Slashdot Mirror


White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

malraid writes "The White House has issued a statement in which they refuse to comment on the petition to investigate Chris Dodd for bribery from the MPAA to pass legislation. The reason given: 'because it requests a specific law enforcement action.'"

538 of 765 comments (clear)

  1. Dying from lack of surprise... by killfixx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    1. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by dbet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Son+of+Byrne · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
    5. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      .
    7. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    9. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    10. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by letherial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by evanism · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    13. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    14. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by evanism · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    15. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      So YOU are the one behind all this!

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    17. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      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 . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    18. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by stanlyb · · Score: 2

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

    20. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      If you actually looked at C-11, you'd notice that it's not actually a bad bill. It just needs the digital locks provision removed or reworked so that it's not batshit stupid, and it also needs to be protected from... you guessed it, USofA influence.

      Sadly, the money-loving, backwards-running Conservative government sure as hell won't follow that train of thought.

    21. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thats the game they truly play.

      You focus your direction on one person, those who can misdirect the best will survive and thrive. You try to change the system, they will show solidarity against changing something that obviously works and has been around for hundreds of years.

      The system does not work. The system cannot be changed. The system will always be gamed. Those who play the game the best will always win.

      If all the smart and altruistic people in the US left for Canada there would only be psychopaths and stupid people left and they would nuke the hell out of everyone just to spite us.

    22. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      Stasi. Fascism. Totalitarianism. Police state. Freedom.

      Choose any two.

      So, you can have a police state with freedom?

    23. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

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

      British tourists got deported for quoting Family Guy on Twitter. Good luck with your threatening to take up arms against the US government on a public forum!

    24. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by evilRhino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's not pretend that this is a partisan issue. Obama wouldn't investigate illegal activities of the former Republican administration. In fact, he retained many of Bush's people despite running on a platform of "change". Republicans and Democrats are different sides to the same coin. They have no interest in stopping corruption.

    25. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. If nobody votes, you'll preach that if they had just gone out and voted it would be all sunshine and lollypops. If everyone votes for evil B rather than evil A, you'll preach that we got what we voted for.

      If somehow a non-corrupt 3rd party slips in to the majority of the elections across the country, there will be an 'issue' with the voting machines.

      We may or may not be quite to lock and load perhaps we should try rioting in the streets first, (peacefully protesting in the streets just gets chemical warfare and beatings).

    26. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Stasi. Fascism. Totalitarianism. Police state. Freedom.

      Choose any two.

      So, you can have a police state with freedom?

      But not a police state in a totalitarian fascism. I think the GP didn't really think that one through.

    27. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by forkfail · · Score: 2

      You and I will be up against the wall long before then.

      Joe Sixpack may be the lucky one. He'll still have his big game, Jersey Shore and his cheap beer. That's what Soma passes for these days.

      --
      Check your premises.
    28. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The system is composed of individuals. If you can drag the corruption of individuals out into the public and hold them responsible, you can make others think twice (or more) about their own actions. If reform is to come, it must come one step at a time. It is simply wishful thinking to believe the entire system can be fixed all at once. The starting point is to take individuals to task for their actions. Once that starts happening, you can think about working on the system as a whole. You drag out enough of the corrupt individuals, you will already have a good start on fixing the system.

      If you only work on fixing the system, the still-corrupt individuals will find ways around, somehow. They always do (they always have).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    29. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      So, people saying what you don't like needs to put people on secret lists so they can be abused by the government while going about their legal business. Gotcha. I think I can see why you're not OK with the original idea.

      How about this: you don't deserve the freedom to post what you just did, and I think you need to be put on a list for conspiring to commit treason (by advocating violation of the constitution). If you can start deciding what is allowed, so can I. See how it works? Grow a brain.

    30. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You think the Iraqis were "terrified villagers living in stone age conditions" prior to our showing up? How fucking clueless can you be?

      You're being melodramatic and angsty because it's fun to imagine yourself as a freedom fighter up against some great evil. Let's introduce some perspective. We're talking about some asshole senator who was bribed to help a few companies make more money off of us. Do you have any idea how often that has happened throughout our history? Can you name a single fucking decade in which that has not happened?

      But no, rather than accept that the country will always be messy and that we should do the best we can, you want to burn it all down. You want to kill because Hollywood has taught you that violence can solve all your problems. The scrappy rebels always win and ride off into the sunset.

      Grow up.

    31. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by gd2shoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Dodd were a Republican, the investigation would have been complete long ago...

      I was with you till this point. It would have been more likely, but only very slightly. Nobody wants to start chucking the corruption grenade around. It might bounce back and bite them.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    32. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 1

      Let the slaughtering begin. I'm tired of watching the same news everyday, I for one welcome a little civil war. As long as you guys keep it all on the East coast.

      --
      I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
    33. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Are you seriously suggesting there should be a criminal investigation against anyone where 25,000 people call for it?

      This has nothing to do with Obama. it has everything to do with Federal prosecutors. Write a letter to both the FBI and the US Attorney's Office stating that you believe a crime has been committed that is within their jurisdiction and requesting they investigate. 25,000 letters like that might achieve something.

    34. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One major goal of government, including the United States' government, is to maintain peace. People who stir up calls of violence, rather than peaceful protests, should be watched and discouraged. It is unacceptable for that discouragement to involve censorship, just as it is unacceptable for a petition to involve explosives.

      Unfortunately, the mere mention of any investigation makes the short-fuse radicals even more enraged. Nevermind that the goal is usually "see if this guy's dangerous", the person in question will often see it as a terrible threat, and will actively antagonize the police. The anti-establishment culture is as much responsible for our recent loss of freedoms as the legislature who sees increasing threats of violence.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    35. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate the "let me fix that for ya" phrase, but this really stands out:

      That's a cop out, as expected.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    36. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Firehed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's what Thomas Jefferson said to do.

      what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.

      http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    37. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Phernost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Excuse me for butchering the quote, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner, in a republic the sheep gets a shotgun." Since we live in a republic, it seem to be spot on. Not that I agree with it, but sometimes the majority is wrong. Guns probably won't really help solve it in the long run though, lots of guns might.

    38. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 2

      That definition, works equally well for any brand of politician. And interestingly enough for cockroaches as well.

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    39. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama is a fucking Republican you retard. What the fuck does the mainstream Democratic party call someone who is pro-war, pro-surveillance, pro-dronebombing, pro-due-process-free-detention, pro-due-process-free-execution, pro-goldman-sachs, pro-protecting-torturers, pro-persecuting-whistleblowers, pro-PATRIOT-Act ... if Obama is the lesser evil, then lets just get it done with now by getting the greater evil in -- that we can have a revolution sooner and get back to being America. Obama's brand of lesser evil is so fucking evil it makes me want to spit.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    40. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by alienzed · · Score: 1

      Kill as many people as you possibly can! It's easier to rebuild with no one left to contradict you..

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    41. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you think is in charge of the FBI and the US Attorney's Office? That's right, the President. Stop being an apologist.

    42. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Paul I think would make a very interesting President. I'm not exactly sure how everything would pan out during his term(s), but it'd definitely be different. He's the only one running (except maybe that Darcy guy on the Dem side that all the stupid Dems are ignoring because they're all falling over themselves to re-elect Obama) who actually appears to not be evil and want to do the right thing for the country for the most part. He has a lot of good ideas, namely downsizing the military, stopping the war on drugs, auditing the Federal Reserve, etc. However, he also has some more wacky ideas. The real question is how much would he really be able to change in office, or how much would he be prevented from doing so by Congress? Unlike Obama, I'm sure he'd have no qualms about actually exercising his powers (instead of whining "I wanted to but the Republicans wouldn't let me!") no matter how much Congress didn't like it. But even so, there's still real limits on a President's power, so if the Congress wanted to pass a budget with huge defense spending, and could override his veto, there's nothing he could do about it except refuse to deploy troops anywhere and order everyone to take a 4-year vacation.

    43. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      As a Canadian, it saddens me that there are Americans who don't even understand why the second amendment is enshrined in the constitution.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    44. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Just so we're clear:

      Chris Dodd says, "If you don't support the policies I like, I won't give you money in the future," and that deserves an investigation.

      Someone else says, "If you don't support the policies I like, I will take up arms and start murdering people," but to investigate that would be a horrible abuse of civil rights.

    45. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Rik+Rohl · · Score: 1

      Err... You do realize you're ALL on the Government's watch list now?

      Move along, citizen.

    46. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Chris Dodd says, "If you don't support the policies I like, I won't give you money in the future," and that deserves an investigation. Someone else says, "If you don't support the policies I like, I will take up arms and start murdering people," but to investigate that would be a horrible abuse of civil rights.

      That is correct. When it comes to freedom of speech, attempted bribery is even less protected by the First Amendment than threats are.

    47. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who exactly do you plan to shoot with this "lock and load" to get YOUR America back?

      What about the rest of the citizens, do they have an America too? Or is it only YOUR America, which has to go according to YOUR politics or YOU will get out your gun and start shooting people?

    48. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But no, rather than accept that the country will always be messy and that we should do the best we can, you want to burn it all down.

      No, I will not accept that. You want people to just shrug their shoulders and say "Meh, shit's fucked up, shit's always been fucked up, so fuck it?" Bullshit all over that. You be as complacent as you fucking want. I know we can do better.

      I don't want it to come to that point, I really don't. But like I said, I will not be a victim. I'm not going to sit idly by and watch our right to privacy be taken away, our right to free speech taken away, our right to freely move about the country taken away, our right to be secure both in our person and property taken away. Our own government has been doing this to us at a fever pitch for the last fucking decade, not fucking Al Qaeda, not Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein, not Iran, not China. This was our own fucking government doing this bullshit, across all three branches, and the people just repeated the same old litany "Well, if it makes us safer..."

      Fuck that bullshit. No more. Put your hands over your ears and keep repeating "it's not that bad, it's not that bad, it's not that bad..." if that's what you want to do, but forgive me and the millions of other people that actually believe in something better for not being quite ready to bend over and get fucked with the rest of the cattle.

    49. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      Uhm, I was thinking about leaving Slashdot and reading reddit or something but the conspiracy minded geek think is just as thick there as it is here, and I like my low six digit UIN.

      You're willing to shoot someone dead because of SOPA/PIPA? Get. a. goddamned. GRIP. You have food, housing, lighting and yes, civil rights. Shocking, I know! I know! Despite what the internet tells you, you actually have rights; like being able to go on the internet and suggest we should take arms against our fellow Americans over what are largely white middle class first world problems. Maybe even insinuate we should shoot the president.

      I didn't like SOPA, PIPA or the DMCA but christ we do have actual problems. SOPA and PIPA would've done massive damage to the internet, there's no doubt.

      But to suggest that corruption and greed are so bad we should revolt? What's your plans on energy policy, interstate grazing rights, the trade gap, the housing market, wall street reform?

      On what level is it OK to shoot someone because you feel threatened that you can't rip DVDs of Space: Above and Beyond?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    50. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by CelticWhisper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've usually seen it written as "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    51. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      The first quote is an implied admission of guilt of a past crime. The second quote is a threat of committing a violent crime in the future if certain conditions hold (uttered in true internet tough guy flair). It could be argued that both warrant a little attention, but let's face it - the first quote is actually the worse of the two.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    52. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but have you ever hear the little song behind the word "jingoism"?

      We don't want to go to war but by Jingo if we do
      We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too

      That's how you're coming across. "I don't want to kill people to get my way, but..."

      Things in this country aren't bad enough to warrant the sort of massive, decades long bloodshed you're talking about. Not even close. We can turn things around through peaceful means. You're looking at one tiny slice of history and declaring that this is the worst things have ever been. It's not. Not even close.

      Not long ago, a huge portion of the country was treated as subhuman while our leaders were playing with the idea of wiping out human civilization. We got through that, and we can sure as hell get through this. The only thing we need is the will to try. If all the people who have given up on politics were to get off their asses and vote in the general election AND THE PRIMARIES then we could fix this all in short order. But instead they figure that their one vote won't make a difference and so they don't bother. And then when their non-vote doesn't elicit change, they decide that the whole system is FUBAR'ed and start talking about mass murder to solve their problems. Can you really not see how stupid and self-defeating that is?

    53. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by sasha328 · · Score: 2

      As another outsider, I don't think Americans are capable of changing their own system not for lack of a desire to do so, but because they seem to have no appreciation for viable, working alternatives.
      Americans tend to distrust anything that wasn't invented there, hence all the attacks on European styles of government (and even attacks on candidates who speaks another language!)
      take their health budget. They spend nearly double the percentrage of the GDP on health as that of the biggest European countries (UK, Germany, France) and yet, they still can't give universal health coverage to all their citizens!
      Any new government styles, ideas that are better than what they currently have is more likely to resemble a "foreign" style and will be rejected outright.

