×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

765 comments

Dying from lack of surprise... (5, Insightful)

killfixx (148785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886239)

Good to know that greed and corruption still rule. I was worried that we may be entering some weird, "by and for the people" period in American history.

Seriously though, what's it gonna take? How bad does it have to get before Joe Sixpack wakes up and takes notice? How much more before we finally have that revolution?

I've been fighting with my votes, my dollar, and by educating everyone who will listen. I'm ready to lock and load to get MY America back.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (3, Insightful)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886307)

they really couldn't go after him even if they wanted to. the rats would all start squealing on there buddy's witch would be the whole lot of them. the only way to get rid of these guys is to stop voting for them. and if that does not work with guns.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (5, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886429)

Well, any one of us can only stop voting for 3 of them. And to be honest, there's a lot of people out there who are totally okay with corruption.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (5, Insightful)

letherial (1302031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886577)

and what happens if everyone votes and they are still there? is the minority going to bring arms against majority to have it your way? is that a democracy? Im just challenging your thinking there, that's quite a jump.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (4, Insightful)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886537)

So why don't we do ask this again - and better people then me should phrase it - but this time asking if they think "that type of corruption has is occuring" and "if Chriss Dodd 's actions are aligned with the morals of the administration"? Is this "a cockroach you see", among the thousands we don't? What is the white house's stance on money in politics, and have they investigated others, during the this administration? Who is analyzing finances and trends to spot inconsistencies? Are there any active investigations of this at present?

it's wrong to just not answer, when they could have made a statement, avoiding the issue of guilt. That's a cop out, and i expect more.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886601)

So, regular folk like us would be years in prison for a crime like this, but the best we could hope for is to "vote people like that out"? Yeah, that's balanced...

Hey, Lawmakers, read the above and see if you come to the same tragic conclusion we all did. If you don't fix this broken system PDQ, it's going to descend into chaos, and your ivory towers won't keep you safe from the masses.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886405)

Exactly as I predicted when everybody here on Slashdot was insisting the would HAVE TO act.

This is Obama, he need only make the promise. He doesn't have to DO anything.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (-1, Flamebait)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886455)

Well, nothing is better than whatever the Repub's do.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886581)

Way to add something to the conversation there, dummy.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (5, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886655)

Well, nothing is better than whatever the Repub's do.

Your comment is the typical Democrat response. Here we have a story about a Democrat who is refusing to investigate another Democrat. Your response? You bad mouth Republicans. Of course, like Obama and all other Democrats, you are incapable of criticizing them, no matter how wrong they are.

If Dodd were a Republican, the investigation would have been complete long ago, no petitions needed, and you would get first post saying that this is proof positive that Republicans are corrupt.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886761)

Yes, it's craptastic that Dodd isn't getting investigated [at least, not publicly].

But it's not like the republican's fall all over themselves to investigate fellow republican's when they are in charge. Both sides are similarly corrupt, only perhaps in slightly different ways.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886471)

its not about obama, dammit.

it wasn't entirely about bush.

its ENTIRELY about the system and how anyone who enters leaves corrupt.

money makes the political system work and that's what's wrong.

stop pointing fingers at one guy. can't you see beyond that (please?)

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886589)

Your little idealistic plea is nice and all, but I hope you see that you're perpetuating the system.

Prosecuting one person is a good place to start at ending the systematic corruption. Whining about it and trying to divide attention makes it less likely that anything concrete will ever get started. That's why it's good to "point fingers at one guy". I don't think there's a single person that thinks all of the corruption in the entire system is due to one guy, but we need to direct attention somewhere.

That's how it works. (5, Insightful)

Sturm (914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886607)

Obama is the President. Obama HAS been the President for several years.

That's how it works.

Blame Bush all you want for taxes or the economy or high gas prices or even pimples on your ass if it makes you feel better.

Obama is the current President and his administration is in charge. He should be held accountable for NOT holding people account for things that happen on his watch.

Re:That's how it works. (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886653)

The point is not that Obama is innocent, but rather that he is guilty because of the way the system works, not because of something else. Not that I agree or disagree, since I don't live in the US, I just get fucked by them.

