4 ms·

... or until he caves, yet again.

geophile 15y ago
Why was that downvoted? The guy has a track record. He was dead-set against telecom immunity, before he voted to support it (back when he was a senator). He was for repealing the Bush tax cuts until he wasn't. He caved on budget negotiations when he agreed that the deficit was the biggest budget problem. He was all for closing Gitmo until he wasn't. He was against signing statements until he got into office. His record on civil liberties (domestic spying, FOIA, strip searches -- he argued for the majority opinion, domestic use of drones) has been in stark contrast to the sort of things he was saying when he was a candidate. I think he has proven that statements beginning with the words "I will" must be taken with a large grain of salt. In fact, with CSIPA you can already see it happening -- the weasel words to note are "in its current form". How can you believe his progressive-leaning statements any longer without being completely naive?
- gte910h 15y ago
  He was still for repealing the tax cuts, but he was unwilling to let the unemployment benefits lapse as would if he didn't.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >Why was that downvoted? Tone, I'd take it. The same reason you are being downvoted.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Stop getting your news from blogs. Really.
- mcknz 15y ago
  Probably initially DVed b/c it doesn't add anything to the discussion, and partisan, unbacked assertions generally aren't welcomed. Poisoning the well fallacy might apply here.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I downvoted it because the comment was content-free. "Backs down" from what? What's the likelihood that a random HN commenter intends to communicate support for the 2012 White House "Cybersecurity" agenda with a comment like that? Epsilon. As for your "in their current form" innuendo: that would be clever, except that the Administration has for several years communicated loud and clear what their agenda is on this subject. That it is surely something you will not approve of (likelihood that random sampling of HN readers will go apeshit over what the Obama Administration wants to do vis a vis cyberspace: 99.999%) doesn't make it "weaselly". They've been anything but weaselly on this topic.
- nacker 15y ago
  There are plenty of technically smart people who are politically completely naive, geophile! Most of them are also blissfully unaware of Oblabla's statements that he would veto the NDAA, until the last moment, of course, when in the dead of night on New Year's Eve, he had a "sudden change of heart", and signed it. Oops!

Why was that downvoted? The guy has a track record. He was dead-set against telecom immunity, before he voted to support it (back when he was a senator). He was for repealing the Bush tax cuts until he wasn't. He caved on budget negotiations when he agreed that the deficit was the biggest budget problem. He was all for closing Gitmo until he wasn't. He was against signing statements until he got into office. His record on civil liberties (domestic spying, FOIA, strip searches -- he argued for the majority opinion, domestic use of drones) has been in stark contrast to the sort of things he was saying when he was a candidate. I think he has proven that statements beginning with the words "I will" must be taken with a large grain of salt. In fact, with CSIPA you can already see it happening -- the weasel words to note are "in its current form". How can you believe his progressive-leaning statements any longer without being completely naive?

gte910h 15y ago
He was still for repealing the tax cuts, but he was unwilling to let the unemployment benefits lapse as would if he didn't.
Karunamon 15y ago
>Why was that downvoted? Tone, I'd take it. The same reason you are being downvoted.
anigbrowl 15y ago
Stop getting your news from blogs. Really.
mcknz 15y ago
Probably initially DVed b/c it doesn't add anything to the discussion, and partisan, unbacked assertions generally aren't welcomed. Poisoning the well fallacy might apply here.
tptacek 15y ago
I downvoted it because the comment was content-free. "Backs down" from what? What's the likelihood that a random HN commenter intends to communicate support for the 2012 White House "Cybersecurity" agenda with a comment like that? Epsilon. As for your "in their current form" innuendo: that would be clever, except that the Administration has for several years communicated loud and clear what their agenda is on this subject. That it is surely something you will not approve of (likelihood that random sampling of HN readers will go apeshit over what the Obama Administration wants to do vis a vis cyberspace: 99.999%) doesn't make it "weaselly". They've been anything but weaselly on this topic.
nacker 15y ago
There are plenty of technically smart people who are politically completely naive, geophile! Most of them are also blissfully unaware of Oblabla's statements that he would veto the NDAA, until the last moment, of course, when in the dead of night on New Year's Eve, he had a "sudden change of heart", and signed it. Oops!