      I am still an outsider, so take what I just said with a healthy dose of salt.

    54. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm a vet who has fought for this country, for our liberties and our way of life

      Unless you're old enough to have mustered out in 1945, this statement is false. You may have fought for something, all right, but it wasn't for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      At least not for you and me.

    55. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      AC is the ultimate pussy.

    56. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by j35ter · · Score: 1

      They already got your IP address *thank you /.*!!!

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    57. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Err, I don't agree that shooting someone because I think that access to the internet is something we shouldn't kill for?

      Have you really that little focus on what's actually going on around us? Have you no grip on what non-geeks are actually worried about?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    58. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by evanism · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As so they did to Rome. As an idea it worked. But only for those it worked for. The rest were slaves, conquered and crucified.

      Cruelty and injustice were exported. Wars were endless.

      Tyranny or empire might look just, even effective, but it eventually gets on everyone's goat. If you are within the system and benefiting, one cannot see the problems until viewed from the outside.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    59. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fortunately no one can envision two well armed wolves. And lets not talk about anything involving complexy anywhere near that of real life, only [instert political insult here] would make policy decisions based on real life instead of absurd simplifications.

    60. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 3, Informative

      And truly, the English language is and always has been set in stone, handed over by God himself to the early man.

      Wait, no, that's not it: "it's" was the possessive of "it" - and the contradiction of "it is" was "'tis".

    61. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by arose · · Score: 1

      False choice or false choice. Pick three.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    62. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      you got the idea, even if the vote went for a new party we have this as a basic right because the original government saw this coming from day 1. as you said they would attempt to stop it. and as you said are right to peacefully protest is just allowed until they get sick of you then they will remove you by force rights be dammed. someone on hear asked what will it take for joe sixpack to quit voting for the same 2 fools over and over again unfortunately it will take him starving on the street homeless before they lose trust in are current system why is it like this is because threw most of there lives all they are brainwashed the government will make everything better despite them always making it worse right in front of them.

    63. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by arose · · Score: 1

      No, I will not accept that.

      Of course you have. You have accepted it so far, no?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    64. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by j35ter · · Score: 1

      What is free in this county? The fact that your government sent you to different shitholes of the world, in the role of an aggressor and occupator, does not make you an expert on FREEDOM. I lived through 2 wars in my country; now I am in the US on a business trip, for a couple of months. There is no freedom here, there is no protection here, there are no equal chances here. You are being abused by people in your own government....for God's sake, they are even making you believe that having universal healthcare is something bad!!! What is then the purpose of a state if it fails to give its own people the best possible life it can? No government is ideal, but this country has obviously forgotten what the duties and responsibilities of a government are!

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    65. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by evanism · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps, AC, you struggle from reading English. It is blunt from my text, and the OP that we are not American, nor do we live in the USA.

      Your language and absolute rejection of critique and the nature of it is EXACTLY my point.

      Nobody here "hates" the USA. We despise the one eyed ignorant and devicive viewpoints.

      Maybe you have trolled me. Point struck then, sir, but I suspect you are a typical citizen. ....And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

      There is one to bake your noodle.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    66. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Surt · · Score: 2

      Self interest is the underlying motivation to participate in the economy. Greed is more of a strategy for doing so, and it's a pretty good one up to the point where thousands of little guys decide to do away with you.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    67. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what actions are you taking ... all the stuff you're worried about seems to have already happened.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    68. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      Speaking another language is great, they just have to speak English too.

      Hell, Bush was fluent in Spanish.

    69. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      you really don't know people if you say that. it only takes one good leader or even a speaker to spark huge changes to the majority opinion. and arr government is quit good at playing that game. so in other words if a uprising where to occur because the people have not had control over the government for some years now and it got big enough the support would quickly grow look at well the entire middle east right now. same story just much more extreme.

    70. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To get my way? I just want to be left the fuck alone! I want the government to stop listening in on my fucking phone calls, stop scraping my instant messages, stop trying to give me the fucking finger in the ass routine every time I have the audacity to get on an airplane, stop handing over my fucking tax dollars to goddamned Wall Street bankers, stop allowing these parasites we call "corporations" to put slaves across the world to work and bring their wares here for nothing while 1 in 5 of us are either unemployed or underemployed, stop allowing our infrastructure here to fucking fall apart while we're helping other countries build....

      The government has been wiping it's ass with the Bill of Rights for decades, but the last few years or so they've been ramping up. They see the writing on the wall. They know the jig is up, so they're making their last ditch cash/power grabs while enough people still have the faith in their government necessary to facilitate it. Once that's gone, it's all over. The locusts will pick up and move on to greener pastures while we fucking eat each other. The Occupy protests are going to look like a block party a year from now.

      I understand your point, I really do, but I truly believe it's too late for that now. We're stuck in a positive feedback loop. There's only going to be more civil disobedience, resulting in more of our rights being taken away, resulting in more civil disobedience, resulting in more rights taken away, resulting in more civil disobedience...you get my point. You may not share my opinions, but to be honest, I'd rather be prepared for that eventuality than not, and since buying more than 7 days worth of food or owning multiple guns is probably enough to get you on some government watch list (if me simply talking about my extreme dissatisfaction with my government as of late isn't enough), I'm probably fucked. But I am not going to be a victim.

    71. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      What makes you think the people posting such rhetoric aren't FBI provocateurs?

    72. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama is a Republican circa 1990. Modern Republicans add pro-corporate-personhood, anti-Medicare, anti-Social-Security, anti-taxes-of-any-kind (except sales taxes since they target the working class), anti-regulation, anti-intellectual, pro-occupation (very different from the Libya war), and so on to the list.

      The entire country has moved to the right. Democrats are where the Republicans used to be, and Republicans are out in Crazy Town (pop. Way Too Many).

    73. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      I've been heavily pushing my GF to look at Canada and Europe. Only down side to Europe is 1) Her medical license. 2) Both are parents are very poor and Europe would be very expensive to keep the family in contact. Since we're both from the midwest we're looking at Ontario.

    74. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      Maybe they're young.
      Or they have short memories.

      But what we have today is nothing, nothing compared to the 60s and 70s.

    75. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 2

      yea the people who are disagreeing must have failed history. or are simply still have not broken out from the brainwashing they got sense they where 5 years old. this is one of the reasons are government has not been shaken up yet they control the schools so they program this in people for years. but anyways what im saying if you look at any of your history all great empires kingdoms rome and so all fail at some point and are rebuilt. why because all government need to be reset at some time normally every couple thousand years. rome was ran far better then the usa and it fell. in short government always become so corrupted and full of themselves the people have to bring them down almost always by force and blood to get control of there land over taxing etc etc. then people always say they will make a new better government and the cycle goes on. its just the usa is due for it and it probably will be in my lifetime. i think it will be shortly after we go into a full depression because they refuse to bring real jobs back because then you will have a mass loss of trust.

    76. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a 270 year old dead guy told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

      Stop prostrating yourself at the feet of the founding fathers. They were men, not gods. They did a pretty decent job, all things considered, but they don't have all the answers. And if you find you must follow the teachings of some old dead guy instead of analyzing situations for yourself, then why Jefferson? Why not Gandhi, or Jesus? They might tell you to do something very different.

    77. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 2

      Ugh, contraction. Apparently I can't do modern English today.

    78. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course he also asked to have the next slave girl brought in when he grew bored of the one he was shtooping.

      To be fair, I hear Sally Hemmings had a phat ass.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    79. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by gmhowell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure he also envisioned a bunch of intellectuals debating theory, but who did he propose would lead this said 'revolt'?

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    80. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes. I think it's a universal truth of politicians: they all deserve a fair trial. What, are we supposed to wait until the politicians start investigating themselves?

      It might even be nice if they spent so much time in the courtroom they couldn't manage to accomplish anything outside of it.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    81. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by locopuyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Eric Holder got off scott free for shipping guns to Mexican drug cartels. This country is gone.

    82. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The White House is the executive branch, they have no business 'investigating' anyone. That is the job of the judicial branch. The white house's response was exactly what I expected, even though I did sign the petition. You would need to find a judge or someone in the upper ranks of the DOJ who isn't currently owned by one of the media companies, which will never happen.

    83. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by CanEHdian · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about adding the Public Integrity Section (PIN) at the US DoJ?

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    84. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not too late at all. We still have free elections. We can protest without the tanks rolling in. If you pay attention, then you saw what happened when the Iranians tried to have an election, and when they tried to protest. They are past the point of no return. We're not. But we will be if you get your civil war.

      You could go out and get involved in activism. Find candidates who you trust, and push for them in primaries. They'll need to wear the brandname of one of the two political parties, but that's just a label. You can make a difference. It's just hard as hell.

      Hollywood has conditioned us to want fast answers, typically through violence. No problem takes more than a few hours to resolve, and most can be resolved by shooting someone. That's not how real life works. It will take many years to climb out of the hole dug over the past few decades. But a civil war will take even longer, and be far less pleasant. You need to wrap your head around that. You've never lived though the sort of violent social upheaval you're describing, so maybe it's hard for you to imagine it. But look around the world. Take a good hard look at other countries that have undergone civil war in the past twenty years or so. Ask yourself if life in America is really worse than life in Iran or Iraq or Somalia or the Congo or Moldova or Sri Lanka.

    85. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      Frankly, I'm afraid for what the result will be. I too think it is inevitable. What scares the shit out of me is that more likely than not, the wrong people will be left to rebuild the government. I'm afraid I'd rather be unsatisfied by a broken system than terrified of a working one. I'd rather live in a United States where the leaders are clueless than an Oceania where the leaders know exactly what they are doing.

    86. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Good luck friend unless you can turn enough of the military you would be fucked. Shotgun VS predator drone equals dead citizen. Though with so many taking oaths I suppose you might get some to turn, but I figure it'll be about 40% unemployment, which i figure is another 4 to 6 years of shipping the jobs overseas away, before you'll get a large enough mob in the streets for that to actually happen. I do think it will happen in our lifetimes though, the system has become so rigged for the elite who are trying their damnedest to turn this into a third world country that I believe regime change is inevitable, the only question is when.

      As for TFA, is anyone surprised? this IS the same president that basically gave a flowery "LOL Gatse" as a response for those asking why the will of the people when it came to pot was being ignored. As long as Obama gets them big fat checks he ain't doing shit except what massa tells him to, just like the last one, and the one before that, and the one before that...notice a pattern here? hell the elite are gonna make damned sure your "choice" come Nov is Romney or Obama...lets see that's a white sellout or a brown sellout, wow what choices!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    87. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I think it's a stupid case anyway. Dodd is acting as a private citizen saying "don't expect contributions if you don't support our [the MPAA's] cause." It's not at all the same as an elected official saying "don't expect me to support your cause if you didn't contribute to my campaign." There's a huge difference there, namely that the latter is criminal, and the former is just... what? Honest? I know I don't plan to vote for anyone who opposes my views (so much as I can help it), let alone donate to their campaigns. Does it warrant an investigation? I don't know the answer to that, but on the face of it, I don't see anything criminal.

    88. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Tastecicles · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Partisan politics operating under colour of Democracy is an abject failure in its theory but NONE OF YOU SHEEP CAN SEE IT.

      What Partisan politics do is polarise one group of people against another - much as what we're seeing here. RvD, two sides fighting each other instead of fighting the REAL ENEMY which is the criminal element RUNNING YOUR COUNTRY.

      What changes when the regime changes?

      NOTHING.

      Why?

      The promises might be slightly different, but the endgames in any case are EXACTLY THE SAME. Gain at the expense of EVERYBODY ELSE.

      Fuck you lot, as long as you keep consuming and breeding more consumers and continue to buy into the Great Fiscal Lie, then the 1% will continue to divide you and they will continue to control you, all the time further abrogating your rights previously guaranteed by a two hundred fifty-odd year old piece of parchment!

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    89. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And why aren't the Slashdotters pushing FOSS more, rather than worrying about things they know they can't affect? https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/lower-national-debt-expanding-governments-use-free-software-such-gnulinux-and-libreoffice

    90. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      Something tells me language has changed in the past 200 years. It's probably the same reason you see certain words capitalized "randomly" in the Constitution, which you wouldn't do now.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    91. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      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.

      What makes you think the people posting such rhetoric aren't FBI provocateurs?

      ...my sanity?

      Agents provocateurs are used to make a movement look bad. What "movement" would the FBI be trying to disparage here? Slashdot isn't exactly at the forefront of American politics. Besides, if such posts are provocateurs, all the more reason to mod them down.

