Tuesday, September 11, 2012

How To Argue Like a Drug Addict

Recently, a friend posted on Facebook her view that Mitt Romney not offering up more of his tax returns is outrageous. So - you know what's coming - Romney supporters came to his defense.

"Seriously?" wrote one. "Obama has shelled out millions to PREVENT some of his background documentation from becoming public and the Left is going after Romneys (sic) tax return?" (Note: Please provide links to credible news sources that back up your claims, people.)

"Hmmm...just as outrageous as not offering a birth certificate," wrote another.


Seeing Mitt Romney's tax returns is not necessary for me to make a decision. I don't care if he releases any more than one.

But I really am trying to understand people here, so bear with me.

A person believes that Obama not showing his birth certificate (or whatever background documentation they claim he's hiding) is outrageous?

We'll just set aside the fact that he has, in fact, released his birth certificate and that the birther issue is racist nonsense. Allow me to say that again. RACIST NONSENSE.

I just got a part-time job working for a software/service company in Birmingham and I had to bring in my social security number AND my birth certificate AND a copy of my driver's license. I'm quite certain in order to get his first paycheck as a government employee that Obama turned in plenty of documentation. And I'm quite certain you people should move on.

 But let's say a person believes so strongly that Obama is wrong for not releasing everything the general public wants to see, so that person uses it as an argument that Romney not releasing the tax returns that more than 50 percent of those polled want to see is perfectly OK.

Am I getting this right? In their minds, these two acts are equivalent to one another.

Whether this is true or not, this is what they believe.

So, they say one is wrong and the wrongness of that act makes the other act acceptable?

One thinks diverting attention away from the economy and putting it on Mitt's tax returns is wrong, but he is on board with ignoring the economy to beat the dead horse that is Obama's birth certificate?
(racist nonsense)

My children frequently use this method of debate when I tell one of them to clean his or her room.

"But my brother's room is messy!" is not an acceptable reason not to clean your own room.

I once knew a drug addict who would also use this method of defense.

When confronted about his abuse, he would say, "But B- takes pills."

When arrested for a DUI, he said, "But T- was arrested for the same thing."

That's not exactly a valid defense, but whatever. He was high.

So when people, on either side, use this method of "debate" - the "But Johnny did it!" method - honestly, I'm going to have to assume you are: a) High on pills or b) Have the emotional maturity of a seventh-grader.


  1. The difference that I can see here is that it is a requirement to be president that you are born in the United States... we'll call this the "President Schwarznegger Protection Act of 1776".

    It isn't a requirement that your past earnings are public info.

    So the correct path here would be to start legislation to have all financials, doctor's physicals, oil change records, notarized copy of your Subway Club card, etc made public info.

    Slippery slope.

    1. I don't actually care about seeing Mitt Romney's tax returns. I don't have to see them to kow that he does not speak to the issues I care about most. That wasn't actually the point.

      I'm very sorry you missed it.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.