UPDATE: Petition Demands White House Investigate SOPA Supporter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I was stunned when I first read this guy's comments so seeing this makes me glad.
...Lamar Smith next? Or cross the pond to help stop the ACTA people lobbying in Europe right now?

Crono1973:

Bobic:
Not to defend this man, but is this really a bribery case? I thought every election was funded by private companies and lobbyists. The republicans taking money from oil companies and Democrats being funded by hollywood (apparently).

Of course, I'm an ignorant Brit so may be grasping the wrong end of a completely different stick. Feel free to quote me and call me a buffoon.

They are all cases of bribery. The question is, does this case qualify as illegal bribery.

Actually, the real question is, why is bribery legal at all?

Perhaps these people should be petitioning and complaining about that rather than singling out one guy because he did something irrelevant that the internet doesn't like.

Sounds like someone is pissed because their bill was going to get tossed even if Congress passed it. The internet is like gravity, you don't(Bold faced times 32 font) fuck with it because if you do it will just whoop your ass.

If only what he did was actually illegal in this country... Democracy!!

By specifically talking about campaign contributions (that can be spent on anything) it's not bribary. Politics!!

Well, the online-petition system has also demanded that the government hand over the cures for all known diseases that drug companies have obviously been withholding, and that they confess to their knowledge of aliens existing. As you can probably guess, besides the fact that both these beliefs are fundamentally stupid, it's even more insane that the people who believe those things think that a conglomerate of real-world Umbrella Corporations and quasi-Illuminati will surrender now that the internet has asked them to.

So...yeah. I don't see much happening from this. I do, however, think that investigation might be launched based on the communications that basically show Hollywood reps trying to blackmail congressmen and Senators into supporting SOPA. That's something you can run with.

Bobic:

Crono1973:

Bobic:
Not to defend this man, but is this really a bribery case? I thought every election was funded by private companies and lobbyists. The republicans taking money from oil companies and Democrats being funded by hollywood (apparently).

Of course, I'm an ignorant Brit so may be grasping the wrong end of a completely different stick. Feel free to quote me and call me a buffoon.

They are all cases of bribery. The question is, does this case qualify as illegal bribery.

Actually, the real question is, why is bribery legal at all?

Perhaps these people should be petitioning and complaining about that rather than singling out one guy because he did something irrelevant that the internet doesn't like.

It doesn't work that way and you know it. You have to have a case strong enough that an investigation is warranted. That gets the ball rolling to change the whole system. Thing is, how many politicians want the system to change?

I support this. It is always fun to see the internet destroy people. Jsut think of that patent troll guy vs. the makers of the Edge-game. Or that xbox controller PR guy we just recently had.

And boy, does that scumbag politician deserve it.

Boy, the internet's ego sure has been leveling up recently.

Jesse Billingsley:
The internet is like gravity, you don't(Bold faced times 32 font) fuck with it because if you do it will just whoop your ass.

I don't get it.

Bobic:

Perhaps these people should be petitioning and complaining about that rather than singling out one guy because he did something irrelevant that the internet doesn't like.

Woo, you are quite the optimist. I'm afraid people at large are generally apathetic about our federal corruption unless it directly inconveniences them. Launch wars via executive fiat? Whatevs. Censor porn? OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!

Crono1973:

Bobic:

Crono1973:

They are all cases of bribery. The question is, does this case qualify as illegal bribery.

Actually, the real question is, why is bribery legal at all?

Perhaps these people should be petitioning and complaining about that rather than singling out one guy because he did something irrelevant that the internet doesn't like.

It doesn't work that way and you know it. You have to have a case strong enough that an investigation is warranted. That gets the ball rolling to change the whole system. Thing is, how many politicians want the system to change?

How is this guy admitting to doing a common practice that is completely legal and encouraged by the government a strong case?

This isn't about changing the whole system, unless somehow these people were all completely oblivious to this practice, it's about picking on a guy for supporting SOPA. I'm sorry, but the internet won, don't go chasing down people for revenge, that's just petty and ridiculous.

Re: Update.

