4 ms·

I'm not the one that came up with that term. I think it was Norm Ornstein? What I don't understand is how you think you can have a discussion with one side wil

I'm not the one that came up with that term. I think it was Norm Ornstein? What I don't understand is how you think you can have a discussion with one side willing to do anything to subvert your position. My point is that republicans have been playing to win and Democrats have been playing along. If you value science or secular society there isn't another choice. You have to oppose them.

mythrwy 10y ago
Someone else said it first isn't really a good excuse for that kind of rhetoric though. I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs but you really are out of line. Everyone else is not evil nor wrong for not supporting the Democratic party in all they do.
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people are Evil for not supporting the Democratic party in all they do. I'm saying that the Democrats are the only option for change. The Republicans are opposed to evidence based decision making. My point is that Rand Paul is not a moderate because he's got a good position on this one issue. On other issues he's extreme. Without some strategy to deal with the Democratic party's problems there's no way to get anything done, because the Republican's are completely captured. So far, people have been downvoting me and replying with pablum about party politics being the problem. Well, no one has told me how you roll back the surveillance state or draw down the military budget. In fact, the "discussion" is really just people saying how bad it is and how RMS was right. Without getting involved in politics there is no way to roll it back. If you have to get involved in politics how do you do it in a way that succeeds? I'm saying that there is a way to do that. Everyone who has responded has said...I don't like your attitude. My larger point is that defeating the surveillance state is no good if we have large numbers of people getting lead poison from their water. If we roll back militarism but lose coastal cities due to the rising water level...is that a victory? The Republicans are worse then the Dem's so we should concentrate on forcing the Dems to take the correct positions. If you don't want to talk politics, fine. Don't put words in my mouth, though. If I thought the Republicans could be useful I would say we should use them.
  - mythrwy 10y ago
    "The Republicans are opposed to evidence based decision making." Ok then. When this is the axiom there isn't much discussion to be had. You are free to paint with as large brush strokes as you like. I'd just request you stop making extremist and insulting comments please. I come here to read interesting articles and commentary. Not see juvenile ideological flame wars.
    - youdontknowtho 10y ago
      It has to be juvenile because you disagree with the tactic I'm proposing? I'm not insulting anyone, I'm trying to outline a potential plan... which no one wants to discuss. I get it, people here seem cool with just complaining about surveillance without even spitball-ing a solution. That was the mistake I made... thinking all of the people here who seem so passionate about this issue might want to discuss potential actions that might be taken. My point was that those actions have to be taken inside the democratic party because allying with the republicans would mean empowering them on voter suppression or you name it. People said that partisanship is what is wrong with politics and I pushed back saying that any potential solution would require a strategy for working through the two party system. Criticizing the Republicans for their wrong headed positions isn't an insult its an observation. The Democrats aren't great, they are just all we have. So, does commentary have to be bland to be mature? Do you have a counter point? Who in the republicans can sway the party towards dealing with climate change or away from supporting creationism in classrooms? I'm not saying that there aren't republicans who wouldnt support those things, I'm saying they are powerless to change the direction of their party and that the majority of republicans are staunchly opposed to things people on this site claim to care about. I don't see how that's being juvenile.
dang 10y ago
Even if Norm Ornstein came up with it, it counts as name-calling in an HN argument, which the site guidelines specifically ask you to avoid: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html More importantly, HN isn't supposed to be a place for political and partisan battle. We ban accounts that use the site primarily for that. Fortunately that doesn't seem to be your case, but comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13863594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13863594 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13860575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13860575 are definitely not ok here, so please don't do that.
pcvarmint 10y ago
> I'm not the one that came up with that term. I think it was Norm Ornstein? No, it was Mike Lofgren [0] [0] http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779 http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operati...

mythrwy 10y ago

Someone else said it first isn't really a good excuse for that kind of rhetoric though. I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs but you really are out of line. Everyone else is not evil nor wrong for not supporting the Democratic party in all they do.

youdontknowtho 10y ago
That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people are Evil for not supporting the Democratic party in all they do. I'm saying that the Democrats are the only option for change. The Republicans are opposed to evidence based decision making. My point is that Rand Paul is not a moderate because he's got a good position on this one issue. On other issues he's extreme. Without some strategy to deal with the Democratic party's problems there's no way to get anything done, because the Republican's are completely captured. So far, people have been downvoting me and replying with pablum about party politics being the problem. Well, no one has told me how you roll back the surveillance state or draw down the military budget. In fact, the "discussion" is really just people saying how bad it is and how RMS was right. Without getting involved in politics there is no way to roll it back. If you have to get involved in politics how do you do it in a way that succeeds? I'm saying that there is a way to do that. Everyone who has responded has said...I don't like your attitude. My larger point is that defeating the surveillance state is no good if we have large numbers of people getting lead poison from their water. If we roll back militarism but lose coastal cities due to the rising water level...is that a victory? The Republicans are worse then the Dem's so we should concentrate on forcing the Dems to take the correct positions. If you don't want to talk politics, fine. Don't put words in my mouth, though. If I thought the Republicans could be useful I would say we should use them.
- mythrwy 10y ago
  "The Republicans are opposed to evidence based decision making." Ok then. When this is the axiom there isn't much discussion to be had. You are free to paint with as large brush strokes as you like. I'd just request you stop making extremist and insulting comments please. I come here to read interesting articles and commentary. Not see juvenile ideological flame wars.
  - youdontknowtho 10y ago
    It has to be juvenile because you disagree with the tactic I'm proposing? I'm not insulting anyone, I'm trying to outline a potential plan... which no one wants to discuss. I get it, people here seem cool with just complaining about surveillance without even spitball-ing a solution. That was the mistake I made... thinking all of the people here who seem so passionate about this issue might want to discuss potential actions that might be taken. My point was that those actions have to be taken inside the democratic party because allying with the republicans would mean empowering them on voter suppression or you name it. People said that partisanship is what is wrong with politics and I pushed back saying that any potential solution would require a strategy for working through the two party system. Criticizing the Republicans for their wrong headed positions isn't an insult its an observation. The Democrats aren't great, they are just all we have. So, does commentary have to be bland to be mature? Do you have a counter point? Who in the republicans can sway the party towards dealing with climate change or away from supporting creationism in classrooms? I'm not saying that there aren't republicans who wouldnt support those things, I'm saying they are powerless to change the direction of their party and that the majority of republicans are staunchly opposed to things people on this site claim to care about. I don't see how that's being juvenile.

dang 10y ago

Even if Norm Ornstein came up with it, it counts as name-calling in an HN argument, which the site guidelines specifically ask you to avoid: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html More importantly, HN isn't supposed to be a place for political and partisan battle. We ban accounts that use the site primarily for that. Fortunately that doesn't seem to be your case, but comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13863594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13863594 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13860575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13860575 are definitely not ok here, so please don't do that.

pcvarmint 10y ago

> I'm not the one that came up with that term. I think it was Norm Ornstein? No, it was Mike Lofgren [0] [0] http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779 http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operati...