S
Occam's Razor. "... a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect."
If I understand your argument, you are saying that I can't possibly prove Michelle's intent. All fine and well so far as it goes, even though it's a given that people involved in politics always say or do things calculated by focus groups and PR firms with (re)election in mind and the argument is very easy to make. But then in the process of disagreeing with me you not only assume my intent, but that of Michelle in order to prove your point. So in order to prove me (or how I argued) wrong, you do the same thing. Twice. Not only did you not see what you did but also used insults to prove how superior your argument is. And then you wonder why you can't seem to win me over to your point of view. "I'm right, idiot!" just doesn't work for me as an argumentative style.
Then you say that the press is manipulating people to agree with them. I already said as much. But then you come to the conclusion that the press is controlling Obama. Well, Obama isn't being wagged by the press, the press is willingly following him. Heck, they love him. Exhibit B. That doesn't sound like they're controlling him, quite the opposite. They're willing to follow him anywhere. It pretty much is a personality cult.
You mention Bush. Aside from that being a case of deflection, I was unaware that Bush was running for President this year so frankly, what either Bush says or does is irrelevant. Since it looks like it's going to be Obama vs. Romney, we should follow your rule and ask "(b) what it has to do with the topic at hand." Well, the answer is - nothing. Nevertheless, you can't blame Bush for the economy because the Chair of the DNC said "We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery.” But Romney? He's fair game.
And finally, your argument is reduced to "Well, you just don't like Obama". Well, I think he's okay as a person actually. But I don't like the way he's led the country. I don't like the laws he's pushing, or in the case of illegal immigration, failing to push. I don't like the economy under his stewardship. I don't like how he's failed to close Gitmo. I don't like how he promised to cut the deficit in half, and instead it's grown even faster. I don't like what he has done as an administrator at all, and attempting to shift the goal posts won't work. But by his own admission, he said if the economy isn't fixed in three years that there will be a one-term proposition. Well, even his own vice-president is saying it isn't.
Do I believe the worst about him? Well, regarding his managerial skills, I haven't been given any reason not to. But ultimately, the debate with you is done because of the reason I gave in my previous post. I'm currently unwilling to debate with someone whose argues using insults because when it gets to that point, the person making them has essentially run out of arguments.
If I understand your argument, you are saying that I can't possibly prove Michelle's intent. All fine and well so far as it goes, even though it's a given that people involved in politics always say or do things calculated by focus groups and PR firms with (re)election in mind and the argument is very easy to make. But then in the process of disagreeing with me you not only assume my intent, but that of Michelle in order to prove your point. So in order to prove me (or how I argued) wrong, you do the same thing. Twice. Not only did you not see what you did but also used insults to prove how superior your argument is. And then you wonder why you can't seem to win me over to your point of view. "I'm right, idiot!" just doesn't work for me as an argumentative style.
Then you say that the press is manipulating people to agree with them. I already said as much. But then you come to the conclusion that the press is controlling Obama. Well, Obama isn't being wagged by the press, the press is willingly following him. Heck, they love him. Exhibit B. That doesn't sound like they're controlling him, quite the opposite. They're willing to follow him anywhere. It pretty much is a personality cult.
You mention Bush. Aside from that being a case of deflection, I was unaware that Bush was running for President this year so frankly, what either Bush says or does is irrelevant. Since it looks like it's going to be Obama vs. Romney, we should follow your rule and ask "(b) what it has to do with the topic at hand." Well, the answer is - nothing. Nevertheless, you can't blame Bush for the economy because the Chair of the DNC said "We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery.” But Romney? He's fair game.
And finally, your argument is reduced to "Well, you just don't like Obama". Well, I think he's okay as a person actually. But I don't like the way he's led the country. I don't like the laws he's pushing, or in the case of illegal immigration, failing to push. I don't like the economy under his stewardship. I don't like how he's failed to close Gitmo. I don't like how he promised to cut the deficit in half, and instead it's grown even faster. I don't like what he has done as an administrator at all, and attempting to shift the goal posts won't work. But by his own admission, he said if the economy isn't fixed in three years that there will be a one-term proposition. Well, even his own vice-president is saying it isn't.
Do I believe the worst about him? Well, regarding his managerial skills, I haven't been given any reason not to. But ultimately, the debate with you is done because of the reason I gave in my previous post. I'm currently unwilling to debate with someone whose argues using insults because when it gets to that point, the person making them has essentially run out of arguments.
