Live data from Hacker News

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

news.cnet.com

91–100 of 321 posts

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#91
post #46

Is the headline trying to mislead? A) Phone records are not wiretaps. B) They weren't warrantless. However, secret warrants can be misused, and gathering data on domestic calls needs further scrutiny than this collection of every call.

Yeah, there's a very real difference between the collection of metadata and actually recording phone conversations and text messages. Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but conflating the two is dangerous and dishonest.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#92
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, that makes it all OK then.

It makes the criticism of "But you said X!" irrelevant.

Oh, sure it does. "Technically, if you parse my statements with the help of a lawyer, I didn't say X at all!"

That's extremely satisfying, isn't it?

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#93
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, that makes it all OK then.

It makes the criticism of "But you said X!" irrelevant.

I strongly disagree. People did not take that statement to mean "we will do basically the same stuff, but slightly better". This is essentially just a loophole, which we should not tolerate.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#95
post #36

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…

Sorry, I strongly disagree. The people are not responsible for the actions of their representatives. That's the same logic that terrorists use to rationalize their attacking innocent civilians. It's also the same sort of "with us or against us" kind of thinking that he criticized Bush for.

At least voters are trying. They're trying to make the best of what they have. These people with day jobs, barely scraping by to support a family, take the time out of their day to try to make the country better instead of giving up and going home to avoid blame, like Carlin. And then he criticizes them. That irritates me.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#96
post #64
post #36

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

The problem with voting is your choice is the lesser of two evils. If you dont vote, you're saying that the choices you are given aren't good enough and dont deserve your vote.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#97
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote. Actually, it's not. The US election process operates under the Electoral College[1], so a state majority vote changes all votes to that majority vote (eg: Democrats win majority in Illinois, so all votes in that state end up voting for Democrats in the presidential election). The disparity between the electoral vote and the popular vote is usuall…

The difference between a third party getting 1% of the vote versus 10% could have some impact on politics even if it doesn't affect the outcome of the election.

But just voting to vote is useless. People seem to have the mentality that you pick the lesser of two evils, which is BS. I'm not going to vote for somebody if I don't feel like they are completely up for the job. I'm not going to vote for a 3rd party just so they can get funding because guess what, this years candidate may be great but the funding would be for the next round and who knows who they will have then.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#98

Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution. [1] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html [2] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg

Obama isn't a leader, he's a product, advertised in a way no different from toothpaste. Chomsky speaks: >Political managers are well aware that on issues the public often disagrees sharply with the architects of policy. Accordingly, electoral campaigns avoid issues in favor of slogans, oratorical flourishes, personalities, and gossip. Every year, the advertising industry gives an award for the best marketing campaign…

He could be a leader, and have a marketing campaign. They are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#99
post #80

The oddest thing about this is that people seem totally fine that corporations control all of their personal data (and use it to develop new revenue streams), but if the government gets that data (that already exists), then there's a serious problem. What?

The government has way more power to hurt you.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#100
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few people in the history of people who will look presentable standing next to Lincoln. His combination of moral strength and intellectual fortitude is unsurpassed, and probably unsurpassable. I was gullible enough to vote for Obama, who seems to enjoy making a sport out of seeing how many people he can disappoint as deeply as possible.

Interesting. I've always thought Lincoln (and this quote supports the idea) that he was so obsessed with keeping the union together that he was willing to actively go against morality. For example, keepin the union together is of dubious intent by the people of that time. States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. If I join a club I expect I can leave. Ok the other hand, he did thi…

Morality is of little use without a plan to implement it. True moral conviction will search for a way to achieve moral progress.

Lincoln was vastly more effective than others, and I attribute that to his strong morality.

Post reply on HN