On Dealing With a Clueless ‘Parliamentary’ Lackey
I received the following comment for posting a blog that ruthlessly and
harshly critiqued the utterly hilarious Facebook posts by a propaganda-peddling advocate of parliamentary system:
How to tear your post apart? Well, it’s not that easy because it twists and turns so that it carefully avoids facts. Facts are messy things; that’s why Aquino supporters avoid them because they tend to make a mockery of their slogan.
Oh, just like facts make a mockery of your “Honesty. Objectivity. Integrity.”-tagline.
If you’re going to attack what Orion stands for, why not actually attack the three point agenda of CoRRECT? After all, his comments on the US system have usually been to dismiss it and your comment that he sees the electoral college as the USA’s parliament is thoroughly and completely intellectually dishonest on your part. (Please read the whole comment here).
So, basically I was accused of not being honest and objective for critiquing the highly fallacious statements and arguments of a wannabe parliamentary demagogue in the Philippines. My blog commenter, Nigel Pope, said the “twists” and “turns” in my blog was deliberately intended to “avoid facts”. I hope he/she had the courage to cite or enumerate those specific”twists” and “turns”.
Well, it appears that commenter didn’t actually read the blog. I suspect he/she merely read the blog’s hard-hitting title: “Stupid Shit a Parliamentary Dum-dum Says.” Why am I saying this? It’s because his/her comment simply looks like a loose cannon that goes in aimless shooting first without even even taking an aim at the target.
The commenter also accused me of not attacking what Mr. Orion Dumdum “stands for”. The commenter is not just acting like a loose cannon; he/she’s like a lazy student who didn’t do his/her homework. The fact is, I’ve written more than a dozen articles about Mr. Dumdum’s political advocacy. And what I was exactly critiquing was his/her dear fuerer’s failed attempt to associate America’s electoral college with parliamentarism.
In fact, Mr. Dumdum’s apparent ignorance of the historical concept and political and philosophical basis of electoral college reveals the spectacularly gaping flaw in his failed, fallacious arguments in support of parliamentary system.
I was also accused of “misrepresenting” Mr. Dumdum’s views. The commenter said: “You’ve completely misrepresented him which, no doubt, was your goal all along.”
Here’s my initial reply:
This is getting funnier.
I’d like to see your rebuttal. You have not made a single rebuttal.
Perhaps you need to read my related blogs to further inform yourself. I don’t think you, guys, know what you’re talking about. You believe that “presidential system is America’s most dangerous import”? You don’t even understand America’s presidential system.
In your reply I’d like to see your rebuttal. Plus, I don’t think you read the blog. If you ever read it, you’d not have posted an utterly emotional, ill-informed comment. So, read the blog and my other related blogs to educate yourself.
FYI, I’ve written more than a dozen articles exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of your mediocre group. Don’t be a sheep. Use your mind. Buy some logic.
Yes, your comment simply reeks of INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY.
Here’s Nigel Pope‘s counter-reply:
I am happy to rebut specific points but your article is about the US system which is not what Orion is about.
If you want do discuss the things that Orion is advocating I am more than happy to debate those but the article above starts with a misrepresentation and gets worse from there.
Intellectual bankruptcy; it’s the new black!
I made the following counter-argument:
Then debunk it. You should have presented your counter-arguments right away. Like I said to Mr. Tapang,
“The problem is, Orion does not know what he’s talking about. One commenter here talks about semantics; it’s not just semantics. The problem with these people is that they fail or refuse to see the whole context of Orion’s propaganda against “presidential system”. He parroted the Riggsian gibberish that the system is America’s most dangerous import; he also parroted some welfare statists’ propaganda that parliamentarism is superior to presidentialism. Yet he doesn’t even know the concepts, differences and relationships of presidentialism, federalism and republicanism.