    92. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Uhhh dude, he threatened those that wouldn't stay bought IN FUCKING PUBLIC, that's blackmail and coercion of elected officials right fucking there? What's the guy got to do to get investigated, drop trousers on national TV and wave a flag attached to his dick that says "I own your ass"? If ANY of us would have said the exact same words we would be sitting in a fucking cell man!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    93. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by bug1 · · Score: 2

      Have you considered joining a political party and trying to fix the problem from within ?

    94. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by EricX2 · · Score: 2

      Politicians need to FEAR the population. We should be able to impeach any one at any time with very little work. If I declare a politician to be corrupt, that should automatically cause an investigation to start... an impartial investigation.

    95. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Nikker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is topical and relevant to the conversation. The American Founding Fathers were inundated by intrests other than what they though was right. They wrote down their experiences and came up with the best way they knew how to make sure divide and conquer tactics would not work. The people could decide amongst themselves their destinations in their own lives and with whom they wished to travel with. This is shown by the First Amendment.

      While not being from the US but close by I can understand why people would refrence the American Founding Fathers in a time where the same issues they face are being encountered today.

      No loaves, no wine, no song, just politics.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    96. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by meglon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, using this quote really means is that in this age of half the people not being able to comprehend anything past a soundbite, that anyone who strings a few pretty words together can have their ideas taken entirely out of context to mean absolutely anything; something that for the past couple years, with this specific quote, is actually hilarious when you consider what Jefferson was really saying... as in: in context.

      Jefferson wasn't suggesting that people rise up every so often to keep their government on it's toes. He was replying to concern of the deaths during Shay's rebellion. He cited that these men had risen up because they were ignorant and uninformed of what was happening, and that on occasion, the government will have to kill rebels who rise up to do the country harm.... and that's acceptable, and a normal process.

      Too many people who want to try to make a point with fake authority take things out of context using old quotes like this, and this one in particular was often seen at teabagger rallies. The people exhibiting them clearly didn't have the first clue what Jefferson was actually saying. For them to exhibit it, they were actually saying "I'm an ignorant rebel, please kill me."

      Context is everything.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    97. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was listening up to "teabagger". Anyone that would smear an entire group of people with a crude sexual slur just because they disagree with them can't be too bright.

    98. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...[people who vote] are brainwashed [into thinking] the government will make everything better despite them always making it worse right in front of them

      Caution; answering "no" to any of the following questions may reveal that it's you who has been brainwashed into denying what is right in front of you...

      Do you really think a public sewerage system is worse than emptying your bedpan on the street?
      Do you really think chlorinated water is worse than cholera and dysentery?
      Do you really think crossing a public bridge is worse than travelling 200miles out of your way to ford a river?

      Disclaimer: I have been homeless but I've never been so mindless as to take government mandated 'luxuries' for granted.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    99. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by localtoast · · Score: 5, Funny

      en-US is open source. TJ had his own branch. Just sync to his branch, and you'll be fine.

    100. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by localtoast · · Score: 1

      Why was parent modded troll? Yes, he took took the flamebait, but his opinion is shared by many. It's a legitimate complaint against the party that promised "to be the most transparent administration [in history]" (Obama) and "dredge the swamp [of corruption]" (Pelosi). The trolls here are too busy correcting each others grammar.

    101. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      How bad does it have to get before Joe Sixpack wakes up and takes notice?

      Do you think it's possible that he's seen the same things that you've seen and has simply reached a different decision? If you want to "do something" then by all means go ahead, but many of us here have lots to lose and little to gain by "doing something". The occupy people complain of police brutality and compare themselves to the Arab Spring, without realizing how good they have it here in the United States. In Syria and Iran they disappear you or they shoot you down in the street. However bad you think it is here, just remember that it could be much, much worse. Am I the only one who sees the occupy people as being vainglorious and maybe just a tad bit ungrateful by way of comparison?

    102. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Obama's brand of lesser evil is so fucking evil it makes me want to spit.

      It's well then that the rest of us remain safely out of range...

    103. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I was going to let "buddy's" slide, but you followed it up immediately with "witch". I mean really, come on.

      Buddies

      Which

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    104. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Mabhatter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because Cheney built up an impressive array of "civil servants" (much like in Torchwood) that are all unelected, highly powerful people. Obama really couldn't do the job without them... Cheney and Rumsfield go all the way back to Nixon. They made impressive gains at shaking out the upper and middle military ranks of officers "disloyal" to the PNAC agenda, along with a few high profile firings, and throwing opponents from their OWN party under the bus as an example.

      In short, Bush was part in creating a stitation where a large part of upper government is established for the next 20 years. There is really little Obama can responsibly do at this point... Fire half the generals during a war? Most of the upper Executive agencies were "packed" in the ranks with people aligned with Cheney's agenda.

      The biggest indicator for me was how in the middle of a "war" the President didn't groom ANYBODY from his OWN party to continue the work? You really gotta hand it to them.

      Philosophically, this is where Neo-Cons are using their "corporate" attitude so they don't have to worry about elections to advance their agenda. Fill the CIA with leaders that will report a "terrorist" under every rock, and the current President has to act on "expert" advice.. The same tounges quiet to Bush's foibles will wag to the press about Obama in a minute. It plays right into the Democrats ideal that people in government want the "best" for "everybody" but they have been played since Clinton and even Carter by the other side packing the ranks of people that are supposed to be experts and non-partisian.

    105. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by XrayJunkie · · Score: 1

      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.

      The corrupted.

    106. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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.

      Doubtful. Assembling a using a bomb effectively still needs training and resources. Look at how many half baked attempts by Islamic terrorists have failed, even when they had help.

      The Troubles are a good example of how to resolve a situation like that, even when it seems like both sides could never cooperate or agree on anything. Negotiation and compromise politics work. Unfortunately at the moment the US and UK governments are doing everything in their power to ignore protests and petitions, but even once the bombs are flying they can be stopped if people are just willing to talk.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    107. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      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.

      Were you ever in any doubt?

      To be fair, though, a government can not go out and tell the police or the public prosecutor what cases to bring - separation of power is a fundamental principle of any modern state.

    108. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Nevermind that the goal is usually "see if this guy's dangerous", the person in question will often see it as a terrible threat, and will actively antagonize the police.

      The blame lies with the police who abuse their power to detain and search people to oppress them illegally. That sort of thing happens so often at protests or to ethnic minorities the default reaction has been to expect criminality and violence from the police, escalating the situation.

      I'm afraid that merely protesting is not sufficient to warrant a "see if this guy's dangerous" test. Not is "someone matching your description was said to have been involved in a crime by a witness", especially when the description is "black guy with short hair and hoodie".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    109. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      Wow, why wasnt this your sentiment when you posted the first time? I think that you are mad that you have to admit it.

      But it's not like the republican's fall all over themselves to investigate fellow republican's when they are in charge.

      There you go, bashing Republicans again...

      You couldn't even go more than one complete sentences without transforming back into a Republican basher. The Democrats and their actions are the ones being discussed, but you can't stand it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    110. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, you know, he could just be choosing a quote that matches his personal views because it happens to put them over well, and of course suggests that famous and generally respected people share his ideas.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    111. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      in this age of half the people not being able to comprehend anything past a soundbite

      That isn't true. It isn't that people are incapable of comprehending more than a soundbite, it is that the media only gives them soundbites. This is in order to distort what was said or to cram as much dubious information as possible into a 60 second news dump, not because people are dumb.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    112. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      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?

      Only about 1/3 of the people supported the revolution against the British, another third were against and the rest were undecided.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    113. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Patriot ACT passed and the stalwart defenders of the Second Amendment are still on their armchairs watching TV.
      Having weapons is utterly useless if someone else is telling you where to shoot.

    114. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      The Government knows what Joe Sixpacks kids know. Just reassure Joe that everything is alright and you are listening (especially when you are not). Joe will go on his happy way without a care. Then you can return to doing whatever you wanted to do in the first place.

      The whole petition thing is a fake front to make people think they are still part of the process. CLUE! Remember a couple weeks ago when the "legalize marijuana" petition gained enough people who wanted a rational dialog with the president over legalization? All they got in return was the same old bullshit about how the medical profession says marijuana is horribly dangerous and causes hard narcotic addiction, crimes, genital warts and makes you vote for 3rd parties.( o.k. but you get the idea) Just textbook answers filled in by some post teenage office flunky. No traitor Obama anywhere around to answer for his fake ass charade. LIAR! Obama is just a filthy lying ape. A Repubmocrat!!

                As long as we keep voting for the one party Repubmocrat system we can expect to keep seeing things get progressively worse as they have over the last century the Repubmocrat party has been in power. The whole party is a ruse; just keep minor differences in policy around to make it appear there are two parties and sucker those bumpkins into electing us everytime. Oh, yeah, lets have our puffboys sing a mantra too" if you vote for anyone outside the "two" party system you are just throwing your vote away on radicals who will never get elected"
              Funny, now it will take radical change to fix a centurys worth of vandalism by the Repubmocrats.
      I don't care who you vote for as long as it isn't Repubmocrat. if you vote Democrat or Republican you are selling out your Rights, Freedom, and Children/Grandchildren.
      That, by the way, makes you a full partner in treason with the enemy. Time to make up your mind, want something better? It may make a mess of things for a while , but so what? Things are going to be a worse mess on present course.
      NO REPUBMOCRATS!!!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    115. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Baki · · Score: 1

      How bad does it have to get before Joe Sixpack wakes up and takes notice? How much more before we finally have that revolution?

      Looking at history, I fear that once Joe Sixpack wakes up, it'll be too late.

    116. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by FrkyD · · Score: 1

      As an American living in Europe, I can tell you now, it won't be easy without getting a job lined up first. You might want to consider U.N. job postings. If your relatives have an internet connection communnication is easy, if they don't you can use skype to call them on your dime for pretty decent rates. It's not easy, but it can be done.

    117. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by FrkyD · · Score: 1

      one child was left behind.

    118. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by FrkyD · · Score: 1

      So does that mean you are out camping in the cold, being disobedient? Because if not then you aren't really doing anything to lessen your state of fuckedness. You know that you are not alone, and that the standard process hasn't been working for you. So if you truly believe that things are going to get that much worse so quickly, you better be out there finding other people to align with your cause. Because if it comes to the point you will need to stockpile food and guns, rugged individualism isn't going to get you very far.

    119. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Outtascope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You may have fought for something, all right, but it wasn't for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      At least not for you and me.

      Well I can tell you it definitely wasn't for YOU! The government's reasons for doing things frequently don't align with the individual's. I was a Marine in GHWB's Gulf War. From a government perspective it was definitely about oil. To me, those would have been unlawful orders, except that I saw what Hussein did to the people of Kuwait. THAT is why I served, sir. Our family friend that we wave to daily as he strolls by in his wheelchair didn't lose his legs in the current Iraq venture because of GWB's daddy complex, he did it because he believed he was trying to help the Iraqi people, because he believed (however misguided it may be) that he was helping to keep our liberties safe. He paid for it with loss of use of half of his body, at the hands of the very people he was trying to help. And to have some cumstain POS like you denigrate the sacrifice that he made makes my blood boil! And then the following poster takes yet one more crap on Vietnam Vets, an even more egregious act given the fact that those guys didn't even volunteer, they were drafted.

      Listen, I know what you are trying to say. I am a LIBERAL (one of the few who refuse to accept that the term rooted in liberty has somehow become pejorative). I did not support Jr's excursion into Iraq at all, I protested against it. But I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who fought (and continue to fight in Afghanistan), even the ones who committed some awful acts, did it out of a love for their country, for their fellow citizens, and for the principles that they represent (regardless of how far we may come from actually attaining them). They did it for you and me and the Iraqi/Afghan people.

      It's real easy to take a stand against something from the cozy confines of the internet, but you best drag your ass out there and do it in the real world before you decide to slander several million Americans who put their countrymen before themselves.

    120. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >and of course suggests that famous and generally respected people share his ideas.

      Which is a call to authority, that is to say, a fallacy.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    121. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      How bad does it have to get before Joe Sixpack wakes up and takes notice?

      Joe Sixpack has noticed, the petition got enough signatures and quickly didn't it? Joe knows how bad it is and he does not really like but the problem is not that he is complacent its that he is complicit.

      Joe objects to much of the political favor trading that goes on among the oligarchs; which include not only those dubbed the "One Percent" but also Holly Wood interests, big unions like Teamsters, SEIU, NEA; its all little more than a complicated organized crime syndicate and Joe knows. Joe also knows he works for the syndicate and has a place it. His place might be footman, and his living might be the scraps which fall from the higher tables, but its better than starving.