It would not surprise me if the president was not at least made aware of this. Dodd was a major supporter of the president and his policies in the US Senate and had frequent contact with the president.

Of course, the staff may attempt to insulate the president because of that very relationship.

Moosejaw:

Bobic:

Perhaps these people should be petitioning and complaining about that rather than singling out one guy because he did something irrelevant that the internet doesn't like.

Woo, you are quite the optimist. I'm afraid people at large are generally apathetic about our federal corruption unless it directly inconveniences them. Launch wars via executive fiat? Whatevs. Censor porn? OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!

That's precisely my problem, I'm not optimistic enough to expect people to try to change the system, I'm just annoyed at people enacting petty revenge and pretending they're fighting the system.

Bobic:

Crono1973:

Bobic:

Perhaps these people should be petitioning and complaining about that rather than singling out one guy because he did something irrelevant that the internet doesn't like.

It doesn't work that way and you know it. You have to have a case strong enough that an investigation is warranted. That gets the ball rolling to change the whole system. Thing is, how many politicians want the system to change?

How is this guy admitting to doing a common practice that is completely legal and encouraged by the government a strong case?

This isn't about changing the whole system, unless somehow these people were all completely oblivious to this practice, it's about picking on a guy for supporting SOPA. I'm sorry, but the internet won, don't go chasing down people for revenge, that's just petty and ridiculous.

Whatever man, just forget it.

Spaec:
I was stunned when I first read this guy's comments so seeing this makes me glad.
...Lamar Smith next? Or cross the pond to help stop the ACTA people lobbying in Europe right now?

ACTA is even worth as it is done secretly and not by democratic elected people.
The EU just has to vote at the end of the process...

I'd sign but it's already got enough signatures. I don't like giving out my E-mail too much.

Bobic:

That's precisely my problem, I'm not optimistic enough to expect people to try to change the system, I'm just annoyed at people enacting petty revenge and pretending they're fighting the system.

Well, here's my thing. If somebody, once in awhile, donates $25 to charity...you don't jump on them and ask why they waited this long to do this or why they didn't donate more. You're just happy that someone, somewhere, donated at least once.

That's how I view this. I don't care about the self-interest or the narrowness of the retribution, so long as it's happening, somewhere, I'm happy.

Moosejaw:

Bobic:

That's precisely my problem, I'm not optimistic enough to expect people to try to change the system, I'm just annoyed at people enacting petty revenge and pretending they're fighting the system.

Well, here's my thing. If somebody, once in awhile, donates $25 to charity...you don't jump on them and ask why they waited this long to do this or why they didn't donate more. You're just happy that someone, somewhere, donated at least once.

That's how I view this. I don't care about the self-interest or the narrowness of the retribution, so long as it's happening, somewhere, I'm happy.

Can't a guy be happy with the effects but not happy with the reasons and the attitude?

At this point, I'm more concerned about the fact that we have the NDAA, a law that lets the government detain people in our own country on suspicion of "terrorism" or the like. Shouldn't we be focusing on trying to get that repealed or something?

They are not done yet. There is a treaty called ACTA. Look it up, find out what you can and get the word out.

Bobic:
That's precisely my problem, I'm not optimistic enough to expect people to try to change the system, I'm just annoyed at people enacting petty revenge and pretending they're fighting the system.

The pleasure of seeing this corrupt bastard eat crow aside, there is something to be gained by setting a precedent here. Won't change "the system," but it just may give every other corrupt bastard a moment's pause knowing the digital public is willing and eager to tear them apart. At the very least, it's worth it for the opportunity to remind politicians they are supposed to be working for us, those who elected them. If that message gets sent by publicly barbecuing Snidely Whiplash up there, so much the better.

Kieve:

Bobic:
That's precisely my problem, I'm not optimistic enough to expect people to try to change the system, I'm just annoyed at people enacting petty revenge and pretending they're fighting the system.

