Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Staged Walk-Out of SHAME!!!

(The sad, pathetic Republicans stage a walk-out to protect Josh Bolton & Harriet Miers from being held in comtempt for saying "Fuck You" to congress' request for their testimony! The Republican Party hates Americans and the law!!! Furthermore, there's something fishy about how they and Bush are going out of their minds because of this FISA bill!)

House Republicans staged a walk-out over the vote to (get this) hold White House Chief Of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoenas in an investigation into the firings of U.S. attorneys in 2006!!!!

What a reason to stage a walk-out! Protecting subpoenaed witnesses from giving testimony about the Alberto Gonzales/D.O.J. Scandal! The scandal that caused the resignation of Alberto Gonzales!

What planet are Republicans on? They are finding out that no one is on their side! They walked out to a crowd of crickets chirping!!! Now we all know where the Republicans stand: protecting criminals, voting 100% for torture, voting against SCHIP health care for children, voting 100% for telecom immunity...VOTING FOR EVERYTHING AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS AND VOTING FOR CORPORATIONS AND TORTURE!

THEN...they twist it around and make a straw-man argument, saying, "We walked out of the vote to hold Bolton & Miers in contempt for thumbing their nose at the law of congress...BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON PASSING AN EXTENSION OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT"!!!!!!

How about THIS, Republicans: DO BOTH!!! Apparently, Republicans can't do 2 things at once, SO THEY DO NOTHING AT ALL!!!!!!

Also: there's something up here! The Republicans are DESPERATE about this FISA bill! Bush was on TV chastizing the House for not complying to everything he wanted...the House Republicans staged a walk-out...all on the same day!


And how did the corporate media cover this? Did they say that the Republicans were protecting Bolton & Miers from testifying about the Alberto Gonzales/DOJ scandal...OR...did they use the 2 Republican straw man arguments? What did they do?


The Straw Man Argument (if you don't understand it, read it again and again and again and again until you understand it! it's not that long!):

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

Here are your TWO straw man arguments from the Republicans:

1. "Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Florida, said Democrats are "more interested in a political witch hunt" than protecting the country." (They're implying that the Democrats are "somehow/magically" bringing American citizens making Josh Bolton & Harriet Miers testify. But their goal is to not have embarrassing and incriminating testimony of Bolton & Miers against fellow Republicans in the DOJ scandal...THE REAL DANGER!!!).

2. "The Republicans think the House should be focused on passing an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." (They're implying that they can't do 2 things at once, and "making up" that there must be a choice: one or the order to accomplish their REAL GOAL of not having Bolton & Miers testify and embarrass the Republican Party!).

A straw man argument can be set up in any of the following ways, by:

● Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
● Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
● Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
● Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
● Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.

An example of a straw man fallacy:

Person A: I don't think children should play on busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.

By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more dramatic than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue. The straw man person B has set up is the premise that "The only way to stop children running into the busy streets is to keep them inside all day", which is not person A's stated position.

Another example:

Person A: We should maintain marijuana as a controlled substance.
Person B: No! Any society which locks up all drug users is unjust.

The proposal was to control marijuana. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend: "lock up all drug users".

Other famous Republican straw man arguments:

"Against the troops"

"With Us or the Terrorists"

"Giving aid and comfort to the enemy"

"Things have changed since 9/11"

(video thx to bluebear)

blog comments powered by Disqus