Re:That's how it works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886743)

Your completely missing the point. There is no system in place to punish anyone regardless and it just creates more people that are going to fuck you over. Obama sucks, yes, and the next guy that is president is going to turn into the exact same thing. Democrat, republican. doesn't matter. The amount of distrust instilled towards the other in our political system has seriously been an incredibly effective tool in stagnating any actual and meaningful change to the US government.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (1)

Son of Byrne (1458629) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886453)

Frankly, I'm not that terribly concerned about greed since that is the underlying motivation to participate in the economy (prove me wrong). Corruption on the other hand...

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (5, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886521)

I'm ready to lock and load to get MY America back.

So as someone from outside (I'm Canadian), I've come to the conclusion that the US will only solve it's issues that way. I'm truly saddened by it, and I hope it's quick and mostly bloodless, but I doubt it will be.

I know it's not a popular idea, but you have to admit: the level of vitriol in the USA has hit unbelievable levels. It makes my head hurt - for both of the major parties. You don't have political options any more - the only one that is an ACTUAL choice away from more of the same is Ron Paul. Too bad he's so far out to lunch. You're headed towards civil war. And right now all the religions folks have all the guns. Oh the irony.

I wish you the best of luck. Please, keep your military out of it, and protect your nukes while you sort this shiat out.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (4, Insightful)

evanism (600676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886625)

It's interesting that outsiders can see the inevitability of civil war isn't it?

The level of hate, spite, vitriol and absolute us/them divide is obvious for all to see.

Tiny issues, of no importance, or consequence, are raised to absolute exreme/hate issues. Devicive language, militarized police, extreme violence, ethnic hatred, extreme paranoia, social chaos, endless multiple wars, extremes in poverty/wealth and perverse legal and ethical injustice. There is no middle ground, its all one side or the other.

It has ticked every single box for catastrophic upheaval.

Frankly, I will be glad. The USA as an idea has failed its people and I'm tired of the US's enforced exported culture. It is vile.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (0)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886673)

Canada is getting ready to try and pass the C-11 internet censorship bill. As an outsider (American), I've come to the conclusion that the Canada will only solve it's issues that way. I'm truly saddened by it, and I hope it's quick and mostly bloodless, but I doubt it will be.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (3, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886525)

Don't be stupid. As soon as bullets start flying, the country is dead. It won't come back in your lifetime, or your kids' lifetimes for that matter. Technological advancement has brought us easily available explosives, which make clean revolutions absolutely impossible. So long as even 0.001% of the population doesn't like the new government, they can just start slaughtering people to force a change. The only reason they don't do so now is because it's seen as "unacceptable" and would be counterproductive to their goals. As soon as violence becomes the norm, the only way back is through decades of bloodshed.

Just look at the Troubles. Four decades of violence, and that's in a country with 2% of America's population and less access to weapons, at a time when technology didn't make mass murder as simple as it is today. That would look like a picnic next to a new revolution in the US. We're talking hundreds of thousands dead, maybe millions, and you will not live to see the end of it.

This "bullet box" rhetoric needs to end. The people who mod it up should be ashamed of themselves, and the people who post it ought to be on government watch lists.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (1)

evanism (600676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886661)

"and the people who post it ought to be on government watch lists."

And thus ends the lessson.

Stasi. Fascism. Totalitarianism. Police state. Freedom.

Choose any two.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886663)

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Revolution is our birthright as American citizens. Bloodless if possible, bloody if necessary. It is obvious that our government has been twisted against the people it is supposed to be representative of.

I don't want to hurt anyone, but I will not be a victim. This isn't Iraq, and we're not terrified villagers living in stone age conditions. The people have been asleep for a long time, lulled into a false sense of security by greed and manipulation, but they're finally beginning to wake up, and it's about fucking time...

It seems clear to me now that the last shred of what made this country great died on 9/11. The terrorists attacked us, but we finished the job all on our own.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886669)

I agree Artor! how do we avoid this though? If our votes and voices can not be heard? Our protests are denied? what is left buy bloodshed?

