Obama’s “Argument Techniques” Show That We Have A Child As President (Guest Post)

There are five reoccurring techniques that Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama uses when he wants to end an argument that he knows he cannot win with facts. Or if his argument responses are not on TelePrompter. They are:

• invocation of a straw man
• there cannot be intelligent disagreement with him
• declare that there is nothing to argue about because everything is going well as he defines “well”
• saying that nothing remains of arguments against his arguments
• just out-and-out tell (and repeat) a lie

Invoke a Straw Man – “They said nobody would sign up.” Obama said that while celebrating the ACA sign-up numbers. But Obama neglected to specify who “they” were or are. Plus, no one said what Obama claimed. How does one intelligently argue against a totally fictitious straw man?

No intelligent disagreement – This is and has always been an Obama specialty. Obama said that opposition to the ACA is about him not two minutes after saying that arguments about the ACA “aren’t about me.” Obama also said “… states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid for no other reason than political spite” because expanding Medicaid involves “zero cost to these states.” Obama is partially correct – the federal government does pay the full cost of expansion for the first three years. But (and there’s always a ‘but’ when Obama is involved), after the first three years, states will pay up to 10 percent of expansion costs. And that 10 percent figure could increase as Congress deems more federal spending necessary by imposing more burdens on the states. How does one intelligently argue against someone who flip-flops, then ignores the entire reality by selectively choosing argument points?

Nothing to argue about, all going well – Obama insisted that the ACA is “working” on seven separate occasions. His definition of “working” is, at best, ambiguous. Sure, it’s working because he said so. But the ACA is a net subtraction from the nation’s well-being. How does one intelligently argue against an ambiguous definition?

Nothing remains of arguments against his arguments – Obama has said on several occasions that the argument about the cost and benefits of the ACA is “over” and “settled.” Just like AlGore and climate change. How do you intelligently argue with someone who declares an argument to be over and declares himself to be the winner?

Tell a lie – Obama famously said “If you like your doctor (or your health plan, or insurance), you can keep your doctor. Period” That statement turned out to be a lie. And Obama repeated the lie regularly. How do you intelligently argue with a liar? And with the MSM behind him, it’s like arguing with Dr. Josef Goebbels.

These are exactly the same “argument ending” techniques used by CHILDREN. And we all know how successful, enlightening, and refreshing arguing with children can be.

Cross-posed at The Pot Stirrer