4 ms·

Ah, there's nothing quite like trying to hijack an issue for your preconceived partisan hobby horse. Tell us more about how those of us who believe in investin

by jbooth 13y ago

Ah, there's nothing quite like trying to hijack an issue for your preconceived partisan hobby horse. Tell us more about how those of us who believe in investing in public education and transit infrastructure while cutting the military/security budget are really the ones in favor of this military/security program. Don't forget to include how the Tea Party are the heroes here. You can cite all the redstate.com contributors calling Snowden a traitor as evidence. (http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/01/tech-at-night-snowdens-ongoing-treason-another-high-profile-domain-loss-at-wipo/ http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/01/tech-at-night-snowdens-on...) Or you could go to David Brooks or basically every conservative except for Rand Paul. Or maybe, just maybe, you should drop the tribal BS and recognize that this issue cuts across party lines.

msandford 13y ago
I read that more as a "statist (which both republicans and democrats are) vs non-statist (libertarians, anarchists, etc)" shading. The parent mentioned both Bush and Obama, so he's clearly suggesting that BOTH democrats and republicans like bigger government. Both parties have little pet "get the government out" issues but nothing serious.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Man, and here I am, just an almost-true-scotsman.
  - msandford 13y ago
    Could you help me out here? I'm not trying to be purposefully dense but I can't really figure out what you're trying to say. I understand the "almost true scotsman" as a reference to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman but I'm not really sure how it's applicable. > You think that Bush's and Obama's massive expansions of government weren't all about amassing and maintaining political power? Those guys both believe that more government power/money solves all woes. This is clearly bipartisan. He's attacking both democrats and republicans and suggesting that on many issues there's little difference. I don't believe it's possible to argue that it's partisan. It attacks both sides. It might be tribal, but on an axis orthogonal to the traditional left/right political spectrum.

by jbooth 13y ago

msandford 13y ago

I read that more as a "statist (which both republicans and democrats are) vs non-statist (libertarians, anarchists, etc)" shading. The parent mentioned both Bush and Obama, so he's clearly suggesting that BOTH democrats and republicans like bigger government. Both parties have little pet "get the government out" issues but nothing serious.

jbooth 13y ago
Man, and here I am, just an almost-true-scotsman.
- msandford 13y ago
  Could you help me out here? I'm not trying to be purposefully dense but I can't really figure out what you're trying to say. I understand the "almost true scotsman" as a reference to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman but I'm not really sure how it's applicable. > You think that Bush's and Obama's massive expansions of government weren't all about amassing and maintaining political power? Those guys both believe that more government power/money solves all woes. This is clearly bipartisan. He's attacking both democrats and republicans and suggesting that on many issues there's little difference. I don't believe it's possible to argue that it's partisan. It attacks both sides. It might be tribal, but on an axis orthogonal to the traditional left/right political spectrum.