I re-read it. It is not a straw man argument. From wiki:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
I fail to see where I misrepresented anyone's (I don't consider any of you "opponents", just people with a different viewpoint) position.
What I said was (editing slightly to flow better in this context):
solutions based on emotion, rather than facts, evidence, and common sense can lead to counter-productive actions. That won't lead to "Happy Days".
And I added :
We need real solutions (and no.... I'm not claiming the R's had them).
So I'm not holding the R's up as some model of greatness. I voted for ZERO Rs this election, BTW. One D and some 3rd party candidates.
Sure, emotion plays a part in legislation. People have to get excite about something to draw the lawmaker's attention to it to act. But the solution needs to be rational. Is that really so hard to understand? Is it really controversial?
Is there anything in my previous posts that are not accurate?
If you want to state that "the dark days of the Bush admin are behind us", I have no problem if that is your view on the matter. But to say that "Happy Days are here", well, I look forward to PROOF of that. I think it's a bit premature at this point. That's my view. And Lango's background on Rahm Emanuel isn't a very good sign.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