      Joe might occasionally speak up and ask a creep like Dodd to be dealt with but in the privacy of the ballot booth he will never act against his betters. He is never going to vote to raise his own taxes for the good of the community, or the nation; and no so called liberals won't either they're just the opposite side of the same coin, they want something, free after school daycare^H^H^H^H programs for their kids, money for an Art museum they intend to use and know 90% those vetoing against it would never visit, some big project to happen in their district which their own business can market product to the workers; etc.

      That is how Joe really votes when nobody is looking because he knows his real choices are not the those guys or real freedom; rather whats good short term for him and his or them and theirs.

      Joe is a collaborator, he just wants bread for himself and his family now, the future be damned, and that might make sense for Joe without bread today he may not have a future anyway.

      For the rest of us who are a little less dependent or a little more cavalier toward our lives; we should remember Joe is actually the enemy. He may not be committed one and he may join our side when he finds himself without bread for the first time. So we should be careful how we treat him, but for now remember Joe Sixpack is NOT yet your friend.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    122. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >I was listening up to "teabagger". Anyone that would smear an entire group of people with a crude sexual slur just because they disagree with them can't be too bright.

      Anybody that would dismiss an entire opinion just because at once point it called a spade a spade can't be all that bright either.

      Do you also dismiss everything Winston Churchill ever wrote because he once called a duchess "ugly" ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    123. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just re-read the letter which that quote is taken from. Thomas Jefferson was saying that while these rebels were ignorant and misinformed, they were correct to rebel on the basis of what they understood and that it would be bad for the country if a time ever arose where people did not rebel when they had such understandings of what was going on, even if those understandings where wrong. He was saying that the government must know that if it allows the populace to develop such misconceptions, the populace will rebel. The fact of the matter is. our government has discovered that when the American people of today believe similar abuses of power are occurring they will not rise up in rebellion. Once it became apparent that the people would not rise up in rebellion against the misperception of abuse of power, it was only a short time until those in power, rather than attempt to show the people that they were not so abusing their power, began to actually abuse their power in the manner which people had beforehand misperceived them to do.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    124. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      It's not necessary for the totalitarian state we're building though, so we can just ignore whatever comes after that clause.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    125. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The entire country has moved to the right. Democrats are where the Republicans used to be, and Republicans are out in Crazy Town (pop. Way Too Many).

      Actually, there's a massive disconnect between the politicians and the people of the United States. If the country were majority rule, which it isn't, marijuana would be legalized, gay marriage would be legal in more places, we would be completely out of Afghanistan and Iraq (not the "we're out, but there are drones and 15,000 soldiers / mercenaries to ... uh ... protect our embassy" version), many congresspersons would be indicted for bribery, many many banking executives (as well as some other corporate executives) would be indicted for multi-billion dollar fraud, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau would be operating with full force, thousands of foreclosures would be ruled invalid and the people's homes restored, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange would be free, and there'd quite possibly be a massive public works program to keep people employed.

      And that's why both the Tea Party and the Occupiers exist - the system is failing to respond to what the people want.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    126. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      I wish they would be MORE partisan. This whole "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" go-along-to-get-along McCain style politics is how we get ever-encroaching government intrusion everywhere except where it's needed...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    127. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

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

      Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The claim here - that for ALL people, greed is the motivation for economic activity is quite extraordinary (and easily proven false: all those people who start charities are ALSO participating in the economy and any time you make a donation to one that is non-greed-motivated economic participation). So not only is there no extraordinary evidence for your claim - but in fact there is massive evidence against it.

      Now if you amend it to "most people, most of the time" that's at least a potentially realistic claim - but it's still an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence, especially as there is strong evidence that the vast majority of people do NOT participate for that reason. The vast majority of people are religious and have a work-ethic from that religion that says labor is it's own reward. A significant proportion of people state that their biggest motivation for their (economic activity) is PASSION rather than money, they give their greatest work away for free and in choosing their paying jobs will choose a lower paying job over a higher paying one if it's more fun.
      Families, love, friendship, patriotism... in fact there are literally thousands of concepts humans cling to which motivate them. For most of them - greed isn't even on the list. They recognize money merely as a means to those higher ends, not as an end in itself (and that is the OPPOSITE of greed).

      So you're claiming that those who want greed and material wealth outnumber these people by a significant amount ? That is a most extraordinary claim and until you can provide the extraordinary evidence it requires I'll be forced to dismiss it as nothing but meaningless conjecture.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    128. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Self interest is the underlying motivation to participate in the economy. Greed is more of a strategy for doing so, and it's a pretty good one up to the point where thousands of little guys decide to do away with you.

      And this reply is a cop-out as "self-interest" is a completely meaningless term that can literally be applied to absolutely any stated motivation. In other words, you are using semantic trickery - not strong argument.
      The vast majority of people who cite different reasons for (some of) their economic activities than greed would not agree that those actions are based on self-interest. The fact that you can stretch the word to make it seem that way doesn't make it a valid argument. If people give to charity because they believe it's a commandment of their God and you say "wanting to go to heaven is self-interest" you are claiming self interest as the motivation when in fact the only sane interpretation is that the action was motivated by "religious belief".

      That is just one example - like I said "self interest" is a phrase coined by capitalist appologists to make every action look greedy, that doesn't make it true.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    129. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Is the bridge on fire?

    130. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 5, Funny

      Which is a call to authority, that is to say, a fallacy.

      Did someone tell you that?

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    131. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by HBI · · Score: 1

      The typical US citizen is a functional retard. It's true. That said, the government has taken a long time to get this corrupt.

      As for why the rising hasn't happened yet, I haven't found one thing yet that the government has done that affects me when I close the door to my house. Inside, it's still pretty much the same as the 70s/80s/90s...more gadgets, better food, but same quality of life. When that changes, I (and others like me) will be inspired to unlock the gun safe and take some action. I'm not highly interested in having my daughters caught in a firefight for any lesser reason.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    132. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And THAT my friends is another example of a fallacy. In this case the false dichotomy.

      The poster is attempting to imply that to reject the fallacy of call-to-authority one must reject anything learned from another person, implying that all knowledge is either brand new or a call to authority.

      That is of course, a false dichotomy as those are NOT the only types of knowledge that exists. There is also knowledge backed up by empirical evidence. There are arguments founded on solid logical principles and valid conclusions - and that's just two other kinds.

      The point of the call to authority fallacy is to teach us, when evaluating an idea that:
      It's not about who said it, it's about whether what was said is a good argument.
      To judge the merit of the claim not the merit of the speaker. Why ? Because wise people still say stupid shit sometimes.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    133. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But what we have today is nothing, nothing compared to the 60s and 70s.

      That's true, compared to the 60s and 70s, we have got nothing. In fact, we've got so much nothing that people are getting together in the streets to share it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    134. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by sleigher · · Score: 1

      Now, if blood were shed, they'd either immediately give up or take up arms. Now, if the US were India and had a Gandhi or another Martin Luther King standing up...

      We will never know if a MLK or a Gandhi has stood up or is standing up, as long as the media mocks movements like OWS. For all anyone knows the next great leader is standing right in front of us. Too bad all we do is make fun of them for wanting something different than what there is.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    135. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As an insider I can tell you that it's because Americans are stupid. How it happened I don't know for sure but how else do you describe a willful ignorance of your political system? It's not that it's not invented here, it's that most of us simply believe what we're told. The "dumbing down" of America and indeed the world has been proceeding apace for longer than I've been alive, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    136. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You think the Iraqis were "terrified villagers living in stone age conditions" prior to our showing up? How fucking clueless can you be?

      While you're right, it's simply true that subjugating a well-armed populace is going to be more difficult than a mostly-unarmed one.

      rather than accept that the country will always be messy and that we should do the best we can, you want to burn it all down.

      things are provably getting worse and your way of working through the system designed to fuck us is provably ineffective. You are provably insane as you are continuing to use the same tactics which have always failed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    137. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      It's not necessary because militias are useless in modern warfare, troll-boy.

    138. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by cavreader · · Score: 2

      The protests in the US rarely satisfy the demands of the protesters because most of the protests are too broad.

      The "Occupy" protests today are not really focused on any specific issue and offer no specific ways to accomplish their goals. About the only thing the "Occupy" movement has been focusing on is protesting the right to protest which tends to obscure the actual issues they are protesting against.

      If you want to protest the actions of the corporate world you won't get very far by going after entire industries as a group. Pick a corporation, collect all publicly available information on the corporation that is by law open to stock holders. Analyze this information to identify specifics on the P/L, executive salaries, hiring practices, on-going or previous lawsuits against the corporation, and any thing else that can be used in the protests. Identify the corporation board members and top executives and protest against them by name. Top level executives and board members do not like the spotlight pointed in their direction. They especially do not like being followed around and constantly trying to dodge ambush interviews with cameras rolling. Identify any associated lobby groups that work on behalf of the corporation. Identify specific government officials and politicians who are associated in any way with these lobby groups. Collecting detailed information to back up your protests will give you a better chance of achieving the goals of the protest. As soon as one corporation has been addressed then pick another from the same industry and do the same thing all over again. If any of these protests are successful the other corporations in the industry might implement the requested changes voluntarily instead of being subjected to this level of scrutiny. Government officials and politicians will also have to explain their relationships with any lobby groups. This is public information since to lobby the US government requires the lobby to register and politicians are required to disclose any contacts they have with lobbyist. Just going after Big Oil, Wall Street, or Banking industries as a group rarely succeed in changing the industry behavior. The more personal the protest gets the faster you will see results. Wholesale condemnation of large industries or even entire political parties are usually loud but ultimately ineffective most of the time.

    139. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      The Founding fathers were universally, Rich, Owned land and property, and slaves ...

      They mostly wanted to keep dictators (and royalty), out of positions of power

      The document they wrote was the Constitution, which had to have the Bill of rights added to it to make it actually preserve most of the freedoms people are talking about ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    140. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "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."
      I'm not sure where you're writing from but I'm not sure that - if there was a US civil war - that anyone would be "glad". A civil war within the USA with 330 million people would be bad enough. A civil war splitting the core of the only global superpower would drag in every other government on the planet, and quickly spread, even setting aside thermonuclear weapons.

      No, it's ironic that you act all dismayed at the vitriol (as well as exhibit some nice classic US hatred "enforced exported culture" - what bullshit is that?) yet the idea of a conflict in which hundreds of thousands may die as something that makes you "glad". What are the words for "pot", "kettle", and "black" in your native tongue?

      That said, I think the fear/delicious anticipation of the US falling into civil war is silly. The only thing that's changed is that the dirty laundry of US politics is not only more visible than ever, it's enhanced and highlighted by the need to support a 24-hour news cycle. The bitterness, divisiveness, etc. is all pretty much exactly the same as its always been; except now that hardcore leftist senator and hardcore rightist senator can't so easily come to a 'backroom deal' anymore, as government is now under the 24-hour baleful eye of video cameras. Politicians duelled to the DEATH in the 19th century. For that matter, we HAVE been through a *civil war* so its rather stupid to claim that the current political climate is "the most bitter ever". It simply isn't.

      Crime is falling, violence is falling, hard drug use is falling. The language isn't more divisive (the only way you could even say that is sheer ignorance), it's just no longer monopolized through the channels of media - now everyone gets to talk.
      The police aren't militarized, ethnic hatred is overblown (see above; you did notice that we have a BLACK president, elected by a popular majority, right?), extreme paranoia (huh?), social chaos (huh? the "OWP" movement was idle rich kids who wanted to be 'meaningful' like their co-opted former-hippy parents), endless multiple wars (again, could only be said out of ignorance: there have always been 'little wars' throughout US history and that of any Great Power), extremes of poverty/wealth (indeed; our "poor" live in conditions envied by the bulk of middle-class people across the world), and "perverse legal and ethical injustice" is just weasel words for "I disagree with your choices".

      So no, evanism is just another bitter sidebencher cheering the atmosphere he claims to see as it validates and confirms his built-in hatreds.

      --
      -Styopa
    141. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Truedat · · Score: 1
      I'm not a US citizen and that's the first time I've seen that quote. But to me it makes a lot of sense, ie that a system of government can become so corrupt that it cannot be changed from the inside - more "drastic" measures may be needed. We've seen this round the world from relatively peaceful civil disobedience to the violent and bloody Arab spring.

      On your other criticism, why shouldn't the wisdom of those who went before us be considered in analysis - is there some youthful age limit at play here?

    142. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Yes, if the government is going it's own way doing what it likes in spite of the people clearly trying to vote their opposition then the people should take up arms.

      But when the people keep electing the same politicians and parties which do these things... When the people don't care or even do care and approve then whose right is it to kill? Should a minority opinion group overthrow an elected government just because they are right? Maybe they should if we are talking about some really extreme cases, for example if the majority is approving of genocide, slavery, etc... I don't think we are there yet.

