Logic. Get some.

It's one thing to be wrong on the facts. But it's just annoying when I get into an argument where I could concede literally every factual claim my opponent makes and still refute their conclusion.

Here's what I'm talking about. Kenneth Blackwell went on the Daily Show to claim that Obama has a "blueprint" to subvert the Constitution and craft an imperial presidency. His argument seems to be that "Obamacare" is unconstitutional, by which I hope he means the individual mandate because the rest of it doesn't even come close. And secondly, that Obama is going to have a greater opportunity to reshape the federal Courts than George Bush.

The only thing to say to that is, "....................." Here's my argument. Okay. I'll concede, for the sake of argument, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and that Obama will appoint left-wing judges who want to expand the role of government. That maketh not Obama a tyrant. It does not make his regime unconstitutional. Practically every Presidency passes a piece of legislation later ruled unconstitutional. Or did something executively that was ruled unconstitutional. It doesn't make their regimes illegitimate. Plenty of people nominate lots of judges (like George Washington), and some of them even try to reshape the federal government larger than they had found it. Like James Madison. And Abe Lincoln. Not to mention Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and, uhhh, Dwight David Eisenhower. He might not've been trying. But he did it anyway. And that's conceding the Republican insistence on only counting some parts of federal power, particularly spending. If you throw in stuff about law enforcement, civilian spying, etc., then every Republican in recent history's tried to expand the federal government somewhere. Were their regimes unconstitutional?

No. Blackwell doesn't have a case. If I grant him every bit of fact in his arsenal, he might have a valid disagreement with Obama's policies, but he hasn't shown that he's a tyrant. Here's an example of an argument that would actually suggest Obama's illegitimacy, should it be factually correct: "Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen." Now here's another argument: "Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Therefore he is not a U.S. citizen. Therefore his regime is illegitimate." I've already conceded that (2) implies (3). But (1) does not imply (2): his mother was a U.S. citizen, which means that he could've been born on Mars, he'd still be a natural-burn United States citizen. I could concede every factual claim the birthers make, and they would still be wrong.

Now here's an argument of which that could not be said. "Person A loses a U.S. Presidential election. He then becomes President. While President he institutes programs violating the Fourth and Eighth Amendments and deceives the country into a war. He then loses another U.S. Presidential election, and continues being President." If all of those factual charges were found to be true, one would have to conclude that Person A was a tyrant and subverting the U.S. constitution. Now, you may say, I haven't proven that George W. Bush fits the description of Person A. True, in this conversation, I haven't. I happen to think there is substantial evidence, though perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt, that he does fit the description in each particular. And I think I can back it up.

But that's not the point. The point is that if I got into an argument with a Republican about all of this, they would have to challenge me on the facts I'm asserting. If I got into an argument with a Birther, I would not have to challenge their facts. Jon Stewart didn't challenge Ken Blackwell's facts, and he dominated him. The point is that if you are going to make an argument, and especially if you are going to make a loud, prominent argument in public about big, important matters of governance, get your logic right. At least give your opponents the respect of making them counter your factual claims. Otherwise it's just embarrassing and if people take you seriously, then the cause of logical argument takes a hit. So stop. Just stop. Please?