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

141–150 of 321 posts

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

#141

Post by rayiner »

monsterix wrote: post #5

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

Are you kidding? Lincoln was the harbinger of consolidation of federal power in the office of the President. He has been described by more than one academic as a borderline dictator. See: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0005.103/--lincoln-...

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

#142

Post by tlrobinson »

ihsw wrote: post #72
astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

If all you care about is the final tally of Electoral College votes, then you're right.

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

#143

Post by josephlord »

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.

I agree with you. But on (B) I'm not sure the people listening would have expected one great big warrant covering all the people in the country.

It is important to be specific and accurate with claims made so that the culprits can't just pick one inaccurate claim and deny that loudly and repeatedly while ignoring the things that they actually have done.

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

#144

Post by malandrew »

Why is it not possible to prosecute politicians for fraud or at least sue them in a court of law for making fraudulent claims, possibly via a class action suit? If an advertiser promised that their product does X when it obviously does not, then that is essentially fraud, and I have the right to sue on those grounds because I paid for their services with my money. In the case of politicians, I give them votes based on their promises. If they try to carry out those promises and fail in good faith that is one thing, but if I give them my vote based on their promises and they don't make a good-faith effort to carry out those promises then they basically committed fraud.

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

#145

Post by WayneDB »

baddox wrote: post #125
bpatrianakos wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Those in power want you not to vote. If that's the case, the amount of resources candidates spend trying to get people to vote is peculiar. > 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. The only way I could even begin to see any validity to your point is if an election were a tie or decided by a single vote.

> if an election were a tie or decided by a single vote.

Agreed. There are plenty of ways to affect change without voting.

> the amount of resources candidates spend trying to get people to vote is peculiar.

It's not that simple. Candidates are not the only people involved in politics and voting and influencing voters.

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

#146

Post by bluetshirt »

baddox wrote: post #125
bpatrianakos wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Those in power want you not to vote. If that's the case, the amount of resources candidates spend trying to get people to vote is peculiar. > 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. The only way I could even begin to see any validity to your point is if an election were a tie or decided by a single vote.

They are decided by single votes.

Usually, there are several millions of single votes working together to make it happen. But it's not like anyone's voting in aggregate.

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

#147

Post by josephlord »

rayiner wrote: post #128
astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it the case that people don't have enough control over the government? As far as I can tell, we have exactly the government we want, or at least exactly the government you might expect to get in a compromise between rural middle America, suburbanites, christian conservatives, and urban yuppies. The people who strongly oppose the security measures taken after 9/11 are in the minority. They were part of Obama's coal…

It could still be a failure of the constitution even if not of democracy.

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

#148

Post by agwa »

bpatrianakos wrote: post #103
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…

> Those in power want you not to vote

No, those in power very much want you to vote. Voting is a great feel-good process that gives the illusion that the people are sovereign when in reality we have practically no power and the government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as both parties agree on it. If this wasn't a democracy it would be quite clear where the power really lies, but since it is a democracy, this problem is obscured quite nicely. A thought-provoking thread from a few days about about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5801276

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

#149

Post by djrogers »

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?

Which one of those two entities has a demonstrated history of eroding personal freedoms? Which of those institutions, has over the span of human history, taken more personal freedoms by force? Which of those institutions has an Army?

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

#150

Post by Dirlewanger »

malandrew wrote: post #144

Why is it not possible to prosecute politicians for fraud or at least sue them in a court of law for making fraudulent claims, possibly via a class action suit? If an advertiser promised that their product does X when it obviously does not, then that is essentially fraud, and I have the right to sue on those grounds because I paid for their services with my money. In the case of politicians, I give them votes based o…

The way to get back at politicians for lying is to vote others in office. Unfortunately your average idiot is so bereft of political awareness that their voting decisions are based on those banging the most pots and pans and getting the most coverage on MSNBC...so nothing ever really changes. It's one shill against the other. Bipartisanship needs to be broken in this country. Both parties need to be dissolved immediately.
Post reply on HN