I assume that you are refering to this comment from above?

As I recall, it is the Republican party that advocated the truce .

First off, I notice that you are taking the position of one person, Senator Bill Frist, and attributing that position to the Republican Party.  Regardless of whether your use of the term Republican Party in this context is actually referring to all members of that group or only the leadership of that group*, it is clearly referencing MORE members of the group than just Senator Bill Frist.  As such that statement is a clear example of the "Specter Rule of Bad Inductive Logic" at work.

As to the issue of whether Senator Bill Frist is generally a RINO or not, resolving that question would require an exhaustive review of his past record which would be a significant digression from the topic at hand.  In light of that, suffice it to say that on THIS issue, yes, Senator Bill Frist is a RINO also.

-----------------------------------

* You have argued for both interpretations in other contexts.

full at the moment, and this is kind of a threadjack that is off-putting to many others here, so I will get back to these issues in its own thread later.

BTW, if you read and understand my examples in my original comment we both cited, most of your complaints/questions are answered already, but I will expand on them later anyway.

I can't believe I have to explain the difference between the leadership of a group and its constituent members, but here goes.

You state:

You can't try to make some kind of distinction between "the Democrats" and "the Democrat Party". Any such distinction is artificial at best. Who are the members of "the Democrat Party" if not "the Democrats"? Conversely, who are the leaders of "the Democrats" if not the leaders of "the Democrat Party"?

First clarifications: Democrats are part of the Democratic party and the leaders of the Democrats are the leaders of the Democratic party.

1st distinction: the members of the Democratic party are not the leaders of the party, just as 'Catholics' are not necessarily clergy. Group members are not culpable for every action of their leaders. Your neighbor (or some of us on this blog) may be democrat(s) (by self-identification, registration, or even habitual votes), but we are not culpable for every action of the party leaders.

2nd distinction: big D and little d are the same for me--both democrats. 'Democrat' is a proper noun, so it should always be capitalized but in the age of on-line forums, we usually abbreviate and become informal in our writing styles = dems, democrats, etc.

3rd distinction: group members are not culpable for every action of their leaders. Group members often change their leaders when dissatisfied with performance.

4th distinction: 'group-proper' I used loosely, but in the context of our discussion it is a defined organization with agendas and goals. For example, 'blacks', 'gays', or 'conservatives' do not fall into what I meant by a 'group-proper'. In our original conversation when I wrote these comments, we were discussing the Bush administration which is an organized group according to this definition. As in distinction #1, 'liberals', 'conservatives', and 'whites' are not groups as far as organizations with leaders, representatives, etc. Of course there are gray areas here such as the NAACP which try to improve the lives of all blacks, but blacks in general are not culpable for the actions of this organized group (NAACP). Likewise, conservatives may find greater organization and power to carry out their goals in a formal group such as the Republican party.

5th distinction: 'leaders' are the representatives of these organized groups (group-proper). There are too many different kinds of leaders to go into detail here, but leaders are often elected, appointed, etc. to guide the organization's goals and agenda.

With these distinctions in mind, I don't understand your confusion between leaders and members of a group.

Ok, now for your post's questions and comments:

(1) I notice that you have tried to simply gloss over (3) above.
I thought it was understood what the difference between a member and leader is, but I answer in length above.

(2) What is your definition of "Group Proper"? Are "the Democrats" not a proper group? Do I not reference a specific group of people when I invoke that name? Does that group not have a recognized leadership structure?

Hopefully this question is also answered above, but just to summarize: Democratic party is an organized group. Democratic members are part of this group, but are not considered leaders of this group, nor are they culpable for their actions unless they endorse these actions by not changing leadership when given a reasonable chance.

Note that I specifically CHOSE to use the term Democrats here as opposed to the looser term, LIBERALS, exactly because it was a well defined group.

Liberals, democrats, and the democratic party are all groups, but they are less organized (less group-proper) from left to right in this order. Your neighbor may be a democrat, but he is probably not an elected member of the party (leader). There is a difference in the amount of organization here.

Note also that, while not a formal mechanism of the English language, I was also utilizing the distinction between (big D) Democrats and (little d) democrats which is generally understood to be a clarifying mechanism withiin political parlance in today's society, is it not?

See 'distinction #2' above. If you meant party by the bid 'D' and members by the little 'd', why not just say that instead of having me write out these beasts when I have better things to do.

(3) I am not only arguing your with your "Inductive Logic Rule" which I lovingly refer to as "Specter's Rule of Bad Inductive Logic." When I am arguing the inductive logic point I will reference this rule.

Thanks for the compliment, but I did not create the rules of logic. Blame Aristotle and then about two-thousand years of philosophers debating the meaning and significance of these 'rules' of rationality.

There are other related subrules on which all of your arguments always depend. Being efficient, I seek to adopt those as well.

An example would be the "Unqualified References to Groups Mean ALL Members of the Group Rule" which first appeared as PART OF the inductive logic meme but was it's own point.

When the opportunity suited your purpose, the "Unqualified References to Groups Mean ALL Members of the Group" rule (to which Brendan was a party) was morphed into the "References to a Group Means Only the Leadership of that Group Rule" as cited above.

I only called you on your use of generalized groups (liberals most often) and not organized groups with representation (democratic party, etc). My explanation above and in the previous post is the reason these are distinct. 'Leaders' are representatives of organized groups and stand in for the groups themselves, but that doesn't mean you can begin to go down the scale to call out all groups affiliated: Democratic Party --> Democrats --> liberals --> . . . It would be foolish to blame you as a GOP member for the debacle that is Iraq (other than to question why you vote these leaders in). It is out of your immediate control.

A funny side-note about this whole argument is you think I started this 'meme'. It was actually you who first started calling me on it (and correctly as I later admitted with the caveat of context) and earlier here also (but here I think you were way off--that is not important now other than you brought it up first). Funny enough, you knew it was wrong but did not know the correct terminology for it, so you just called it bigotry. I just called you on it with the correct term. You should rename it the 'GoRight Rule of Bad Inductive Logic'.

An unforeseen advantage of making this categorization of your rules of debate is that we can watch the evolution of the nuances as you twist the meanings to suit your need du jour, as we are are here.

So, after showing you evidence that you actually created these rules, it seems that you are the one who follows 'GoRight's Rules du jour'.

P.S. Are you going to ever answer my question above .