[Luis Gonzalez]

"As far as that bilge about those wonderful budget-balancing Democrats, so restrained in their spending, well, you'll have to believe who and what you like."

The budget was balance during a Democrat-led Congress...undeniable fact.

The budget was balanced because of a combination of budget cutbacks, and new taxes...undeniable fact.

The budget was balanced before the Republicans took Congress in '94...undeniable fact.

Bush broke his pledge, and sacrificed his chance at re-election in order to get the Democrats to agree to budget cutbacks...undeniable fact.

Being a conservative does not mean promoting lies, even if that means having to accept truths that you don't want to accept.

I'm glad you're out of education, you can't even read an article and understand what it says...maybe, kids in whatever school district you were involved with will now stand a chance.

[George W. Bush]

Bush broke his pledge, and sacrificed his chance at re-election in order to get the Democrats to agree to budget cutbacks...undeniable fact.

No, Bush raised taxes so the Dims let him 'balance' his budget.

Luis, you're just missing a couple of gears. I don't know what to say to you if you actually believe what you just wrote.

[skip2myloo]

Well, yes what you say is true - to an extent, but its an oversimplification that results in a fallacious inference.

These were dynamic issues, the ultimate outcomes which were affected by input from many actors.

In logic, your examples portray a non sequitur argument known as affirming the consequence.

Here's another example: If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.