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (2)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886575)

Forgive me but they declined comment, they haven't declines to do anything to my knowledge. And Joe six pack doesn't care about technology. Now you take his ford pickup away or try to take his guns you will get his attention.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (1)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886753)

try to take his guns you will get his attention.

I think they are working on taking away the guns, Give them a few more years . . .

the plutocracy sucks (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886689)

the bloodshed you endorse is far, far worse

little boys like you who have never known real revolution are historically illiterate fools. we will not have a revolution in this country until we are pushed much, much further. and that is a good thing

you don't have the slightest fucking clue of the misery of what a real revolution really is like. i hate the very concept of intellectual property and i hate the plutocracy infecting the country i love. but i am no friend of yours, and the likes of you disgust me far more than chris dodd ever will. at least chris dodd won't lock and load and embrace borderline schizophrenic hollywood addled visions of "glorious" revolutionary bloodshed

fuck you, you gunhappy tool. if we are ever to actually have real fascism in this country, people who think like you, all to ready and happy to grab a gun, will be at the vanguard of this country's collapse into it, guided by demagogues who know all too well how to pull the strings in your ignorant bloodlust drunk mind

revolution means failure you asshole. you are supposed to fix the system, not start shooting people you

have i made my disgust of your ignorant bloodlust clear? then grow the fuck up

Re:Dying from lack of surprise... (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886767)

Just wait for March to come, then they will unload you from the matrix with their latest monster weapon: NDAA

Rather than die from lack of surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886771)

Rephrase the question and resubmit. "How would you phrase the question in order to answer it in a way we would like?" Then a week later, ask that question. It appears there is enough support to get 25000 people to sign up for both of those questions.

Alright (4, Insightful)

Jethro (14165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886245)

So lets go ask specific law enforcement agencies.

Re:Alright (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886421)

It would have been nice if they reply atleast pointed us in the right direction.. who the fuck are we supposed to ask to look into this if not the Whitehouse?

Re:Alright (3, Funny)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886435)

You can't just go about doing that, you silly knave! There are policies! PROCEDURES! INSTITUTIONS!

Re:Alright (1)

evanism (600676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886733)

Create Yet Another Bureaucracy!

3 or 4. Employing another 2 or 3 percent of the population.

Give them powers to grope you. Grope your genitals, or lock you up for the thought crime of using encryption - or questioning their ethics while they share photos of your virtual rape.

After all, it's to keep the children safe! Only people who hate freedom would object.

Re:Alright (2)

SandmanWAIX (674838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886469)

What would it take to actually get someone to actively pursue something like this?
Which department/agency is responsible for investigating claims like this?
Is it something that our slashdot group could bring to their attention?
Is it a question of money as it would require lawyers to actually do some work before it would be investigated?

What would it actually take to make something happen?

Re:Alright (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886745)

ok,
Everyone in Dodd's congressional district, write up a letter describing the infraction, date and time.
Bonus points if you have a copy of the congressional transcript (public domain!) with the incriminating words underlined.
If Dodd edited the record and it's all video, please get a video clip and copy it to DVD.
Include the DVD.
Note the local state statute on public official taking bribes and maybe quote the part of the statute.

Send letter using Registered Postal Mail to the Attorney General's office.

Registered mail requires them to sign for it. If it's a felony in Dodd's state, then the Attorney General probably can't fail to pursue by law. AG gets to choose about pursuing misdemeanors, not usually felonies.

Find out where RIAA and MPAA are incorporated, and do the same thing (but quote statute showing bribery of public official, as opposed to public official taking bribes). This will be most effective for persons in the same state as those groups are headquartered.

If no action, follow up politely. If still no action, may be able to sue the AG for selective enforcement. Keep the receipt on the Registered Mail, it's your pathway to proving the AG actually received the letter (so they can't say they didn't know).

Bonus pathway - if Dodd is a lawyer, then use similar routes to go after the local Bar association. See if you can get him disbarred from practicing law.

