Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 321 posts

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

#101

Post by leephillips »

mchusma wrote: post #69
leephillips wrote: post #54

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…

First, I am very weak in history, so I won't try to engage deeply. But I think some things to consider would be these:

Lincoln believed that slavery would die out within an intact US in time, and that pretty much the only thing the federal government could do was to keep it from spreading to states where it did not already exist. Unlike today, in those days the idea that the Federal government actually had limited power was still taken seriously.

If the slaveholding states were allowed to secede then no pressure could be placed on them to give up slavery, and they might even capture or purchase other territories and spread slavery further. So if the moral imperative is to end slavery, then it's urgent to keep the Union intact. And no, I don't think a country is just a club where a province or state can up and leave whenever it wants. There are times when it's wise to allow this, as Havel did with Czechoslovakia, but generally a country is like the Mafia or a spy agency from the movies: you can't resign.

Habeas: this was a war, but I'm really ignorant of the issues here.

wait to free the slaves, and then only do it in the states that were not a part of the union: see above; you can only do what is possible to do, regardless of your feelings. Lincoln wanted to avoid this war, which was started by the South and forced upon him. Of course many people died.

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

#102

Post by coldcode »

jmagoon wrote: 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?

They don't share everything about everyone, just what they have. Also they can't force other people to do what they want.

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

#103

Post by bpatrianakos »

edw519 wrote: 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,…

Carlin was a great comedian and I'm a big fan but I'm not about to agree with this simply because the late great George Carlin said it. This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. In the end, this is what it is, a joke.

If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are fucjing scum a lot of the time and lie to the point where its easier to trust the devil himself rather than a politican. That said, totally dismissing the system as one big huge scam is the lazy, cheap, and easy way out of your duty as a citizen. It's a total copout that lets you feel superior but in reality makes you completely inneffectual. The electorate may or may not have much power but it still has some. Voting is just one method of exercising your will over your government. It's important but we also need to be active in lobbying our government in other ways too.

Those in power want you not to vote. To take on this "I don't vote because its a sham" mentality is to play right into their little game. When enough people fall for it that's when it becomes a reality. I'd say its close to being a reality but it isn't too late to turn the tide. It's going to take some time which requires patience, something Americans don't have much of.

If you vote you always have the right to complain. If your guy loses you get to complain about how the other guy would've done things differently. If your guys wins and doesn't fulfill all his promises you still get to complain about how you were sold a bill of goods. If you don't vote, you're still entitled to complain but I personally won't take you as seriously because you haven't tried to affect change. This is supposed to be government for by and of the people but if you believe that Carlin joke (its a JOKE by the way) then it will no longer be that.

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

#104

Post by Kabacaru »

edw519 wrote: 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,…

Go to the polling booth but spoil your ballot?

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

#105

Post by bjustin »

freyr wrote: post #6

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," In other words, say whatever needs to be said to get elected. Worry about the details later. Or not.

In his defense, President Obama knows lot more non-public information than ('08) candidate Obama did.

That said, dragnet surveillance of US citizens is still heinous.

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

#106

Post by mpyne »

ahoy wrote: post #91
jbindel wrote: 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.

> Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but conflating the two is dangerous and dishonest.

Unfortunately that is par for the course here on HN, if you pay attention to the political threads. It so often is just the same political truth-twisting, logic-bending contortions that I often saw applied by the GOP or creationists, where logic becomes subservient to the objective, instead of forming your objective based on logic.

And in this case it's completely needless! Why use propaganda techniques to mislead when the truth is persuasive on its own? I'm not even shocked about collection of metadata per se, but it should not be a secret program run by secret courts issuing secret warrants. If it's important and useful the people will allow it, if not then let us live with that choice too.

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

#107

Post by notdrunkatall »

astine wrote: post #64
edw519 wrote: 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.

No, he most certainly was not. His point was that it didn't matter, and as we are seeing, it doesn't. You can vote for one of two flavors, but both of them taste like shit. You can go to the polling booth believing the fiction that your vote matters, but it does not. Nothing ever changes because both mainstream candidates are always essentially equivalent in most of the ways that really matter - they're always just two sides of the same shitty coin.

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

#108

Post by JamisonM »

jeffdavis wrote: post #100
mchusma wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. He likely understood that a separate south was likely to support slavery for much longer than a south that was part of a union that tolerated slavery in the south for a time, even if the civil war had not occurred. In which case preservation of the union was important to achieving some form of moral progress.

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

#109

Post by hawkharris »

edw519 wrote: 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,…

"You can't be neutral on a moving train." - Howard Zinn

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

#110

Post by kunai »

"Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. "

But you didn't work on it, Mr. President. Just like your preceding, you established a corrupt administration hell-bent upon restriction of freedom and secrecy. You are no better than Bush, and regardless of what party differences both of you had, you are one and the same behind the scenes.

You just don't give a fuck.

Post reply on HN