Comment by nashequilibrium | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nashequilibrium | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nashequilibrium

Did you see the guys youtube videos? Russia contacted the U.S. about one of the brothers, also the FBI did track that he was going to Russia and also interviewd him. They failed in not being able to act on the intelligence they had. The question is what are you willing to give up to go to that LA Laker game without worrying about terrorism or whether your parents will get home safely from the game. I am not trying to stand up for the NSA but i thing we need to come together understand what we want, what we willing to give up and always look at both sides of the situation.

I always think about the movie "Carlitos Way" with Andy Garcia, where he plays a ruthless gangster but he develops a conscience. One day this kid crosses him but instead of killing the kid, he gives him a break, then at the end as he is giving this life up and going straight, running to catch his train, this kid pops up and kills him. The U.S. has been this ruthless gangster through the cold war, securing energy supplies, etc, now Obama comes in and thinks he is going to give the U.S. a conscience but unfortunately some guy lost his mother, wife and daughter during Iraq or in another instance and he doesn't care that you have a conscience now. The bottom line is that the U.S. has to watch it's back for a long time because they made a lot of enemies on the road to become the "mob boss", super power of the world.

I'm not willing to give up a single thing, because I don't worry about the evil terrorists. I also don't worry about the homeless people who walk by my home every night, or an asteroid somewhere out in space that could one day smash me where I stand, or the car that might jump the curb and hit me one day.

The nobility of man is partially predicated on our ability to carry on and build and dream without giving into fear, rational or otherwise.

The only way out of this mess is to accept that sometimes losses will exist and to be able to overcome them when they happen--even if you've built in N layers of security some day somebody somewhere will cut through N+1 of them, and to pretend otherwise is folly.

It's time for us to grow some fucking backbone.

It's not necessary to give up anything to go to that Laker game without worrying about terrorism. Just like it wasn't 20 years ago, when the threat was as great as it is today.

The only thing that has changed, is the bureaucracy acquired a massive amount of new money and power after 9/11 and they're unwilling to give any of it up. This despite the fact that the threat isn't even remotely as great as they've claimed for the past decade. The security theater production - eg most of what the TSA does at airports, in which they just pretend to work security - is meant to keep Americans living in constant fear.

The US Government's fear business has been booming, worth a couple hundred billion a year these days.

"Just like it wasn't 20 years ago, when the threat was as great as it is today." Do you have a link to the source of this data?

That also happened in "American History X", more or less. I'm not sure if basing foreign policy on Hollywood movies is the best idea.

You believe that Obama, when he started his first term, intended to "give the U.S. a conscience"? That's exactly what I believed when I voted for him first term, but by the second term, I had realized he was just another ambitious pol with easy morals, eager to represent himself as whatever was needed to win the election. So I did not vote for him (or anyone else) last election.

It is possible that he wasn't lying about certain other issues, and concede that he has long been reasonably concerned with poverty in the U.S., but it's clear that the whole "civil liberties crusader" persona he adopted as a senator was nothing more than a facade -- this despite the fact the he taught constitutional law!. It's become apparent (to me, at least) that to Obama, liberty comes in a very distant third after security and prosperity. That's a legitimate position to hold, but the lies he told about this issue to get elected make him just another lying pol.

I do admit the possibility, namely that Obama did hold these civil libertarian beliefs prior to being elected, but gave them up as a practical measure once he learned of the threats we are confronted with. To me, that approach is even more contemptible (you know the Franklin quote "those who would give up liberty..."), so I prefer to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume he was simply misleading us with quotes like these:

“This (Bush) administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America.” --Barack Obama (Aug. 1, 2007)

>So I did not vote for him (or anyone else) last election.

You couldn't be bothered to vote for a third party?

"with Andy Garcia" - was Al Pacino but either way that's an interesting comparison. Hadn't thought about it that way before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com