Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
white_devil 584 days ago | link | parent

no reading of the actual facts could lead someone to the informed belief that Obama's DOJ and NSA are worse than Bush's, or, for that matter, Clinton's or Bush I's.

Oh? What about everything related to civil liberties going severely downhill since Bush? Take the NSA "spy center" in Utah we're all aware of by now. How's that for Change You Can Believe In?

Now, why is it that whenever there's a post about the US government being up to no good, you are all over the place defending the government or making things seem less serious, or like this time, just mixing things up?

Are you some kind of perception management agent or what?

Last time there was a post that um.. required your intervention, the thread was like half-full of your posts. Seriously. What the fuck? What are you doing?

Everyone who lives in reality knows you've got quite a police state going on over there. Everyone knows your government is totally owned by Wall Street and other elites [1]. Everyone knows your police force is full of thugs that tase people to death for fun. Countless Americans have had their houses fraudulently foreclosed on by the banks.

America is swirling down the drain. What the hell are you trying to accomplish here on Hacker News by trying to polish the turd of reality?

[1] Well, except for Ron Paul and a couple of other people.



doktrin 584 days ago | link

This entire post is nothing but ad hominem attacks linked together by straw man arguments.

-----

think-large 584 days ago | link

I just wanted to say that you need to calm down and address the issue here. He is obviously an avid follower of this type of bill and he pays attention to the news and likes to post his opinion here.

I'd like you to watch this video and see if you might fall into this category. I know that I frequently do.

http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_...

Would you define reality as what the media is telling you or do you have experience living in America? I'm just not sure, but your post implied that you don't live here and get many of your facts from the news. That doesn't give an accurate representation of life in America.

-----

white_devil 584 days ago | link

get many of your facts from the news. That doesn't give an accurate representation of life in America.

Nope. Quite the contrary. I'm aware that the main stream media is mostly just a tool for controlling the masses. The issue here was tptacek always rushing in to defend The Establishment in whatever is happening.

-----

tptacek 584 days ago | link

An easy way to always sound like you're defending the establishment in threads like these is to read the bill before commenting. I don't mean this in a snarky way at all; I'm not saying "you could only oppose this bill if you haven't read it". I oppose the bill. But because I've also read the bill, I cannot project onto it as broadly as most of the thread can.

-----

culturestate 584 days ago | link

> Oh? What about everything related to civil liberties going severely downhill since Bush?

Can you please provide some citations/examples? I'm not sure a new NSA datacenter is enough evidence of "everything related to civil liberties going severely downhill."

-----

sophacles 584 days ago | link

Further it is merely the next logical step from the "get all the data" boxes put at AT&T and other teleco POPs under Bush, which was a logical extension of ECHELON from Bush Sr. and Clinton.

-----

white_devil 584 days ago | link

How about the NDAA, which allows for treating American citizens as "enemy combatants"?

-----

tptacek 584 days ago | link

No, the NDAA did not allow the President to do that. The 2002 AUMF that started the Iraq War did. What Obama's detractors are mad about W.R.T. the NDAA --- apart from the ones who don't understand what the NDAA is, and believe that it is actually a bill that specifically authorizes the President to bomb people from drones --- what they're mad about is that Obama did not VETO the NDAA in order to RESCIND the authority that the executive ALREADY HAD from the AUMF.

Vetoing the NDAA, which passes every year, would have involved not paying soldiers. In the United States, it's the legislative branch, not the executive, that gets to decide the terms on which we pay people.

-----

white_devil 582 days ago | link

No, the NDAA did not allow the President to do that. The 2002 AUMF that started the Iraq War did.

It seems both did.

what they're mad about is that Obama did not VETO the NDAA in order to RESCIND the authority that the executive ALREADY HAD from the AUMF.

You say it like there's nothing wrong with the authority to detain citizens at will because it was already in place.

Also, what I said about your behavior is accurate. You always do spring into action whenever bad things The Establishment does are discussed.

Why is that? For example in this case, it doesn't really matter that the AUMF had already "legalized" something that just should not happen at all. The point is that nasty shit is afoot. It's irrelevant exactly how and when your government "authorized" itself to do it.

Vetoing the NDAA, which passes every year, would have involved not paying soldiers.

Your "defense" budget could certainly use a hefty cut, but then you might have (even more) trouble maintaining your global Empire.

But surely they could work around this issue if they wanted to de-authorize the government from shipping any old innocent bystander (or unharmonious troublemaker, as the case would be) off to Guantanamo on a whim.

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: