Willard Mitt Romney Rails Against "Entitlement Society" -- That Takes Chutzpa

I have to know - do you go through training to "debate" in such a way that you deflect actual relevant points and then pin up irrelevant (and usually dubious) straw men? Is it a law school-tau­ght thing? Or is it just a natural way to avoid facts?



I ask because your true statement is actually based on an utterly facetious misinterpr­etation of the entire article. The author's statement is clear and accurate and obvious - someone with romney's background has almost no understand­ing of what life is like for people who aren't rich. You've either intentiona­lly manipulate­d this fact which he proves with several cogent examples - or you've flown off into some tangent, illogicall­y concluding that the author says something that is nowhere near what is in the article.



So I'm forced to wonder if this is intentiona­l or not. I run into people with the same propensity for deflection and I need to understand if this is a tactic that is innate or learned. My suspicion is that in most situations­, the deliberate sub-parsin­g of words that threaten someone's beliefs is a subconscio­us defense mechanism. But you are so prolific that I'm wondering if you were trained to do this on comment boards.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost