But assuming the chart’s statistics are accurate—which is always wrong to assume—the graph actually means the opposite of what the headline implies. It means that Obama “spent” slightly more than Bush II, who spent more than Clinton, who spent more than Bush I, who spent more than Reagan. Even though Obama may not have increased spending at the rate of his predecessors, the chart still implies he’s the biggest spender of the bunch.
I can’t agree entirely (100%?) with Goad about the evilness of “logical fallacies” — those old dead white men rules about how to argue.
Goad is right about Hitler — I’ve used almost the identical argument myself, and some pedants would scream “Godwin’s Law!!!” right then — but surely it DOES matter that Michael Moore is fat. “Consider the source” has to count for something.
These rules always seemed to me to be fine (if irritating as hell) within the consequence-free confines of a debating hall, but in real life, many slopes really do turn out to be slippery.