Originally Posted By: sini
Oh the horrors of using "for the children" excuse. Really, how low could Obama go?! Nobody else does that. He must be just like Hitler, who is infamous for using "for the children" and nothing else.

This must be new "I want to see the real birth certificate" craze.
They are simply drawing attention to the fact that since his argument doesn't have the support of facts, Mr. Obama has fallen back on an attempt to elicit an emotional response to influence folks to his side, and taking the opportunity to show you (who usually demonstrates a complete disregard for history and its power to repeat) where in history this kind of tactic has been used before. Now, based on experience, you would normally cry foul over this kind of tactic and start running around with your hair on fire screaming about how we're not adhering to the rules of debate. I cannot help but notice that it seems perfectly reasonable for your side to use this particular tactic to win a debate that they otherwise would lose horribly due to their complete lack of knowledge in the subject matter.

Having said that, good use of rule #5, however, you may want to review rule #7 because your use of rule #5 is starting to drag on. Remember rule #12 and make sure to continue to make personal attacks rather than address the issue.

Overall, I think Saul would be proud.

For the uninitiated, the Rules for Radicals mentioned are listed here:

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]