Executive branch (3, Insightful)

Bayoudegradeable (1003768) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886253)

and here I was thinking the executive branch enforces the law.... guess I'm not so sharp.

Re:Executive branch (4, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886357)

The Executive Branch delegates that to the Attorney General/US DOJ. Also, I see the lack of comment as a good thing, because if they didn't take this matter seriously, they'd have simply stated it had been dismissed out of hand. In this case though, it seems they do take it seriously.

Keep in mind that no Police Investigation aside from those run by the Keystone Cops starts with a public announcement saying they will investigate.
They say they are investigating *after* news outlets like CNN and FOX have reported that a bunch of FBI Agents raided offices and took away records and computers from those offices. Why give Dodd any more opportunity to hide, destroy evidence?

Re:Executive branch (4, Interesting)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886427)

He probably didn't break the law, and that's the sad truth. There's a very fine line, maybe a smudge, between being paid for votes, and being paid because you support a platform. They amount to the same thing, at the end of the day, but one is illegal and the other isn't. What he said on Fox news was probably not illegal either, once put in this framework. It would shake my confidence if I ever had any.

Re:Executive branch (3, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886369)

it's almost like what they taught in civics class, just have to add a phrase before each sentence and another after:

those two phrases are "The mega-corporate bitches of" and "for the benefit of the mega-corporations"

1. The corporate bitches of Congress make the laws for the benefit of the mega-corporations

2. The corporate bitches of the executive branch enforce the laws for the benefit of the mega-corporations

3. The corporate bitches of the Supreme Court interpret the laws for the benefit of the mega-corporations

Let's revise the oath of office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the agenda of the mega-corporations, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the interests of all those mega corporations, so help me Mammon.

Re:Executive branch (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886511)

people growing up, NOW, can realize this. the internet teaches much more of the truth than the textbooks or teachers (are allowed or will).

we didn't have any kind of internet (not even BBS dialup, at the time) and our means to share info was very local and very limited. we were brought up in near total ignorance. 'trust authority'. all that stuff - that we now know is opposite and untrue.

today, kids DO have the ability to hear more than one side of the story. well, for as long as the internet remains free...

I hope that over the next 20 or so years, this generation weeds out the older guys and pushes thru a new style. I have zero hope for today's old rulers, but tomorrow's rulers could actually be from an informed base.

and sadly, I think the old guys in charge know this, too. they want to milk things as they are for the next 5-25 years, until *they* die out. after that, they don't much care how the world runs. but they do want to keep the world and power base as it is right now.

the struggle is: do we allow that and for how much longer?

this is the class war. its real. its simmering, but its growing, to be sure.

Re:Executive branch (2)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886383)

I sense sarcasm. The legislative branch doesn't actually enforce the law no but if the Obama administration publically (or privately) pushed for an investigation of this man it would happen.

Re:Executive branch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886443)

I sense sarcasm. The legislative branch doesn't actually enforce the law no but if the Obama administration publically (or privately) pushed for an investigation of this man it would happen.

What grade did you get in civics?

Captha: inequity

Re:Executive branch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886449)

I think the comment read "Executive branch," but I could be mistaken...

Re:Executive branch (1)

Chuckstar (799005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886481)

Yes, but you don't expect them to selectively enforce the law based on petition, do you?

Or to comment publicly about potential ongoing investigations?

Who could say this was unexpected? (3, Insightful)

prehistoricman5 (1539099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886257)

A group of people demands that a well known politician turned lobbyist get investigated for bribery. They know that they are all guilty of a little quid pro quo themselves so in order to save their own asses and job prospects after they leave office they don't investigate. This angers me though. I had high hopes for Obama forcing lobbyists to clean up their act, but he hasn't delivered. I was planning on voting for him simply because the Republican policies of ignoring science and cutting everything down to the bone disturb me, but now I think I'm going to vote third party.

Re:Who could say this was unexpected? (3, Interesting)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886303)

Who do you like in the parties of n > 2? I'm looking for a better option than Mickey Mouse, mostly because that nasty rodent's been buying politicians to keep himself under copyright for years.