“Orion’s hilarious gibberish about America’s electoral college simply proves that he’s simply demagoging and that he doesn’t have a clue. This is entirely related to his borrowed claptrap that presidentialism is USA’s most dangerous import. You honestly think he knows what he’s talking about?”
I don’t think you, guys, understand what you’re talking about. Do you even know the concepts of, differences and relationships between presidentialism, federalism and republicanism?
You said: “If you want do discuss the things that Orion is advocating I am more than happy to debate those but the article above starts with a misrepresentation and gets worse from there.”
Why not cite what you call misrepresentation? I think it’s you who’s actually misrepresenting my blog. I don’t think you understand Orion’s arguments… IF you’re not one of his SOCKPUPPETS…
Nigel Pope whoever you are…
I’d like you to cite what you call “misrepresentation”. But I don’t think you understand Orion’s arguments and position.
Let’s see what he actually said about electoral college.
Mr. Dumdum said:
“The USA remains to be the most stable among all the Presidential Systems in the world, albeit in many indices, the USA doesn’t do as well as other countries using parliamentary systems. (It usually gets in the top 30, but it’s usually nowhere at the top 5)
“And this is because the USA is the only presidentialist system to be “quasi-parliamentary” because of its use of the Electoral College, unlike all other presidential systems who use “direct elections” for the President.”
He also said:
“Presidential Systems universally DO NOT WORK and in fact, the only place where it has worked uninterrupted is in the USA, and the reason for that is also traceable to parliamentaristic features: The USA is the only Presidential System to use a somewhat parliamentary-ish electoral system (the indirect voting-based Electoral College) which tends to mitigate the chaotic and unstable nature of Presidential Systems that use direct elections for the President.”
FACT 1: It was America that first developed and adopted what Orion calls “presidential system”. However, what he doesn’t understand is that America’s system is NOT just presidentialism. It also applies federalism and republican system. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/against-parliamentary-system/
FACT 2: It was America that first developed and applied what Orion calls “electoral college”. Again, what Orion doesn’t know is that USA’s electoral college is not, strictly speaking, a feature of America’s presidential system. It’s actually a distinguishing feature of USA’s federalism. This is why Orion needs to properly understand the concepts, differences and relationships of the following terms: presidentialism, federalism and republicanism.
FACT 3. Therefore, the electoral college is an ORIGINAL feature of America’s POLITICAL SYSTEM (not presidentialism).
How is electoral college a “somewhat parliamentary-ish” as Orion claimed?
“A majority of international PhD’s have commented that it is the Electoral College that has caused the USA to be the most stable of all “presidentialist” systems in the World.”
I don’t know where Orion got this information. I suspect he’s making fantastic stories again to support his made-up arguments. Well, the reality is, America’s electoral college did not prevent ‘socialistic’ Obama from being elected. I’d like to know his sources.
He also said:
“Check out this article which explains that the US Presidential System is actually – UNDER THE HOOD – based on the Parliamentary System’s leader-selection method because the US uses the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.”
It appears that the main source of his misinformed argument is a blog article written by an ill-informed blogger who didn’t even read a single Federalist Paper.
Then he said:
“What particular feature of the US Presidentialist System (that DOES NOT exist in the Philippine Presidentialist System or that of other presidentialist countries) makes the USA’s system work better than other presidentialist systems? Answer: The Electoral College.”
The MAIN ANSWER to his misinformed post is: It’s because the Philippines DOES NOT APPLY FEDERALISM.
Still, Orion doesn’t have enough brain cells to understand the relationship between Republicanism, Federalism and Presidential System. America is primarily a REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. To maintain a REPUBLICAN SYSTEM, the founding fathers adopted FEDERALISM that gives “independent power” to the States. This independent State power “serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government”. A landmark court decision clearly states: “federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”
BY DEFINITION– and this is what you, guys, do NOT understand- America’s presidential system refers only to the ‘system’ and manner by which elected officials, particularly the President and Vice President, are voted into public office. This is the only feature of the American System which we PARTIALLY BORROWED.