      For now we need to just keep making ourselves heard. Make sure the politicians know that there are enough of us to swing some votes and educate the public as best we can to try to make them care.

    143. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      What the fuck does the mainstream Democratic party call someone who is pro-war, pro-surveillance, pro-dronebombing, pro-due-process-free-detention, pro-due-process-free-execution, pro-goldman-sachs, pro-protecting-torturers, pro-persecuting-whistleblowers, pro-PATRIOT-Act

      A Presidential candidate?

      It ought to be pointed out that Bush's challenger in '04 fit this definition, to the extent that he was the one who WROTE those sections of the PATRIOT Act you dislike so much.

      Alas, no, there's no real proof that the Democrats are merely angels beleaguered by the EVIIIIIIIIL Republicans - the Dems are just as intent on the evils you decry, just for different reasons.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    144. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by christianT · · Score: 1

      Joe Sixpack doesn't care as long as the corrupt politicians continue to raise someone else's taxes and give the money to him so he can go out and buy another sixpack.

    145. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Founding fathers were universally, Rich, Owned land and property, and slaves ...

      Not accurate. Some owned slaves, others were devout abolitionists. Benjamin Franklin founded the first antislavery society in 1774. While I think they probably all owned land, not all were "rich", but they were leaders of their communities, and well to do. But then I've never heard of any country being founded, led, or taken over by any poor or indigent people, so that's entirely irrelevant.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    146. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this is why they gave us the right to bear arms in the constitution.

      arms doesn't mean guns, it mean anything from a sharpened stick to an Abrams tank.

    147. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by meglon · · Score: 1

      His letter was in response to the question about his feelings on the death of the rebels, which is he was talking about. He understood that rebellions like Shay's were inevitable, especially given there was no strong central government to react to the issue promptly (he did not associate it with the lack of a strong central government until after he was elected president though; his earlier feelings were that they were simply an eventuality of society). He wording does imply that we might "need" such a thing once in a while, but you have to realize that he didn't feel that the event was as important as some did.

      His overall jist of the letter was that he didn't feel the killing and wounding of the rebels was significant, and that it actually was governments place to kill them.... kind of like having two actors on the stage each playing their role.... the rebels role is to rebel, the governments is to put the rebels down.

      Now, for perhaps the bigger point of the whole incident, Shay's Rebellion was the catalyst for the laying down of the constitution, empowering a strong central government that could handle events like this... among others. That's quite a bit of irony in itself when given the bent of the groups that use his quote out of context.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    148. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, it's the republicans! Only republicans can do anything bad!

      Seriously, grow up. Pull your head out of your ass. It's this sort of effing thing that causes the problem. Figure it out. ALL politicians and ALL political parties are scum bags. Period. If you blame all the ills on republicans, since we have a sadly two party system, then you're ignoring roughly half the problem.

      When you morons finally pull your heads out of your asses and realize your precious democrats pull just as much BS as the republicans, then maybe, MAYBE, things can start to get better. But as long as you point your finger at one group, and when somebody in your group does something you don't like, you rebrand them that other group, you do NOTHING but to perpetuate the problem. Seriously, GOP rule 1. Small government. What part of todays political climate even slightly adheres to rule 1 of "republican" thinking?

      Heres and idea, how about vote libertarian. "but no, that's scary, then I'd have to take care of myself rather than relying on other people to take care of me for me.", despite the minor fact that a libertarian agenda would gut the power of these ass hats and limit regulation and government involvement to what actually needs regulation and involvement rather than regulating everything they can sneak legislation through to legislate. You know, real libertarianism, not the freakish thing that the media loves to perpetuate. You know, the stuff that limits regulation to stuff like the FDA, interstate commerce.

    149. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, good point. It's pretty clear that things have been good for the people of the US for quite some time, which led to a mostly apathetic populace and far too much trust of those in the government. It is ending.

      But the other side of this is that, when some effort is made, the US system works for the people very well. It's simply designed to allow that to happen, and in a peaceful manner, which is much different from just about every other government on earth, where power is rarely overturned without violent and bloody conflict. Even ousting the Egyptian president wasn't accomplished without bloodshed, although it was probably one of the least deadly transitions of government by historical standards.

      The US system was designed to avoid any person or small group being able to consolidate too much controlling authority. The Constitution is supposed to be a check on the Federal government, sovereign states were supposed to enforce that compact, the houses of congress and the President, it was viewed, would often have conflicting interests and ideas (and often do). And of course all bodies are subject to common law and courts, which were accessible to all the people.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    150. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Just because you think your argument contains value doesn't mean I have to listen to your troll rant.

    151. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Basic infrastructure doesn't really require what we know as "government". If a community needs drinking water forming political organizations and a bureaucracy is not what is needed.

    152. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The entire country has moved to the right.

      Has it? My impression is that the political parties have shifted to the right. The people they are supposed to be serving haven't changed much. For example- some (many? I don't know anybody that checks into this) Republicans have become disillusioned with the far-right agenda that today's Republican party is pushing. Similarly, many Democrats feel that Obama is "not liberal enough". And both parties use the media to make people believe that their party stands for things which it actually does not (The Republicans seems to be slightly more successful with this).

      Ideally someone would form a viable third party to keep the others honest. The only way I see this happening is if some uber-rich philanthropist or idealist made it happen. A truly grass-roots effort is doomed to fail in this political climate thanks to the huge piles of money which are required. It is the same reason that incumbency rates in the House and Senate are so high, even though congressional approval is under 20%. Unfortunately, because of the huge piles of money being thrown around by corporations, our government will be owned by the corporations as long as unlimited corporate donations and massive lobbying exist.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    153. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      oh i agree fully. the protest in ny became so off topic they became pointless. it went from anti wall street to legalize weed. but they still stomped all over there rights.

    154. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      so your going to comment on spelling rather then the topic very nice.

    155. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      awesome and true answers. and the homeless part was the best one its very true so many people are homeless because of that now. even if you do not owe the bank 30 years of your life you can still be forced of land you own because you didn't pay taxes on it or other people just don't like you. theirs video on YouTube of a guy who owned his land and was living in his rv on his land and it was like 30 acres so it was out of site out of mind and the people got the courts to toss him off his own land because they didn't like his chosen lifestyle. my best friends mom has a full size house trailer and they tried the same thing to her but fortunately she won in that case. why does this happen because people are programed to dislike anyone not living the american nightmare. look at army vets theirs tons of them homeless and they got promised everything by the government for risking there lives for them and all they got in return is a tiny monthly check and left out in the cold.

    156. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that that's the stuff he's talking about?

      If that's all government did, I think a lot of us anti-government types wouldn't have much to complain about. Unfortunately, that's really not the problem.

      --
      And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
    157. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Really? Gun ownership is the last line of defense against tyranny. People are willing to accept soft tyranny if it's justifiable, that's a truth of the world. It's when said tyranny is no longer justifiable, and people demand it be removed/rescinded/revoked that you want those 'gun totters' around. The biggest step towards a totalitarian government is when the government comes to you, and removes your right of defense, and gun ownership.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    158. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by shemyazaz · · Score: 1

      So, let me see if I understand this. The American people should grovel at the feet of their government...begging for liberties like scraps from a dinner table. Those who express dissatisfaction with that arrangement should be "discouraged" from such expressions....as they are dangerous.

    159. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Nobody wants to start chucking the corruption grenade around. It might bounce back and bite them.

      I think a better analogy is "nobody wants to set anyone on fire when everyone's wearing dynamite vests."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    160. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hell, Bush was fluent in Spanish.

      Maybe he should have delivered his speeches in Spanish instead of English then :-P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    161. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      What's your degree in? My Fiancé is an MD in Pediatrics and I have my MSME in Mechatronics/Controls. Right now we're most concerned about her MD transfering.

    162. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      Bush wasn't fluent in English; I can't imagine that his Spanish was better.

    163. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by b0bby · · Score: 1

      If you get to the image of the original document, you'll see that the lack of caps & the (incorrect today) usage of "it's" are indeed there in the original.

    164. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the concept of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Appeal to authority is the name of a type of fallacy, but that doesn't mean that it's a fallacy every time you point to an authority on a subject and see what they have to say. Here's an excerpt from a description of the fallacy found through a quick google search:

      Description of Appeal to Authority

      An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

            1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
            2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
            3. Therefore, C is true.

      This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

      If the person being referenced is, indeed, an authority, appealing to them is still a valid argument. It doesn't constitute absolute proof, but it's still valid. Thomas Jefferson, as one of the principal authors of the philosophy that the Unites States was founded on, is most certainly a valid authority on this subject. If we were arguing about cooking, and someone argued that tarragon was the king of spices because Thomas Jefferson said so, then that would be an example of the appeal to authority fallacy (unless Thomas Jefferson actually was renowned for his cooking ability as well).

      Now, the general case about "famous and generally respected people share his ideas" that AniMoJo suggested really could match the fallacy, but that's only because AniMoJo re-framed it in such a general way. The actual specific facts in this case are that Thomas Jefferson was famous, generally respected, and also an acknowledged expert on the subject at hand. He can still be wrong. That's very important to remember. Any expert can be wrong. But, he's someone who is very clearly knowledgeable about the subject and put the work in.

    165. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Shompol · · Score: 3

      Or maybe they knew about oppressive regimes more than you do. After all, they wrote a very successful constitution, with all the safeguards built in against the slow roll to a Nazi state we experience today. The history repeats itself.

      Most Americans have not experienced being ruled by iron fist, nor did their parents or even grandparents to tell the story. Go live in Myanmar or Belarus, and come back when you start to appreciate the slowly melting paradise built for you by the first generations of refugees.

    166. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by CptNerd · · Score: 2

      Insightful indeed. I was a kid in the early 60's and saw the build-up of hateful feelings on all sides back then. We definitely don't have it to the same level as back then, when people like Bill Ayers were planting bombs and killing people. The main reason we still have anything close to it now is because demographically we have enough young people of college age who have free time and energy and desire. Back in the 60's most of the developed nations were undergoing upheavals. In the US, the main issues were related, the military draft which affected men from age 18 up, and voting rights for those men which didn't start until 21. There was a valid anger at the dichotomy, where men were told to go fight and die by a government they weren't allowed to affect by voting against.

      Nowadays the issues are hardly in the same league as actual life or death, given the right to vote at 18 and no military draft. The big issues now are polarizing people who have fairly incompatible ideas. One side wants to be able to live with a minimum of interference by governments and a maximum of self-reliance, and another side that wants government to use its power and authority to help everyone who needs or wants more than they have, regardless of the reason for their lack, including making poor life choices. There are other arguments and sides, of course, and they are mostly variations on the same theme.

      It's an old dichotomy, maximizing rights versus maximizing responsibilities. It's basic human nature to want the most rights to act, without facing the responsibilities for the actions. It takes a certain level of maturity to recognize that the two are related and the US system put in place was intended to make it easy for individuals to make personal decisions, while expecting the individuals to accept the responsibility for their actions, and not push that responsibility onto the group or onto government. It was understood for a long time that sometimes bad things happen that are out of control of individuals, and that only by acting in a large group pooling abilities would the people harmed by these bad things be helped. The problem has been (since the Depression at least) that once the large group is given some of the responsibility to fix things, the people making up the group keep ratcheting downward (and thus broadening the scope of) the severity of "bad things" that need to be "fixed." Unfortunately by giving more and more power to "do something" to the government, by definition this restricts what each individual can do, since more and more things that an individual could do are determined to have "bad" results and therefore the individual must be prevented from acting.

      I'm not sure there is a critical mass of people who want their rights back, since they were taken away so slowly, and the basic nature of people is to want someone else to be responsible for them. I personally believe we've gone too far and need to swing the pendulum back the other way, but there are a lot of vocal people here who will take that belief as a personal affront, and call me callous and hateful for it.nted by the power of government.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    167. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      When democracy fails, yes. I think it's evident that all the Founding Fathers did. And if you don't believe me, read the Federalist Papers.

      They did, after all, start, fight and win a war for what they believed in.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    168. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Liberia might count, but unfortunately, it hasn't worked out so well.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    169. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      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.

      Please. Who in America is going to look up from their screens long enough revolt? Hardly anyone can be bothered to write a letter to their representative, but they're going to take up arms?

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    170. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, I happen to believe that a large part of the problem in this country is that too many people think that they should be able to fix whatever they think is the problem in one, or at most two, election cycles. The system in the U.S. is designed to take a long time to make significant changes. Many of the things that people find wrong in this country took 50-100 years to get to where they are. It will take a similar length of time to undo them.
      If the system allowed for quick changes, things would be much worse than they are. It is always easier to make things worse than it is to make things better.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    171. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by hedpe2003 · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      --
      Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
    172. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      There haven't been wars fought in the name of Jefferson or Gandhi to my knowledge.

