"Tea partiers: 'Cut spending! 'Which Spending? 'Uhhh...'" Critique

Laura Clawson's post on the Daily Kos blog, Tea partiers: 'Cut spending!' Which Spending? 'Uhhh...' is about Clawson's opinion on the Republicans’ ideas on Budget cutting. Clawson's intended audience is more on the Democratic liberal side, clearly shown by the insults on the Tea Party and conservative Republicans. It is no secret that to attract an audience with a political party, most of the times you’ll succeed in getting their attention by bashing the other party. She uses her bitterness emotions towards Republicans to capture her intended audience’s attention. Clawson's claim is that Republicans are being "ignoramuses" and naïve when it comes to Budget cuts. Her argument is backed up two things, her bitterness and her evidence of other people statistics and quotes from Republicans themselves.

The evidence that Laura Clawson provides are Business Insider's founding and quotes from Republican members to support her claims. The founding of Business Insider’s by Brett LoGiurato presented the budget cut ideas of the Tea Partiers and what they think should happen instead of raising the debt limit. Many of the participants had no idea how little the cuts they suggested would help the country. Clawson even provides links of where she got her evidence to support her facts. The quotes she uses are straight sayings from members of the Republican Party. The quotes she uses make the GOP members sound cold, selfish, and ignorant, helping her claim and argument. Clawson’s emotions also help her argument win the minds of people who are angered by the GOP and Tea Partiers.  She insults the other party and questions their intelligence at every turn. To some people, this might be bothersome, but to a lot, this will get their rage going and support her side.

Her argument is very convincing on how she handled her evidence. She can end up convincing a lot of people with her evidence, and most importantly, rage. It’s easy for the media to convince people now a days with emotion and constant negativity. It is clear Clawson has a political agenda of trashing the political party she does not agree with. It’s obvious that’s how strongly politically involved people work and they will try nonstop to gain support for their party, and crush their opponents.

"Obamacare mandates threathen religious freedom" critique

John Kennedy states his opinion on “Obamacare mandates threaten religious freedom” about the new affordable health care act. John Kennedy makes the argument that Obamacare is threatening everyone's religious beliefs due to the "forced" nature of the mandate. John Kennedy, as stated in the article, is a serious Catholic business owner. The author argues that his religion is in danger by all the options offered by Obamacare. Contraceptives and sterilization, which are both required by Obamacare, are a known controversy in the conservative side, which they truly believe it violates the first amendment. Kennedy is relying on his audience to be conservative religious folks so he can have a bigger impact in spreading his voice and gain sympathy. Although he gives reasons to why he believes the mandate violates his faith, he is simply going on his emotions and not facts. He states that the mandate will violate his faith, destroy his business with fines, cause unemployment, and cut out employees’ health benefits. However, he does not back up his reasons with evidence on how it will happen or how. His lack of evidence dismisses his argument to have significance and therefore hurt his point. The author’s logic is faulty and it’s based on his beliefs alone. He believes that the mandate will violate his faith, but the health care act has nothing to do with the employers’ religion. What an employee does on his or her own time should not affect the employer, his or her faith, or the business. The author will of course get support from strictly religious people who also might be on the same situation. However, convincing anyone who is taking the opposite stand will be unlikely.