Smasharoo wrote:
False. What I did was GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. Pretty much the opposite of a straw man. Let's examine the statement in question, shall we?
if the bill was half it's size and focused only on spending that would actually stimulate the economy, fewer people would oppose it.
if the bill was half it's size and focused only on spending that would actually stimulate the economy, fewer people would oppose it.
That's not the statement though. It's a strawman because you're changing my words and then arguing against the changed words you made up yourself. That's what a strawman is Smash. When you argue against an easy variant of your opponents argument.
For the record (and about the third time). This is what I said:
I wrote:
If the bill had about half as much spending, and it was focused in ways more clearly associated with economic stimulus rather than payouts to pet projects and political supporters, the Dems might be able to argue that at least they tried to do something, and maybe it would have worked if only Republicans had gotten on board.
Do you see how this says *nothing* about how many people would support it? It is entirely about how the bill will be perceived down the line when everyone realizes that it didn't work and are looking for people to blame. Your entire diatribe is meaningless because you fail to actually address the words I wrote.
To be fair. Had I actually written those words, you might have a point. ;)