      When a government such as in the US which was founded on freedom begins to erode the rights of it's citizenry just sit idly by and let them get away with it. It's clearly the better solution. My children have no right to know what it's like to travel without being patted down, or to know that some idiot won't try and sue them for using a piece of prior work in a school project.

      In fact it was those same 270 year old dead guys that fought for these freedoms that we are just sitting by and letting the government take.

      Welcome to America, land of the formerly free, home of the apathetic.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    173. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      But they don't.

      They keep switching from Dem to Repub to Dem to Repub.

        look at the voting record. People have been pissed for decades, and very little seems to get done...

      --
      -
    174. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Do you also dismiss everything Winston Churchill ever wrote because he once called a duchess "ugly" ?

      You clearly didn't even understand the criticism you're responding to.

    175. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      That translates to "You're objectively right, but LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    176. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Plus anti-gay. Got to keep their grassroots happy somehow, and nothing does that so effectively for them as a good dose of 'the homosexual agenda seeks to destroy your marriage!"

    177. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Actually, the AC was correct. Its is the possessive, it's is the contraction ('tis was the old contraction for "it is").

      His beard. Her makeup. Its operating system.
      He's tall. She's short. It's just a machine.

      Someone once told me (and I don't know if this is correct or not) that his and her had apostrophes at one time.

      You are correct in your sarcasm; language does indeed evolve. But the literate shouldn't let the aliterate dictate changes to the way literature is written. If you don't read, you shouldn't write.

    178. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Well, shit. All this $0.25 gas for sale has convinced me that you're right. GHWB sure won that one! Whew!

      Maybe Obama should institute policies that raise gasoline prices 100%+ in this country! Oh darn, too late.

    179. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      We still have free elections.

      I guess that depends on what you consider "free". In my home county, the idea of an open and honest election is laughable, and has been as long as anyone remembers; my county is not unique across the US. The use of electronic voting and increased use of absentee voting has increased the opportunity and incident of fraud. The last several national elections have been rife with abuse and fraud in carefully selected neighborhoods, counties, and states.

      You could go out and get involved in activism. Find candidates who you trust, and push for them in primaries.

      My state primary is so late in the process that no national candidate outside of the the party mainstreams are left. The closest thing to a outsider is Ron Paul and he still has no prayer in a national election. A candidate cannot run on the national level without massive amounts of money and media support. This is an extreme limit on who can participate.

      We can protest without the tanks rolling in.

      The tanks were called in on protesting war veterans in Washington DC only 80 years ago. The military opened fire on college students protesting in Ohio 42 years ago. The list of US police and military brutality against protesters is quite long and growing daily thanks to the Occupy groups and the US response to them.

      [Y]ou saw what happened when the Iranians tried to have an election, and when they tried to protest. They are past the point of no return.

      And what point did you think this made? They sat by, even cheered, as an oppressive government centralized and grew its power.

      Trust me, I understand and even mostly agree with your notion that the video game heroes here have no clue how a real civil war would feel. Yet, your government apologist comments make me think you will happily sit in the pot until you are boiled to death, never realizing that you could hop out as the water gets hotter. Had you been in any of the various Middle East nations recently, you would have assured their population that it really isn't that bad. Even Saddam had elections and provided most of his people with the basic necessities of life. Is it really worth upsetting that stability for something as obtuse as freedom or liberty?

    180. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by pieterh · · Score: 2

      It's been said already:
      "English is the Linux of human languages. Open source, fully remixable, endlessly rich. (June 2011, by Pieter Hintjens)"

    181. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Oh good. A petition website, which requires the President to do absolutely nothing, is now the best way to report crime? Or the only way? A petition system which has repeatedly been shown to 1) not work and 2) not say or do anything specifically related to criminal investigations is enough to get the President to order his people around?

      Seriously, I would like answers to these, if you and the 3 or more people who modded you up think gp is an apologist. Don't you think using the existing ways of reporting crime are better than something that doesn't work? Or is that being an apologist?

    182. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I tried to submit this story basically asking how to rephrase and resubmit.

      Everyone here wants to bitch about corruption, blah, blah, blah, but the White House had a very *specific* response. They cannot initiate a criminal investigation of a private citizen, and that is listed among the conditions of petitions, whatever.

      We should ask this again and let the lawyers here rephrase it to make it more difficult to just dismiss on a technicality. If they dismiss it again, you refine it, and come back again.

      If we were to create 5 petitions, progressively worded better and better, I think that would make quite a statement too. Not to mention get picked up from the press. It's pretty damn hard to get egregious legislation like this passed when people are actually paying attention and screaming.

    183. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

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

      Good luck with that. I have a comfortable life and don't have any reason to join you. I will not enjoy watching you get killed by the superior military technology. Even if 90% of the military revolts you're not going to get the heavy guns, and you will be bringing a match to a gun fight. You will be dead, and I will sip my wine and say that's so sad.

      I feel a revolution is in order, but you're going to have to put together a lot more than a bunch of people with guns to accomplish anything but dying for little reason other than publicity. Forget OWS, it will be Occupy Wooden Coffin, and then the Kardashians will sell their new perfume, and Vanna will spin the wheel and life will go on.

    184. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by berashith · · Score: 1

      what if I were to agree with the sentiment of the quote? Am I not allowed to agree if something is presented as stated from an authority? Dismissing someone's statement because he is quoting someone else makes no sense at all. How about we listen to what was said, and decide if we agree / disagree, not just bring out debate 101 facts to pretend to destroy an argument without actually addressing it?

      I do agree with the idea, that any government allowed to stagnate long enough will invent ways in which to enrich an inner circle. There is a lot of insight into policy that went into the thoughts of Jefferson, and how a government needs to be controlled over time. There is also a good perspective that many things that are considered bad taste were tolerated for a greater good; they actually compromised.

      the amount of corruption here is status quo, and one of the reasons for anger is that a promise to respond to certain levels of interest had been made. The prediction was that this would get blown off, as has been done. The promise being broken is more status quo on election politics. The big question is how much more of this status quo can be tolerated by the masses.

    185. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between when it was written and now. With NDAA and Patriot act and countless other things it will not be possible to have a revolution. I disagree about the watch list part, but this whole "lock and load" mentality is going to get a bunch of people killed and that's it.

      The government has enshrined itself and is not going anywhere. It has to be replaced from the inside. Unfortunately the people most qualified to lead a new government want nothing to do with it. Until that changes, you will see nothing happen but angry mobs and indefinite detention.

    186. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like a dictatorship than anything else...

    187. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You are a moron, and have no idea what you're talking about. The Judicial Branch is the Supreme Court. They don't investigate anything, they hear cases brought before them. The President is in charge of the US Attorney's office, run by his buddy Eric Holder. Holder is the one who decides what to investigate, and Obama is his boss.

    188. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Except they didn't. They put their own sense of righteousness before their countrymen (or need for discpline, or a paycheck. All human goals, all reasonable) They were deluded into thinking it would help, and look where it's gotten us. It's created many more evils than it ever fixed.
      If I go into a grocery store, shoot everyone in the store, then take enough money and food for a neighborhood full of homeless people, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do no matter how much good I think I'm doing, no matter how necessary it feels.

      Military service is important, but let's be honest: There are wrongs committed around the world all the time. When some whackjob in a White House decides to enrich a bunch of his friends by starting a war, though, no amount of rationalization changes the fact that anyone who participates is complicit in that crime.

      This isn't about going out and standing up for something, don't kid yourself. I can and have done that. I've gone toe to toe to stand up for what I believe in and it's an ugly thing sometimes, but saying that we're somehow not able to talk about an issue like this unless we've "been there" is just a way to absently deflect viewpoints that are likely not similar to your own (as only military persons count according to your logic, and most/all would agree with you).

      However, if you really want to help then I certainly hope you'll be out in the streets with the rest of us to get this shit changed around so that no other friend of anyone else EVER has to get his legs blown off because some overpumped rich shithead can make a few bucks. THAT is the real crime here, so while we might not agree, I deeply hope we can agree on that.

      --
      -
    189. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whether or not you think so, the actual data says otherwise:
      * Marijuana legalization recently crossed 50% support.
      * Gay marriage, which has been steadily shifting in favor of legalization.
      * Leaving Afghanistan polls at 56% in favor, and has for months.
      * Iraq War polls at 66% opposed, and the majority has been opposed to the war since at least 2006.

      The only presidential candidate who even comes close to following the majority's wishes on those issues is Ron Paul, and he's generally been dismissed as a nutcase.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    190. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      the only way to get rid of these guys is to stop voting for them.

      Not voting won't change anything. Unfortunately, voting won't, either. IMO none of the candidates (including the sitting President) deserve my vote.

      We've been trying to get pot legalized since the late '60s. If you don't use it, some of your friends and family do. Why do you continue to vote for a man who wants to put your friends and loved ones in prison for an activity that harms no one?

      The same goes for the bought and paid for copyright laws. Who voted against the Bono Act? Nobody. Who voted against the DMCA? Nobody. Who thinks these are good laws? Nobody, outside Washington DC and Hollywood.

      What good is a vote when your government is a plutocracy?

    191. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Err... Both the FBI and the Attorney General are Executive branch...

    192. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Shit. I cant believe I'm sensitive enuf today to respond to an AC. But for the record: you're an asshole and here's why:

                    1. "...government is actually listening to your phone calls and reading..."
      Well, just today's news is about 2 kids sent packing for innocuous tweets. Who would've thought those 2 were important enuf to monitor?
                    2. "...someone at TSA.. for no particular reason"
      Well, that (no reason) in and of itself is pretty bad; worse is where/how did they get a reason if they had one? Massive intrusion and spying perhaps?
                    3. "...government freely gives tax money away to Wall Street banks..."
      I wish I could get 0% loans that I could use to buy guaranteed TBills paying 3% to use as leveraged collateral for increasing my Hedge portfolio (or just to give away as a bonus)
                    4. "coorporations" are evil parasitic slave traders, rather than publicly owned companies who..."
      Have no interest beyond enriching their investors; who have no qualms shitting in someone else's back yard if it gets them 30% returns. Too many examples to make worth citing.

                    5. "...current unemployment rate us 20%, rather than the factually reported..."
      You know what is said about 'facts', right.

                    6. "our critical infrastructure is hopelessly delapidated....despite..."
      Check out the status of the LA levees, or major bridges; gonna take more than 'billions' dude.
      Worse, check out the Corp of Engineers, the wasted billions, the revolving door into 'contractor land'
        and bilking public funds.

      You quickly call GP crazy and delusional. Here's one for you:
      A section of a bridge in CT collapsed. Cars were driving off and plunging into the river below. One car was able to stop in time and the driver got out and ran back trying to warn ensuing traffic. The passengers in the 1st car zipping by gave him the finger. Guess where they ended up?

       

      --
      resist propaganda
    193. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by letherial · · Score: 1

      While you may be right, lets look at the idea a little more closely. 300 or so million in USA, how many you think will join? 1 mil, 10 mil, 50 mil? Since USA is tyrannical enough to bring up arms against it, then i assume the USA will have no problems with pulling out the USA military....i don't think you will win. Also, since the majority will not be with you, you will not be branded as fun loving gun toting rebels fighting for freedom like the syria rebels...no my friend, the media and USA government will call you a terrorist organization and then you will truly be fucked. Point is, our democracy makes it so much harder to just take up arms...that and on a scale of tyranny, USA ranks rather low. (for now) I got a better solution, we need to remove money from the political system and have these candidates run on their ideas and not 30 sec ads based on attacking opponent. As long as money is the #1 driver for elections, we will not have a true democracy and there can be no honest debate. To do that, you just need to harness the energy of these 'rebels' but instead of guns, you need signs

    194. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Hi:

      I suspect one need not be fluent when one is affluent:)

      --
      resist propaganda
    195. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by spiralx · · Score: 1

      As someone from the UK I've come to the conclusion a Paul presidency would be a win for me - I agree with a lot of his foreign policy ideas, and FP is where the president has the most influence. I think most of his domestic ideas are, well, naive and simplistic is a polite way of putting it, but he'd be less effective getting them implemented, and they'd affect the rest of the world far less.

    196. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      your correct in these facts but your forgetting the rich and sheep do keep voting for these guys. if it was not true we would not have any of these people in office for very long. im not saying not vote that does no good because that lets the rich and sheep keep the cycle going. we need to have a massic 3rd party vote enough to at least shake them up or even remove the party from office. see even the eu is smarter then the avg person in the usa they do remove entire party's from office that mess up they do not keep letting the same party run there country all the time.

    197. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      It's real easy to take a stand against something from the cozy confines of the internet, but you best drag your ass out there and do it in the real world before you decide to slander several million Americans who put their countrymen before themselves.

