Richard Stallman Was Right All Along • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#41

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:39 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #33

ams6110 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because tyranny has never been delivered by leaders speaking soothing reassurances.

The apparent mindset that the grandparent manifests is antithetical to the very principles that USA is founded upon. This is not a nation of personality cults ; our system is based on checks and balances . (That was the whole point!) The fact that he signed it and issued that anti-American --- see above -- statement makes the act even more repugnant.

It kind of says everything is fine, for now. It's disappointing and scary he signed it - like I said a couple days ago, very bad legislation is contagious and some idiot will propose a similar provision elsewhere.

And, since this stupid idea is the law now, consider very carefully who you vote for. Whoever sits in the oval office after your next presidential election will have much more power than usual.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#42

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:41 PM UTC

dpkendal wrote: post #25

paulhauggis wrote: post #12

Take note who signed it.

A Nobel Peace Prize winner? The man who promised to close down Guantanamo Bay and has still yet to manage to do so? Whose election campaign promised "Change" yet whose only significant move in that way so far, in office for 3 years, is the repeal of DADT? The man who I (along with so many liberals) want desperately to believe in, but who just makes it too hard for us? Yes, that man.

If you see a better option, please, let us know about it. We all need hope of a better future.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#43

Post by jonhendry » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:41 PM UTC

SaintSal wrote: post #30

"His only computer is a Lemote Yeelong netbook, because it's the only computer which uses only Free software - no firmware blobs, no proprietary BIOS; it's all Free." Interesting that it's made in China. I'm trying to reconcile the implications of that... http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.htm...

And how does he know there are no "firmware blobs"?

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#44

Post by scott_w » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:42 PM UTC

CPlatypus wrote: post #24

lightyrs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being played. The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions. What Obama actually means, albeit couched in very clever legalese, is that his problems with these "regulations" is that they even exist at all. He would rather his ability to prosecute the "war on terror" be completely unchecked.

"The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions." [citation needed]

3rd Paragraph http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/...

Skip to about 0:25 where the fun stuff starts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#45

Post by eCa » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:42 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #35

dpkendal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Nobel Peace Prize winner? The man who promised to close down Guantanamo Bay and has still yet to manage to do so? Whose election campaign promised "Change" yet whose only significant move in that way so far, in office for 3 years, is the repeal of DADT? The man who I (along with so many liberals) want desperately to believe in, but who just makes it too hard for us? Yes, that man.

This is exactly who I mean. People seem to have short memories. "A Nobel Peace Prize winner?" For doing what exactly? This actually makes me question the entire Nobel Peace Prize program.

It will probably be a while until they give it to a president of a nation in war again.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#46

Post by spot » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:43 PM UTC

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #38

dpkendal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Nobel Peace Prize winner? The man who promised to close down Guantanamo Bay and has still yet to manage to do so? Whose election campaign promised "Change" yet whose only significant move in that way so far, in office for 3 years, is the repeal of DADT? The man who I (along with so many liberals) want desperately to believe in, but who just makes it too hard for us? Yes, that man.

The guy who also oversaw an economy that returned 401Ks to at least sane levels from -40% in 2007-8; the guy who actually said and then did get bin Laden; the guy who pushed for and signed a law that is as close to healthcare reform as anyone has gotten since Medicare was enacted almost 50 years ago; the guy who pulled us out of Iraq when the Republican candidate in 2008 said we should be there for 100 more years; th…

"pulled us out of iraq"? sorry but you are just making shit up.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#47

Post by jonhendry » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:43 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #35

dpkendal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Nobel Peace Prize winner? The man who promised to close down Guantanamo Bay and has still yet to manage to do so? Whose election campaign promised "Change" yet whose only significant move in that way so far, in office for 3 years, is the repeal of DADT? The man who I (along with so many liberals) want desperately to believe in, but who just makes it too hard for us? Yes, that man.

This is exactly who I mean. People seem to have short memories. "A Nobel Peace Prize winner?" For doing what exactly? This actually makes me question the entire Nobel Peace Prize program.

It was questionable when Henry Kissinger won it.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#48

Post by nextparadigms » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:44 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #11

oconnor0 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you veto the entire bill - explaining why.

He would have, but this bill included the funding for salaries of military personnel. He actually said, at the time that he signed it, that Congress had forced his hand. Edit: OK I don't really know if he would have. But he did say that.

It doesn't matter. You don't dismantle the Bill of Rights just because you have to delay the military salaries for one month, until Congress rewrites the bill.

The problem with Obama is that Congress knows he's, for lack of a better word, a coward. So they know that they can push his hand how much they want, because he won't do anything dramatic to react and fight back. That's why Obama has kept losing all his negotiations or he always "compromised" for the other side's sake.

So bottomline, he should've taken a stand and vetoed it, and let that be a lesson for Congress for next time. But he didn't do that. And if you're going to say "but Congress would've passed it anyway with 2/3 of the vote" - well then, even more of a reason to veto it and show his supporters that at least tried to stop it, but Congress was solely at fault for passing it. Since he didn't, Obama doesn't get to have any excuses in this case.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#49

Post by Create » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:44 PM UTC

jasonallen wrote: post #17

Agreed - Stallman was right all along. What's working against Stallman though is that his doomsday predictions are being delivered in piecemeal fashion. Each slight erosion doesn't seem too bad by itself. Only in retrospect does the magnitude of the problem reveal itself. Governments and corporations have evolved processes to change laws in such effective manners as to evade most human observation. tldr; No one tells…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#50

Post by shadowfiend » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:45 PM UTC

jonhendry wrote: post #13

sp332 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have, but this bill included the funding for salaries of military personnel. He actually said, at the time that he signed it, that Congress had forced his hand. Edit: OK I don't really know if he would have. But he did say that.

He still should have vetoed it. Once Congress knew he was willing to go that far, Congress would have been up against the wall and had to drop it in order for the paychecks to continue.

It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to pick your fights.

Then again, I'm extremely angry at him about this, too, so... Yeah, whatever. Heh. Though really I'm angry about the overall civil liberties history of the administration. This is just the proverbial straw.