
Why I Support Barack Obama - Mistone
http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/10/why-i-support-barack-obama.html
======
mynameishere
_It's clear that the era of hands-off government is over._

Indeed, that's been clear since Hammurabi. WTF is wrong with this guy?

Almost every industry is highly regulated except for...oh, I don't know...the
_book_ industry. Maybe it's time for an "unfettered capitalist" like Mr. O'
Reilly to be regulated, to prevent the damage he's been doing. (Damage being
variously defined by whatever phantasms J. Random Bureaucrat determines.)

The hand that feeds.

~~~
Prrometheus
Think of the problem unregulated websites could cause. One poorly designed one
could infect people with spyware that could cause the whole system to crash.
Clearly, it's time to end this unfettered market and bring some much needed
regulation to the web. Each proposed website or change to a website should go
through a careful review by an appropriate government agency before it goes
live. This is clearly becoming more important as more financial information
and other sensitive data goes over the web.

------
iigs
This really isn't hacker news, even if Mr. O'Reilly has been on a preaching-
about-startups kick.

~~~
ksvs
The fact that a link is about politics doesn't mean that it's not hacker news.
The overlap isn't zero. And arguably anything Tim O'Reilly takes the time to
write a long piece like this about is ipso facto hacker news, because he is
one of the leading thinkers about hacking.

------
tptacek
This would only have been news if he _didn't_ support Obama.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
Has he long been known as a socialist? It was news to me.

I hope I'm not the only one who found this piece alternately very creepy and
idiotic. Creepy for the naive statism and high hopes for government power and
efficiency. (You WANT the government to regulate the internet? Really!?)
Idiotic in the ignorance of economic matters: blaming laissez faire for the
current crisis; misunderstanding that Obama and the democrats get much more
wall st. money.

~~~
Prrometheus
We have to fight the growth of authoritarian government by electing the guy
who A) spinelessly voted with his party on all the privacy-destroying measures
asked for by Bush, sometimes with token resistance and B) wants the government
to have much more power over society.

Don't forget, he's a great leader, intelligent and courageous, though he's
never had an original thought or differed from his party on any significant
issue.

I wouldn't dislike him so much as President if there were going to be some
substantial resistance from an opposition party, but it looks like the
Congressional Republicans are going to get destroyed.

~~~
davidw
Tim O'Reilly's piece is "idiotic" and Obama has "never had an original
thought".

These political discussions sure bring out the best in people.

------
DanielBMarkham
Seems like I remember a commentary yesterday about schools of higher education
that at the end had sentence like "and this is just a preface to discuss the
media's treatment of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama" Otherwise it seemed to be a
well-written argument against formal higher education.

That post was denounced as being partisan.

WTF?

Just checking. My bullshit detector is going off with how you guys view what's
partisan and what's not around here.

~~~
davidw
I think this deserves killing just as much as the other article. Look at how
bad some of the commentary is already.

------
Mistone
he addresses some key tech/web issues, and well its tim o'rielly so at the
very least its going to be based on some points relevant to hackers.

------
vaksel
wow thats a long endorsement

------
thras
Good god, I can't wait for election season to be over. People buy into the
stupid election propaganda more and more every 4 years.

~~~
unalone
Propaganda?

Reading up on candidates, being enthused about them, and voting based on the
issues you believe in, isn't the same as buying into propaganda. You have a
right to your cynicism, but don't mock the people who genuinely care.

~~~
Prrometheus
He is simply looking at what the candidates say they will do. Based on their
actions, Obama has one of the most partisan voting records in Congress. He
does whatever the Democratic Party does. As President, he will be driven by
Congress, he will sign any legislation written by the blue team.

Surveillance laws will not be repealed. Non-farmers will be screwed over to
benefit farmers. Young people will be screwed over to pay off elderly voters.
Consumers will be screwed over to benefit unions. School children will be
screwed over to benefit the NEA. Future generations will be screwed over to
benefit current generations. Funding for new programs to make Americans more
dependent on government will be piled on top of a deficit fast approaching $1
trillion.

His speech might be sparkling, but his record does not fill me with Hope. I
miss gridlock.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Here's a little brain teaser that anybody can try (I think I can do this
without taking a side. I'll give it a shot anyway)

Pick a candidate. Imagine that they win. Based on past performance, will the
other candidate who lost help them enact bipartisan legislation?

Now do that with the other candidate. Does the first guy help out for the
greater good, or pull back to join in with the rest of his party in the
regular old political games. Is there substance there or just smoke?

So which choice is going to help the maximum amount of voters?

Interestingly enough, you can use this exercise to support either candidate no
matter what the results. But I think it does enlighten things a bit.

