THE STRAW MAN:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. OBAMA USES THIS OLD JEDI MINDTRICK ALL THE TIME. HERE'S YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE - FROM OBAMA'S ARCHIVE SPEECH:
THIS IS TOTAL FU*KING BULLSH*T. NOBODY SAYS "ANYTHING GOES!". CERTAINLY NOT BUSH AND CHENEY! AND THE TORTURE MEMO HAD VOLUMINOUS AND DETAILED LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF WATER-BOARDING!
We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends.
On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right.
OBAMA GETS AWAY WITH USING THIS LOGICAL FALLACY BECAUSE HE:
- WRITES WELL;
- IS 1/2 BLACK;
- IS TALL;
- HAS A NICE BARITONE;
- READS A TELEPROMPTER AS WELL AS KATHY LEE GIFFORD,
- AND HAS THE MEDIA IN THE BAG.
ON THE MERITS, HIS HYPOCRITICAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS SUCK AND HE'S MAKING US LESS SAFE.