Re:Who could say this was unexpected? (2)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886513)

If you're over 35, you can run yourself. Everyone in the country over 35 and who meets the other requirements is running all the time - you can vote for any of them by writing their name in.

Don't throw your vote away by voting for a fictional character, at least vote for someone who, on the mad chance that enough others vote the same way, is actually eligible to serve. Or at the very least, is a person who exists and can produce reasonable facsimiles of the necessary documents after two and a half years.

Referred? (3, Interesting)

SandmanWAIX (674838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886271)

But of course, they have referred the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency for enforcement?

Did anyone really expect anything else? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886313)

The worst part about this petition and the result, is that it will get basically zero media coverage. All of the mainstream news organizations are tied into SOPA and the lobbyists just as tightly as Dodd.

What? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886315)

You can't petition to have someone arrested/investigated/incarcerated. Can you?

If there's a suspicion of illegality, the law enforcement agency is the place to go, not the president. pffft

Re:What? (4, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886345)

...And the President constitutionally shouldn't be able to make laws that bypass congress, yet they have done it all the time via executive orders. The President shouldn't be able to order the targeted death of US citizens but yet the current president did it just fine. Etc.

Re:What? (3, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886741)

Executive Orders aren't laws. As the Executive, it's clear that he has a certain level of authority over the Executive Branch. Executive Orders simply are a mechanism by which the President exercises that Constitutionally granted authority over the Executive Branch.

As the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, the president is within his authority to order military action against hostile military forces. Doesn't matter that some U.S. citizen has joined those forces. War doesn't stop because there's a traitor in the enemy camp.

There's a clear distinction between a criminal who we should try to arrest if at all possible (and criminals do get killed by cops without a trial in similar circumstances, even on U.S. soil, where they are armed and resisting arrest), and enemy combatants who are engaged in armed conflict against our armed forces.

Cop-out (2)

Renstar (142001) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886319)

That is an even cop-outtier cop-out than I expected.

Re:Cop-out (2)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886413)

That is an even cop-outtier cop-out than I expected.

I guess they can only comment on things that do not involve "specific law enforcement action". I imagine that promises a response to
a) Disclose all government communication with extra-terrestrials (I saw that petition at 8000 votes a while ago) and
b) Debate about holiday vs Christmas tree

Good to know we can make a difference by our petitions!

Darn (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886335)

Darn. If only there were a department we could go to in order to get justice. We could even fill it with lawyers who could prosecute people who broke the law. Put someone in charge of it who people couldn't mess with - like a government official or something.

Then enforce the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886343)

F*%^*&^(@!!! LAWS!

So let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886347)

We can petiition the White House to answer, on the record, any question as long as it is neither too specific NOR leads to a law enforcement action?

And the point of this 'service' is what, exactly? To provoke the administration to opine about non-specific social issues?

Re:So let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886401)

And the point of this 'service' is what, exactly? To provoke the administration to opine about non-specific social issues?

Apparently the point of the service is to make it look like the White House is listening to the people. Look like. Not actually are.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886599)

they listen in their capacity of policy making.

we all know modern policy is simply a matter of responding to market research.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886693)

I don't think they ever responded to the petition to take these petitions seriously [whitehouse.gov] , which as created back in October, and reached the number of signatures required in November. I guess someone needs to make a petition asking them to respond to that petition.

Although I guess the Terms of Participation says:

The White House may elect to respond to petitions at any time

Also, I find the html entity fail in the response title [whitehouse.gov] amusing (scroll down).

Re:So let me get this straight... (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886467)

Its like everything else Obama has done, simple good PR to try to get him reelected. Taking questions via YouTube, holding "town hall" meetings of course none of this really matters, none of it is actually going to change anything its all done to make Obama seem like a nice, up to date president that cares about various issues when in reality all those are is nice good feeling fluff for the Obama campaign.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886557)

Yep, Obama is all show and no go.

Fuck them all. I would love to see this country without a government.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886561)

It got them to come out against SOPA didn't it?

They aren't obligated to even have the service. They're doing it to get feedback from a self-selected minority of the public. I certainly hope they don't make major policy decisions based on it. If it gets them to stand up on one significant issue (and it has: see SOPA), then it's worthwhile.