The pleasure of seeing this corrupt bastard eat crow aside, there is something to be gained by setting a precedent here. Won't change "the system," but it just may give every other corrupt bastard a moment's pause knowing the digital public is willing and eager to tear them apart. At the very least, it's worth it for the opportunity to remind politicians they are supposed to be working for us, those who elected them. If that message gets sent by publicly barbecuing Snidely Whiplash up there, so much the better.

Like I said above, I'm happy with the effects (should something like that happen) but not happy with the reasons or the attitude.

It's sort of like a corporation giving lots of money to a charity to do away with their bad image. They're doing it for douchey, self serving reasons, which I feel like complaining about, but I'm still very happy for the charity to be getting some money.

LastGreatBlasphemer:
Internet petitions never work.
Yes I signed it..... Somehow. I clicked the button and it claimed I signed it...... Uuuuuuuuh, what?

Get this fool fr all he's worth!

RJ Dalton:

Sandytimeman:
I signed, power to the people baby! Die, Corporate America Die! Lets get back to when you know...it was harder to bribe politicians.

That would be when there were no politicians, right?

Some time in the early (late?) 1900BC?

Its not an internet petition, its a WHITE HOUSE Petition.

Baresark:
LoL, this is a joke right? Of course he took financial incentive... you can thank the 17th Amendment for that. It was that amendment that allowed special interest groups to take over in Washington. It was that amendment that made lobbyists worth while. Investigate him? Investigate them all, but I suppose everyone will only care about one thing at a time.

Journey of a 1000 miles, etc etc etc.

I do hope this actually is the start of something that changes how goverment/s work.

BiH-Kira:
If anyone ever gets to argue with theists about the "intelligent design" of the world and its inhabitants, just ask them "How the hell did Chris Dodd end up in this intelligently designed world?"

Seriously.
Sometimes I just wonder if politics is like the positive side of a magnet and morons where the negative side of a magnet. There obviously is some attraction between those two. I hope Dodd gets what he deserves.

It worries me that I know so "much" about the US politics...

Its not about being a moron, in the last 100 years, Politics has become the best way to secure financial freedom, which is sad and enraging, because it was supposed to be a job to help keep nations/states/cities, safe.

Name one politician who makes less than 60k a year, and itll be the only one that does his job out of love.

Bobic:
Not to defend this man, but is this really a bribery case? I thought every election was funded by private companies and lobbyists. The republicans taking money from oil companies and Democrats being funded by hollywood (apparently).

Of course, I'm an ignorant Brit so may be grasping the wrong end of a completely different stick. Feel free to quote me and call me a buffoon.

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.

He effectively said on national television:
"I Gave you Money. If you don't do what I Want then don't expect any more of my money!"

While there is private funding during elections and campaign controbutions from all sorts of people, those that throw in with a canidate does so because they have 'like minded intrests'. Although many can argue that their controbution and funds do influence these politicians choices, the diffrence is that the funds are not explicitly intended to do so.

If i give you 10 million dollars to support your cause and while i hand you the money i say 'I like Muffins'. I'm not giving you the money to make me muffins or change your intrests in muffins... but you'll undoubtably have a much keen intrest in muffin related laws.

and that is where the diffrence between those controbutions and what this senetor said.
He more or less is implying that his money should influence the presidents decision, and is threatening to take it away if he continues to not share the same intrests as him and his company.

Bobic:

Crono1973:

Bobic:

Perhaps these people should be petitioning and complaining about that rather than singling out one guy because he did something irrelevant that the internet doesn't like.

It doesn't work that way and you know it. You have to have a case strong enough that an investigation is warranted. That gets the ball rolling to change the whole system. Thing is, how many politicians want the system to change?

How is this guy admitting to doing a common practice that is completely legal and encouraged by the government a strong case?

This isn't about changing the whole system, unless somehow these people were all completely oblivious to this practice, it's about picking on a guy for supporting SOPA. I'm sorry, but the internet won, don't go chasing down people for revenge, that's just petty and ridiculous.

You cant change the system completely out of the blue, you need to set precedents for this, no single goverment, will ever change the way they rule over night, unless its annihilated under a war or revolution. Frankly I feel this is the more civilized way of doing things.

