Hacker News Reader

Comment by orangecat | Hacker News Reader

Ugh. One thing I oddly haven't seen mentioned at all: if it passes, will Obama sign it? I disagree with him on many things, but he's not stupid, and given his support base there have to be some geeks close to him that can explain how awful it is. Of course, his support base also includes Hollywood...

View on HN

Obama doesn't give a flying fig about his support base. Sorry to be so blunt, but that bastard just threatened to veto the NDAA unless the provisions allowing indefinite dentition of Americans without charge or trial were put pack in. His base is screaming bloody murder, and the White House remains utterly unmoved.

Added irony: the Senate passed this abomination on Bill of Rights Day, precisely 220 years after the (now gutted) Bill of Rights was ratified.

Separately, this same base has been howling about ACTA, which has been spearheaded by none other than Joe Biden. So no, he isn't going to veto the censorship bill either. But you better be careful about how you choose to protest. Obama has also out-Cheneyd Cheney in claiming that the President has the power to hunt and kill Americans without charge or trial if the Executive (not the Courts) determines that the 'target' is an 'enemy combatant'.

And what's the standard for making this determination? Top Secret, naturally. According to Obama, it's all about "remaining flexible". And that brings us to Christopher Hitchens, who observed that "The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law."

The really scare thing about all this is the prospect of Democrats going into open revolt, ejecting Obama from the White House, and inadvertently handing this basket of unspeakable nasty to Newt Gingrich.

He's counting on the Republicans selecting someone crazy enough to bring out his disenfranchised base, and it might just happen. Still, Newt will quickly calm down after the primaries. He is many things, few of them good, but an idiot is not one of them. He won't say anything too crazy and risk scaring up support for Obama.

This election could go either way, and quite frankly I don't give a damn. I tried the Hope thing with Obama, and I got burned. They can all die in a fire. The very best I can hope for government at this point is that they ignore the things I care about (fat bloody chance).

I sincerely hope Newt doesn't come anywhere close to being our president. He's set a new bar for hypocrisy.

too late :-(

Actually that would be great. As long as the Democrats keep the Senate and the House the entire thing will be locked so tightly that they can't do anything.

Of course with Ron Paul trailing so close to Newt, we might have a very, very interesting time ahead.

He is not stupid, but he is unfortunately very right-wing.

Like someone else said, the internet is going to be weird without all you americans around. Good luck.

Also, I do detect a bit of the old "first they came for the..." dynamic going on here. Why wait until now to kick up such a fuss? This nonsense is utterly trivial when held next to the mistakes and crimes of your leaders over even the last 5 years, let alone the last 10, 20 or 50 years.

Aren't you guys currently passing a law authorising the indefinite detention and torture without trial of your own citizens? They're probably loving the fact that they've got you all distracted with the possibility that tumblr might go away.

I doubt it will be that drastic. I'd really like to see how this plays out. I get the feeling like the Zenith of USA has passed but overall I could just be that my info sources are libertian/biased.

Obama likes to be the "stern and discipline" "law & order father figure" which is what sucks in some of the independents that are more right leaning. As a progressive I could not be more disappointed in him for so many reasons. The left keeps going back to him like the abusive partner (oh he only hit me because it was my fault really).

He's going to sign this regardless of the consequences.

I am particularly upset by his failed campaign promise(s) to close Guantanamo. Friends tell me that there are "political realities" that prevent this from happening, "What if the detainees do something bad once they're freed? How would that look?" When did our ideals become props that can be abandoned when the popularity contest has been decided?

Obama likes to be the "stern and discipline" "law & order father figure"

I have started calling him "Reg Regum" and "Pater Patria" if only to suggest that our republic seems to be dying. I am sure those who study Rome will get the point (Rex Regum, i.e. "King of Kings" and Pater Patria, i.e. "Father of the Fatherland" were both titles bestowed to Augustus).

One thing Obama has shown consistently throughout his administration is that he wants there to be a very strong executive with powers that can be exercised in largely arbitrary ways. This has been the case with state secrets privilege in arguments, the proposal to allow indefinite detention back in 2009, and more down to the present. There is no way he would veto SOPA.

Have a look at what Joe Biden's been up to.

(I.e. He'll sign it. Biden's been the Administration's poster boy on this topic.)

Obama sold out a long time ago. Look at his pre-election videos and compare to what he's doing. He's not much better than Bush. I had such hopes for him, but he turned out to be just another politician, just more intelligent than the previous president.

I'd say that besides the fact that he actually brought the troops home from Iraq (sort of), he's worse than Bush. He's been asking for totalitarian powers that even Bush didn't have, and pretty much everything he promised in the campaign he did the opposite when he got in White House.

As for the Iraq part, well if he starts a war with Iran already, he's really not better than Bush at all. Check out how they want to collapse the Central Bank of Iran in 60-180 days, and also a bit of history between Iran and USA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE&feature=youtu...

Also, even Bush thought bombing Iran would create blowback (which is exactly what Ron Paul has been saying all along):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandth...

Also, Bush's foreign policy before he got elected was almost identical to that of Ron Paul, of non-interventionism and not being the world police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com