That doesn't follow rationally, I don't think. The argument looks like this:
1. Some people support universal healthcare.
2. Some people are boycotting Whole Foods.
3. All the people boycotting Whole Foods support universal healthcare.
Therefore, all people who support universal healthcare are ideologues who are incapable of carrying on a rational debate.
Eh, I guess it appeals to the same sort of people who think Glen Beck is representative of everyone who votes Republican, though.
1. Some people support universal healthcare. 2. Some people are boycotting Whole Foods. 3. All the people boycotting Whole Foods support universal healthcare.
Therefore, all people who support universal healthcare are ideologues who are incapable of carrying on a rational debate.
Eh, I guess it appeals to the same sort of people who think Glen Beck is representative of everyone who votes Republican, though.