NotSoLoneWanderer:
I'd sign but it's already got enough signatures. I don't like giving out my E-mail too much.

Its the White House, the moment you signed up for an Internet connection they already had all your Data.

Being apathetic, only guarantees that nothing happens, dont stop just because it already has enough signatures, 25k can be easily dismissed, since its not even 1% of the Voter Population.

man, he just looks like a baby eater.

boag:

NotSoLoneWanderer:
I'd sign but it's already got enough signatures. I don't like giving out my E-mail too much.

Its the White House, the moment you signed up for an Internet connection they already had all your Data.

Being apathetic, only guarantees that nothing happens, don't stop just because it already has enough signatures, 25k can be easily dismissed, since its not even 1% of the Voter Population.

Good point. I'll go sign it then.

good get rid of this guy... its just to bad that he wont get any real punishment for it >,>

Pyro Paul:

Bobic:
Not to defend this man, but is this really a bribery case? I thought every election was funded by private companies and lobbyists. The republicans taking money from oil companies and Democrats being funded by hollywood (apparently).

Of course, I'm an ignorant Brit so may be grasping the wrong end of a completely different stick. Feel free to quote me and call me a buffoon.

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.

He effectively said on national television:
"I Gave you Money. If you don't do what I Want then don't expect any more of my money!"

While there is private funding during elections and campaign controbutions from all sorts of people, those that throw in with a canidate does so because they have 'like minded intrests'. Although many can argue that their controbution and funds do influence these politicians choices, the diffrence is that the funds are not explicitly intended to do so.

If i give you 10 million dollars to support your cause and while i hand you the money i say 'I like Muffins'. I'm not giving you the money to make me muffins or change your intrests in muffins... but you'll undoubtably have a much keen intrest in muffin related laws.

and that is where the diffrence between those controbutions and what this senetor said.
He more or less is implying that his money should influence the presidents decision, and is threatening to take it away if he continues to not share the same intrests as him and his company.

Couldn't you just say that Obama has displayed that he doesn't have 'like minded interests' so Mr. Hollywood has decided he doesn't want to keep supporting him.

And hell, if this guy is found guilty of bribing, shouldn't Obama be impeached for accepting the bribe?

boag:

Bobic:

Crono1973:

It doesn't work that way and you know it. You have to have a case strong enough that an investigation is warranted. That gets the ball rolling to change the whole system. Thing is, how many politicians want the system to change?

How is this guy admitting to doing a common practice that is completely legal and encouraged by the government a strong case?

This isn't about changing the whole system, unless somehow these people were all completely oblivious to this practice, it's about picking on a guy for supporting SOPA. I'm sorry, but the internet won, don't go chasing down people for revenge, that's just petty and ridiculous.

You cant change the system completely out of the blue, you need to set precedents for this, no single goverment, will ever change the way they rule over night, unless its annihilated under a war or revolution. Frankly I feel this is the more civilized way of doing things.

Claiming the rules only apply to someone who disagreed with you on a bill. Civil.

Bobic:

boag:

Bobic:

How is this guy admitting to doing a common practice that is completely legal and encouraged by the government a strong case?

This isn't about changing the whole system, unless somehow these people were all completely oblivious to this practice, it's about picking on a guy for supporting SOPA. I'm sorry, but the internet won, don't go chasing down people for revenge, that's just petty and ridiculous.

You cant change the system completely out of the blue, you need to set precedents for this, no single goverment, will ever change the way they rule over night, unless its annihilated under a war or revolution. Frankly I feel this is the more civilized way of doing things.

Claiming the rules only apply to someone who disagreed with you on a bill. Civil.

The issue isnt even about the bill, its about blatant abuse of power, pyro paul just describe perfectly the difference.

If you like living in a state where the rich and powerful can lord over the rest of the populace without being treated as equals, or where laws are only meant for the non elite. Then you are terrible person.

"After sites like Google, Wikipedia, and Reddit engaged in a Web-wide blackout last week, Dodd accused them of abusing their power and using their power to "intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.""

Hmmm.....sounds familiar. A bit peeved that someone beat you to the punch, huh?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here