Re:So let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886645)

Only because Obama already signed ACTA.

Declining to vote for Obama. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886349)

Declining to vote for Obama. Consistent with my desire to uphold integrity in our government in the highest regard, I decline to vote for any power that does not address PUBLIC ADMISSIONS OF BRIBERY without swift and tangible action. I will decline to vote for Obama on this issue alone.

Re:Declining to vote for Obama. (1)

decaffeinated (70626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886437)

I don't care if the upcoming election pits Lucifer vs. Obama, I'm voting for Ron Paul. As Matt Damon famously said, "I'm terribly disappointed in Obama."

Money Quote from Mr. Damon: [ew.com]

"“I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level,” he told ELLE. “One of them said to me, ‘Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician.’” That was Damon just getting started. He added later, “You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better.”

Re:Declining to vote for Obama. (2)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886659)

"You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better."

Why do you think Barack Obama passed health care reform even though he knew it would cost him the House of Representatives?

Barack Obama passed health reform after the last 7 Presidents failed to pass universal coverage.

He earned a second term with that, but it may cost him his second term.

Barack Obama is not perfect (as described here) but he has earned my vote.

And to the petitioners, try rephrasing the accusation as, "Please comment on Chris Dodd's controversial new career peddling influence."

Re:Declining to vote for Obama. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886705)

What the hell is Damon talking about? He got his health care takeover passed. If taking over 1/8 of the economy isn't "getting something done" then what would satisfy him?

Re:Declining to vote for Obama. (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886515)

Honestly, this is the weakest argument not to vote for Obama. Out of all of the things that he's done, you pick something most likely written by a mid-level bureaucrat instead of all of the things Obama has personally done to screw up integrity in our government such as not closing Guantanamo bay, starting another war, keeping the Federal Reserve rather than abolishing it, ordering the killing of a US citizen, etc.

Re:Declining to vote for Obama. (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886671)

Hehe, who to vote for, then? Everybody is or becomes corrupt in this shitty political system that dominates the world. Nothing we can do about it, since we are yet to come up with something better.

Re:Declining to vote for Obama. (2)

Sipper (462582) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886751)

Ralph Nader, or another Independent runner. Because with the two-party system "the only way to win is not to play".

Or at least at present that's the best suggestion I've got.

Who is Chris Dodd... (1)

dosware (695578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886359)

Alex Trebek: Who's more hypocritical and repulsive than a GOP beholden to corporate interests? ....

Voting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886395)

This is why I am refusing this year to vote on a national level. I will vote for Mayor, State Rep, City Councilman, but I will not vote for Congressional Rep, Senate or President this year. I am absolutely tired of this.

Re:Voting (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886447)

But that's just the thing, you're being intimidated into NOT voting.
THIS is what is exploited to get certain people into power, scaring people and making it so they don't actually vote, scaring them into not voting so that corporate interests and greed can take over.

It's people like you that have effectively sat back and let the MAFIAA take over our nation.

What do you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886411)

You can put up a form in 10 minutes but no one said that data will go anywhere lest anything useful will be made out of it.

Re:What do you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886503)

Pardon my tinfoil hat, but something useful -was- made of it. The corrupt people that more or less run things, that want to keep running things, now have a list of thousands of people that oppose them. Might be useful sometime down the road.

Dear Sirs... (1, Troll)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886461)

In absence of a 'specific law enforcement action', could we at least settle for a CIA drone strike, or extraordinary rendition(how often can you do this before it becomes ordinary rendition?) to a shadowy torture dungeon? Either option should spare the department of justice the painful and tedious necessity of getting involved...

This is overblown nonsense (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886477)

It assumes that a campaign contribution can be equated with bribery. If that were true, easily 90 percent of all Congressmen and state representatives could be indicted, especially by someone bothering to associate donations with subsequent votes on matters of interest to the lobbyists.

Bribery means money that goes into someone's personal bank account, or the equivalent in terms of all-expenses-paid vacations, etc.