      Can we agree, then, that their love of country was misguided? That the country which in WWII defended the world, during the 1950's turned into a country that was more interested in building a military-industrial complex as part of a larger strategy of general corporate economic imperialism, that this military-industrial complex (as well as those who were aligned with the idea of corporate economic imperialism) encouraged and fomented war in order to justify their existence and, in the end, became the tail wagging the dog? Because, at the end of the day, the people who selflessly volunteered (and even those who found it easier to enlist than find a well-paying job), were duped by a government who no longer served the people, but served their corporate masters? So that their sacrifice, made because of all of the right reasons, becomes nothing but a shield for the corporate interests to hide behind? And that, in defending these reasons, you're actually defending the corporate traitors who betrayed your companions and your country?

      Can we at least agree on that?

      --
      That is all.
    198. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Surt · · Score: 1

      I completely disagree. While I do believe that every action is fundamentally self-interested (or, to be more precise, it is a combination of gene and meme interest), that's not the same as greedy, which was my point. Greedy is a highly specific strategy for achieving self-interest, but is by no means the optimal strategy.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    199. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by riondluz · · Score: 1

      I applaud your ability to craft a perfectly satirical comment, which to the un-initiated or un-informed, appears as legitimate criticism.

      --
      resist propaganda
    200. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by alexo · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: not an American.

      If a 270 year old dead guy told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

      If he had a really convincing argument to back it up then yes, I would.

      Stop prostrating yourself at the feet of the founding fathers. They were men, not gods. They did a pretty decent job, all things considered, but they don't have all the answers.

      They were in a similar situation as he finds himself in, he happens to agree with their reasoning and decided to quote one of them because that founding father was more eloquent and succinct in expressing the point than he could be. Also, Jefferson has more name recognition so people will be more inclined to consider his arguments over those of a random /. poster.

      I find nothing wrong with his course of action.

    201. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Of course, like Obama and all other Democrats, you are incapable of criticizing them, no matter how wrong they are.

      I don't know what you've been watching, but Obama takes a *ton* of heat from other democrats.

      If Dodd were a Republican, the investigation would have been complete long ago, no petitions needed

      Yeah, just like we had investigations of everyone involved in the Iraq war -- the democrats sure made sure the republicans involved paid for that! And the financial crisis -- look at all of the politically motivated trails happened there!

      Oh wait, there weren't any. In fact, the only high-profile politically motivated investigations I can think of in my lifetime is the bullshit special investigation of Clinton by -- you guessed it -- republicans!

      God, yeah, we democrats are just *so* bad at seeing our own blind spots. Thanks for pointing them out for us!

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    202. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I'm a little unclear on what you're saying is wrong with what I was saying about the appeal to authority fallacy. Are you saying that appeal to authority is always fallacious when the opinion of only one individual is cited? Let's try that on for size:
      "Einstein says that the theory of relativity says X"
      "Kurt Vonnegut says that the meaning of _Harrison Bergeron_ is Y"
      Those clearly are not fallacious appeals to authority, whereas:
      "Einstein says that the clear meaning of _Harrison Bergeron_ is Z, and he's a really smart guy, so it must be Z, so there, argument closed."
      is a fallacious appeal to authority.

    203. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by gumpish · · Score: 1

      And if you find you must follow the teachings of some old dead guy instead of analyzing situations for yourself, then why Jefferson? Why not Gandhi, or Jesus? They might tell you to do something very different.

      Hey, you're right. Jesus does tell me to do something very different:

      "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)"

      I think I'll stick with Jefferson, KTHXBYE

    204. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Because in the first case, he is in a very good position to do exactly what he is claiming, indeed it is not new at all in politics. Also, he is basically offering a bribe (in reverse), a crime in itself. In the second, I doubt most people who be really threatened by that statement, as it simply doesn't happen often. If there was reason to believe it might be dangerous, maybe investigating would be alright.

      However, people saying "no other options have worked to keep the government working as intended, we are going to end up having to revolt" is not the same as "if you don't support the policies I like, I will take up arms and start murdering people" in the minds of even the most inept. If you think what is typically posted to the effect equals what you wrote, you need psychological help.

      Further, don't try to weasel out. You said you wanted them on a watch list, not investigated. There is a huge difference (not that either are good). Watch lists are the new way to keep people who say anything unpleasant afraid. Even sending the FBI to ask them questions would be more honest than marking them an Enemy of the People.

    205. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Mod this ironic, as has been pointed out ad nauseaum, the awkwardly disengenousness of politicians leaping up in outrage and dis-belief in a rush to counter injustice; until their own party comes into power. Then, a massive silence ensues, or worse.

      There is no Left or Right, only alliances where loyality will always trumps integrity.

      Feel-good enthusiasm always holds sway over facts;
      say anything to get support/$ and wing it from there. Don't over-think it, just trust your gut instincts and your team (of ass-kissers).

      Where extrovert, A-type, pompous blowhards always inspire more faith than quieter thoughtful contrarians and skeptics who in the end are usually proven right.

      "Re: Dying.." Tends to make me think that the human condition is one hell-bent on self-destruction.

       

      --
      resist propaganda
    206. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by claytongulick · · Score: 1

      Bravo, sir. Well said.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    207. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand it. The American people should exhaust every possible means of peaceful protest, repeatedly, before resorting to anything remotely violent or antagonistic. That means organizing nationwide letter-writing campaigns, protests, artistic statements, and political campaigns. Note the exclusion of things like bombing campaigns, assassinations, and significant disruptions to normal business.

      The SOPA campaigns were relatively successful. The representatives backed off from SOPA, and despite the predictions of various cynics, I expect SOPA will not be returning with the same kind of Internet-crushing power. The biggest disruption I found from the blackouts was that Wikipedia was unavailable for many people, leading to many letters being sent to representatives. In contrast, the Occupy Wall Street protests caused far more disruption and damage, but didn't really accomplish much to affect any representatives' views on issues at hand.

      The extremist protesters have a particularly worrying cognitive dissonance regarding their representatives being human. It is often pointed out how representatives are corruptible and will make mistakes. It is rarely mentioned that they will also get annoyed and angry.

      Consider a child in a toy store. If the child wants a toy, and immediately throws a tantrum about it, they're not likely to get anything. If the child behaves well, and simply asks, the parent is more likely to buy the toy for them. Of course, the parent may still decline, but that's no reason for the child to then poison the family dinner.

      Note well that last part. Protests are not guaranteed to succeed, and frankly I'd be terrified if they were. Using SOPA as an example, there are far more complex issues at hand than just whether any entity can block DNS records. There are international relations issues, because US support of Russian piracy is a major contributor to Russian organized crime. There are economic issues, because the human resources needed for major websites to comply with requests may exhaust the available talent pool for IT, stifling future innovation. There are so many more issues at stake than just what's talked about in public.

      The American people should understand that modern politics involve more than just the number of signatures on a petition, and their plans for petitions should address other problems any particular action could cause. Those who express dissatisfaction with well-planned protests should be praised and looked to for more advice in the future. Those who try a few half-baked plans, fail, and jump straight to violence should be considered dangerous.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    208. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Of course he also asked to have the next slave girl brought in when he grew bored of the one he was shtooping.

      Yes, we should only listen to perfect people. Thank God that means I do not have to listen to you. (Nor you to me)

      Or, put another way... If Hitler said "It is cold in here" would you argue the point just because it was Hitler?

    209. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Which is why we have pacified all of those countries we were at war with so quickly, right?

    210. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Because the war for independence was actually just a poker game...

    211. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by orgelspieler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if you find you must follow the teachings of some old dead guy instead of analyzing situations for yourself, then ... why not ... Jesus?

      Because Jesus was an anti-capitalist, pro-tax, pro-immigration, commie bastard, who only hung out with job-quitters, hookers, and tax-collectors.

    212. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by edmicman · · Score: 1

      But that sounds like a lot of work!

    213. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Only to the extent that you differentiate between a militia and an armed and active asymmetric warfare unit that strikes at soft targets but refuses to engage in pitched battles.

    214. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by genkernel · · Score: 1

      So what is it you are saying? You think that good intentions could take away the blame for what you personally did to those poor bastards in Iraq? You think that the fact that you eventually got Hussein makes the hundered thousand civilians who died because of you and people like you worth it? Do you really honestly expect me to believe that you didn't serve the unlawful orders of GWB in all that you did "for" the people you wanted to help?

      Fuck why you served, sir. Congratulations on your accomplishments. You have liberated the oil of Iraq. If only you could have done the same for their people.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
    215. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I only got halfway through that mess. Mind using some capitalization? And some punctuation besides periods?

      Reading "or are simply still have not broken out from the brainwashing they got sense" -- huh? Brainwashing gave them sense?

      well, that's as far as I could go. I think you meant "sinse" but jesus H Christ, man, I I see why you hate school -- your teachers were abysmal.

      I suggest checking a few books out from your local library.

    216. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by bahamuut · · Score: 1

      vote? have you taken a look at the 500+ dead people that voted in the SC Primary? or the discrepencies in the Iowa Caucus? what about the debacle of 2000 or Ohio in 2004? To quote Mr Jay Electronica:
      "Regardless who you vote for
      If the mind don't grow
      And the poverty line don’t go
      But the dope keep coming
      And the tv keep flashing images of a sports car
      Then you bound for a coke war
      The meek get clowned by the coke law
      The sheep get drowned in the folklore
      Then lulled to sleep by Tom Brokaw
      What a pity, the hope on a politician's tongue
      Never ever trickles down the city"

      Ironically enough, I think that a transition can be made without firing a shot; the people that we speak of are cowardly and weak. They rely on underlings for their food, water, shelter and lifestyle. Without their fake incentive program, they'd die in a month. The game can't go on if enough people refuse to play.

      --
      like a man without arms, you can't hang......
    217. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      protecting a failing movie and music business model is not a government problem. There is no need for any part of C-11

    218. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Nobody's prostrating themselves because those guys lived a long time ago, they're respected for their obvious wisdom.

      And if you find you must follow the teachings of some old dead guy instead of analyzing situations for yourself, then why Jefferson? Why not Gandhi, or Jesus? They might tell you to do something very different.

      Actually, they didn't. And Ghandi and Jesus were likewise wise. You'll understand when you get older, I used to think the same way you do.

    219. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Yep, Mexican drug cartels are TOTALLY hurting for weapons.

      Before Fast and Furious, they were using small rocks and hash language to kill 50,000 civilians.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    220. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Hell, they couldn't even write properly, their Ses look like Fs. Congreff?

    221. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You're points are valid, and that is how we're supposed to evaluate somebodies argument. Who else agreed is NOT however a useful metric of it's validity.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    222. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      That description you quoted is
      1) Wrong (well incomplete)
      2) Not applicable to what happened here anyway.

      The definition of the appeal to authority fallacy is:
      Stating that an argument is (more) valid since a (supposed) authority agrees with it without offering other proof of it's validity.

      So citing authority is not a bad thing, but MERELY citing authority IS. So the description you show is true - in that it doesn't have any OTHER reasoning for the argument EXCEPT the authority figure. But you missed that bit.

      Now in this particular example the parent said that he used the quote: "to show who else agrees" - that is an appeal to authority fallacy as the GP didn't give ANY other evidence in favor of this argument. The only evidence offered was the authority of Thomas Jefferson - that's a classic case of the fallacy at work. The fact that Thomas Jefferson said it does not make it more or less true. Newton was an authority in his field - but he also believed in alchemy. Authority does not constitute evidence by itself, it can at best provide additional support to an ALREADY proven argument.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    223. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      yea yea when you don't have a counter you just troll its all part of it.

    224. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Your first examples aren't appeals to authority at all. Saying "Einstein says the theory of relativity is X" is only a claim of authorship - that's easy to verify.
      The third example is an extreme one but still an example - your mistake is to think that only that particularly extreme form is a fallacy. ANY case where you cite authority WITHOUT other evidence is a fallacy.

      Here are some less extreme (but equally fallacious) examples:
      "Einstein said the universe follows the theory of relativity. Einstein was an expert on the universe. Therefore the universe follows the theory of relativity" - Fallacy.

      VS.
      "Einstein said the universe follows the theory of relativity and offered significant scientific evidence for this which has thus far stood up to experimental verification and supported numerous other theories that have likewise stood up to testing" - NOT a fallacy.

      Or:
      "Einstein said that God does not play dice with the universe. Einstein was an expert on the Universe. Therefore God exists" - Fallacy.

      VS.
      "Einstein said that God does not play dice with the universe. His choice of words and subsequent rejection of the uncertainty principle therefore strongly suggests that Einstein believed God exists" - Not a fallacy.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    225. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by berashith · · Score: 1

      ok, agreed then. And to get back to the original topic, apparently how many people agree is not a useful metric for validity of a though to the current administration .

