed be excluded from the leaders’ debates!”

Are we any closer to seeing the difference?
—-
Incidentally, I’ll note that I certainly don’t see most of Saskboy’s posts as falling anywhere near this kind of category even when I don’t agree with him. Any resemblance between Saskboy and Malkin is solely in the pattern of thinking as conveyed in the posts in question, not the general tone/accuracy/credibility of the respective blogs.

And I’ll readily grant Saskboy to be “pretty intelligent most of the time” as well. :)

I, however, don’t pay much attention to U of C profs.

They gave us Rob Anders and Stephen Harper.

You haven’t lost your progressive card. Giant Political Mouse still lists you on the Sask Progressive aggregator. I just checked.

The problem lies in the fact that some New Democrats (generally the same ones who look like they are going to blow a head gasket when you reference the “NDP party”) think NDP is the only Canadian synonym for progressive.

And that’s not really your problem.

I try not to mangle logic, but rather give my thought process when I arrive at a conclusion. That way if my logic is broken, someone can tell me where I went wrong. I don’t really see why The Jurist thinks working from a likely, yet hypothetical outcome, is logic mangling when we’re talking hypotheticals like future elections. It’s not like I was justifying war in Iran because Tehran would look better with A&Ws on every corner.

This was my favourite part:

mangling of logical structure in the name of partisanship is indeed a rarity in Canada’s progressive blogosphere

As much as The Jurist would like to think otherwise, this type of behaviour is quite common throughout the blogosphere, and shockingly not just among conservatives.

Speakin’ o’ hypothetical outcomes, King Steve was jest speculatin’ on what’d happen if we had us an electionvote right away. I s’pose Jack an’ Steve mighta talked ’bout that when they wwas pow-wowin’ on a compromised Clean Air Song’n'Dance Act.

JB