The anti-MPAA/RIAA crowd is grasping at straws here. Way past tedious.

Open and Transparent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886479)

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
 

Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

I hope this settles it - any questions?

Campaign contributions are not bribes (4, Informative)

voss (52565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886499)

Nobody will be prosecuted....too many people already say "If so so doesn't vote my way Im not gonna contribute to his campaign." OR "If you support my bill I will contribute to your campaign" the promises are vague and non-specific.

"...if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act. In such situations the official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking." McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991)

  On the other hand if Dodd had said "If you support SOPA I will give your campaign $50,000" that would be quid pro quo. A threat to withhold support is not bribery. There has to be an explicit offer or threat. Campaign contributions have a higher standard of proof for bribery allegations than say a private payment.

DOJ = Executive Branch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886501)

The Executive branch, Obama, runs the DOJ and Holder enforces/investigates what Obama tells him to. That is until the executive branch itself is shown to be corrupt and Congress is forced to investigate them, such as the Mexican gun running.

This reminds me of Clinton selling missle secrets to China for DNC campaign contributions. When called out on it during a presidential debate Gore said "There is no controlling legal authority" meaning that Janet Reno was told by Clinton to not investigate illegal foreign campaign contributions and she would investigate anyone else who looked into it.

Engage and see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886519)

Why don't we people do for this as same as we did for stopping SOPA? We massively engaged in a campaign to stop that bill. Why can't we do the same to see this man behind bars. Maybe it's time to give an example here. This would set a precedent, maybe this would start a revolution in participation. We need some more direct democracy and I think we finally have the tools to do it.

is there a new petition? (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886533)

Is there a new Petition for comment on Chris Dodd that is within the TOS?

I looked but searching for "Chris" doesn't even turn up the original petition.

Site really slow? (1)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886541)

I made a petition on the site (to end the corn subsidy [wh.gov] ) but it takes upwards of 20 seconds to load, which is completely ridiculous. Most people assume it's a dead link.

Of course, this makes it harder to reach the 25,000 necessary in 30 days in order to get a response.... Any thoughts on why it is sooooo slow?

Fuck forbid the government enforce LAWS on itself. (0)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886545)

So President disappointment, says "I refuse to investigate a crook, because I'm the president and I have no legal power?"

What the fuck is the president for?

Re:Fuck forbid the government enforce LAWS on itse (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886687)

Same thing they're all there: fuck us and get happy.

If anybody was in any doubt (1)

gun26 (151620) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886571)

that Obama and his Department of (In)Justice are more in the pockets of Dodd and his Hollywood masters than the most venal member of Congress, let those doubts disappear now. We can expect no more from a gutless president and a DOJ staffed from the RIAA and MPAA's "let's sue children for a living" legal teams.

In fairness (1)

anom (809433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886633)

While the Executive branch's job is to enforce the laws, it gets a little muddy when it comes to the other branches. Technically, it is Congress' job to police the membership of all the branches (only Congress has the power to impeach members, and it may impeach the members of any branch).

So here's to waiting for Congress to do something about it :)

Don't be STUPID. (2)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886635)

The power to investigate is the power to DESTROY. Let that sink in.

We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers. We've elected Obama and he's nominated holder and we've told him there's a big problem. We need to trust them to do the right thing.

You might not like the idea of trusting them, but there isn't a better alternative.

Ignoring petitions because they request justice? (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886643)

What is the reasoning behind his claim that you ignore petitions if they request justice? Isn't Obama ultimately in charge of the Department of Justice?

Executive Branch = enforcing the laws (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886711)

This is the job the Executive Branch exists for: to enforce the laws. If nothing else, the response should have been, "We are looking into this." Talk about making people lose any shred of faith in their elected officials.

Wikileaks and Megaupload (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38886713)

Let's start a petition to investigate Wikileaks and Megaupload and see if we get the same response.

Uhhh (1)

Foxhoundz (2015516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38886765)

Thank you for signing this petition. We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on Whitehouse.gov. However, consistent with the We the People Terms of Participation and our responses to similar petitions in the past, the White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...