    226. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by alexo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You may have fought for something, all right, but it wasn't for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      At least not for you and me.

      Well I can tell you it definitely wasn't for YOU! The government's reasons for doing things frequently don't align with the individual's. I was a Marine in GHWB's Gulf War. From a government perspective it was definitely about oil. To me, those would have been unlawful orders, except that I saw what Hussein did to the people of Kuwait. THAT is why I served, sir. Our family friend that we wave to daily as he strolls by in his wheelchair didn't lose his legs in the current Iraq venture because of GWB's daddy complex, he did it because he believed he was trying to help the Iraqi people, because he believed (however misguided it may be) that he was helping to keep our liberties safe. He paid for it with loss of use of half of his body, at the hands of the very people he was trying to help.

      Hmmm... You do realize that the same Iraqis that put your neighbour in a wheelchair "did it because they believed they were trying to help the Iraqi people, because they believed (however misguided it may be) that they were helping to keep their liberties safe", right? You should also realize that, objectively, they had a better justification than you did, because they were fighting an invader on their homeland.

      And to have some cumstain POS like you denigrate the sacrifice that he made makes my blood boil!

      Outtascope's dictionary:
      cumstain POS like you, n.: A person who disagrees with me, whose argument I cannot refute.

      Your resorting to anger, name calling and srawman arguments are classical symptoms of cognitive dissonance. You should consider stopping throwing tantrums and starting addressing the issues.

      For the record, the AC did not denigrate anything. He did state that whatever you (and by extension, your neighbour) were fighting for had absolutely no positive effect on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in your country (that little "At least not for you and me" part that you neglected to include in your quoting). Personally, I happen to agree with him.

      But I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who fought (and continue to fight in Afghanistan), even the ones who committed some awful acts, did it out of a love for their country, for their fellow citizens, and for the principles that they represent (regardless of how far we may come from actually attaining them).

      I would very much like to know which principles exactly justified this.

      They did it for you and me and the Iraqi/Afghan people.

      No, they didn't. Some of them (maybe even most of them) believed that they were doing it for those stated reasons, while some of them used it as a convenient excuse.

      It's real easy to take a stand against something from the cozy confines of the internet, but you best drag your ass out there and do it in the real world before you decide to slander several million Americans who put their countrymen before themselves.

      The AC made a statement. Do you have anything (other than jingoistic fervour) to counter it?

    227. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by alexo · · Score: 1

      Not long ago, a huge portion of the country was treated as subhuman while our leaders were playing with the idea of wiping out human civilization. We got through that, and we can sure as hell get through this.

      You got through that because the "huge portion of the country [who] was treated as subhuman", as well as members of the "human civilization" facing wipe-out had very strong incentives to turn things around (read: no viable alternatives)

    228. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      It seems everyone is jumping to a (likely) conclusion: that the administration is going to do absolutely nothing based on this petition.

      Please re-read the submission. It clearly states that the White House refuses to comment on the petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action. This is standard practice... you don't comment on preliminary investigations. Ever. You also don't comment when something specific is demanded that may or may not be legal, but is not within the scope of your arm of the government -- you instead pass it off to the appropriate department and leave it at that.

      Of course, they *could* have said "We've passed this off to the appropriate department, as it demands specific action that is outside the scope of the White House." This would have looked just as weasely though, while also requiring them to do something that may be considered an endorsement of action.

      Not condoning their response, just pointing out that it isn't as black and white as people seem to assume.

    229. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Ok. Claims of authorship you say, not appeals to authority. I would say that they're both, but fine, if it will satisfy you, here are some modified versions:
      "My physics professor says that the theory of relativity says X"
      "My literature professor says that the meaning of _Harrison Bergeron_ is Y"
      There. Modified versions that are not claims of authorship, but are appeals to authority, and are non-fallacious. As for my third example, I do not mistakenly "think that only that particularly extreme form is a fallacy". That is another kind of fallacy, known as a strawman argument. You are claiming that I made an argument that I did not make and demonstrating how easily you can demolish that argument. The reality is that I presented an example that very clearly was a fallacious appeal to authority using the same subject as one of the prior examples. I made no claim whatsoever that it was the only form that a fallacious appeal to authority could take. Also, since I've changed the subjects in my other examples, I'll go ahead and modify my third example:
      "My physics professor says that the clear meaning of _Harrison Bergeron_ is Z, and he's a really smart guy, so it must be Z, so there, argument closed."
      There, I think that still works well as an example of a fallacious appeal to authority.

      Now, as to your claim that "ANY case where you cite authority WITHOUT other evidence is a fallacy", I just don't agree. When you cite an authority as your only evidence, it's generally a weak argument, to be sure, but it's not a fallacy. That's one of the reason I used original authors in my first two examples the first time around. Original authors are generally considered to be very reliable experts on their own original works. Their own assertions about those works are therefore constitute very strong arguments all by themselves. If you insist that there's some special case when the subject of an appeal to authority is an author, then you can substitute any other expert who really should know. In the case of Einstein you could use a physicist who worked on the GPS system all the way from its original conception, for example.

      Your other examples are pretty good. I will point out that I'm not sure your first example actually is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Is there a variant that covers putting words in the mouth of a respected authority? Is that the appeal to authority fallacy or just an outright false statement? I'm not aware of Einstein ever stating that the theory of relativity was actually a law of the universe and I'm pretty sure he understood that it was just a model.

    230. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by evanism · · Score: 1

      QED.

      Repeat after me, drones. America is great. America is right. America is Just. America is the Best. "They" hate our freedoms.

      Look at the truth, Neo, and take the fucking red pill.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    231. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the vast majority of us don't get to vote for the corporaticrasy, just the politicians who are all bought off.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    232. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Sadly, both sides of this argument could be switched to talking about the RIAA and copyright instead of the military, and both sides would make as much sense.

      On the one hand, I can't see most members of the armed forces doing what they do if they weren't doing it for an ideal such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This doesn't mean that following orders always achieved that, but they invested their heart and soul in risking their lives because their superiors told them it was the right thing to do for the country. If they didn't, they're cold-blooded mercenaries, and such people usually sell out or burn out before too long.

      On the other hand, there's my butchering of a famous quote: "I will risk my life and fight for your right to disagree with me." I sure hope Outtascope was fighting for the myriads of Anonymous Cowards in the USA, because if he wasn't, then who exactly was he fighting for? Other Marines? Only his family? For the perpetuation of a specific government? It seems to me, the entire idea was that he was fighting so that Anonymous Cowards wouldn't have to. That some of those ACs would feel that his fighting was not necessary should be beside the point. Just because you believe something doesn't always make it true. And just because the government is using you as part of heavy-handed techniques to prop up an outmoded form of governance doesn't make it true or right. I believe this is the point the GP was attempting to make with his overblown rhetoric.

    233. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The only thing that's changed is perception. How sad is it that Americans of all things are sounding more Canadian, and Canadians are sounding more American? Don't get the point, well I'll explain. Canadians are well known for their, "Well it's already done, the past is already past, and it's already written...so what can we do." Today it's Americans echoing that sentiment, where as Canadians simply aren't taking it, and refusing to believe that the government has the end-be-all power.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    234. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Try again, this time by reading the fucking bill or at the very least the digested version from somebody who knows their stuff. I'll just quote the much more knowledgeable Michael Geist on the subject:

      Bill C-11, the Canadian copyright reform bill, is the latest iteration of several attempts at Canadian copyright reform. There is a lot to like about the bill: it includes an expansion of the fair dealing provision, new consumer rights for format shifting, time shifting, and backup copies, a provision facilitating user generated content, a new distinction between commercial and non-commercial infringement, as well as a fair and effective approach to Internet provider liability. Some of these provisions are not perfect (flexible fair dealing would be better than the C-11 model, eliminating statutory damages for non-commercial infringement is needed), but the bill is far better than prior Conservative copyright bills.

      I was genuinely suprised to hear that C-11 actually had positive sides to it, but apparently it does. If the bad parts are corrected, it could be a win for the people.

    235. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Those aren't esses or effs. Those are integral symbols. Madison and Jefferson weren't mathematicians but Hamilton was. Oh wait, wrong Hamilton.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    236. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      By itself it isn't. That's the call to popularity -another fallacy. But again - it's only a fallacy if used by itself. If you provide other evidence, it's not.

      The reason we support democracy isn't because the majority is more likely to be right (they aren't) but because the minority IN POWER is more likely to be corrupt.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    237. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      there's nothing he could do about it except refuse to deploy troops anywhere and order everyone to take a 4-year vacation.

      As they say, "That'll do, pig."

      If Congress were to declare an actual War or emit a Letter of Marque or Reprisal, I'm quite sure he'd implement them, though.

      Not a fan of wars, but he's still our best hope.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    238. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >There. Modified versions that are not claims of authorship, but are appeals to authority, and are non-fallacious.

      Actually they ARE they claims of authorship. The only thing you argue in those lines is that Person X said Y.

      You said nothing about Y itself. It only becomes a fallacy if you add: "therefore Y is true".

      The GP did so - he gave a quote implying he believes it true, with no evidence of his own. Now if all he was saying was that Thomas Jefferson said that, it wouldnt' be a fallacy (we can look up if it's true but the argument is fine) - but if, as in this case, he is saying that BECAUSE Jefferson said that it is TRUE - then that IS a fallacy (especially as he offered NO other proof).

      >"My physics professor says that the clear meaning of _Harrison Bergeron_ is Z, and he's a really smart guy, so it must be Z, so there, argument closed."
      There, I think that still works well as an example of a fallacious appeal to authority.

      Yes, it's a perfect example. Now replace "Physics professor with "Thomas Jefferson" and everything after "that" with the GP's quote - and you have the argument that I responded to the in the first place. Hence I called it a fallacy.

      >When you cite an authority as your only evidence, it's generally a weak argument, to be sure, but it's not a fallacy.

      Sorry, but it is, this is one reason why wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable research source - since the only evidence it offers for it's content is citations from authority. That is not proof - therefore the entire wikipedia is fallacious. Not all fallacy's are untrue of course, but you cannot consider a fallacious argument proven.
      In the wikipedia example - it need not be a fallacy, it only becomes so if you use it that way. If you see wikipedia not as a source of data, but as a source of refferences from which data may be gathered and then evaluate those citations yourself - then your research is valid. If you use the wikipedia information by itself and say "it's right because it had citations" then you are committing a fallacy.

      >Original authors are generally considered to be very reliable experts on their own original works.

      True - to an extent - but every original author worth his salt will also tell you that critics FREQUENTY see things in their works that they had put there and not REALIZED they were doing so until it was pointed out to them. Writing, being creative, is influenced by subconscious thoughts. Part of the message of your work is unknown even to the writer (and as a writer I've had exactly this happen to me - particularly at university I've had lecturers praise me for deeper levels of meaning in my writing, some of which I had not REALIZED I had put there until somebody else pointed it out). To give an example, I wrote a play in 2nd year called "The power of God" about two soldiers manning a nuclear missile turret during the cold war. I named them Michael and Damon. While they were both insane, Michael had a morality to his insanity while Damon had lost all control. That Michael is the name of an Angel and Damon sounds like Demon I didn't realize until a lecturer remarked on it - and then I realized I'd done it on purpose without knowing I was doing it.

      That by itself shows why authority by itself isn't evidence.

      >Their own assertions about those works are therefore constitute very strong arguments all by themselves.

      See above.

      > If you insist that there's some special case when the subject of an appeal to authority is an author, then you can substitute any other expert who really should know.

      My point was that saying "X said Y" is not an appeal to authority since the only claim in that argument is "said". That is verifiable. It only becomes a fallacy if you say: "X said Y, therefore Y is true"

      >Your other examples are pretty good. I will point out that I'm not sure your first example actually is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Is there a variant that covers putting words in the mouth of a respected a

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    239. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by science-heretics · · Score: 1

      From the European point of view... The whole idea of rebellion and revolting seems so old. It was part of an earlier, uglier world. The thing you should never have, is a war inside your own borders. That's bad, m'kay? Americans are luckly enough not to have had it happen in a long time. And that's good. My guess is, a real armed revolution in the US would set you back about 50 years and you would never ever regain the status of super power. I might twist the saying to "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner, in a welfare state the wolves are domesticated to puppies". Usually this is good. The problem is, two puppies and a sheep are defenseless when a bear enters the arena.

    240. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by unwastaken · · Score: 1

      The first two issues here are clearly local government, while the third may be a state OR federal government issue. However, in my experience, when people talk about "the government" they are usually referring to the federal government. I would imagine that was the case here.

      Furthermore, I suspect that he was being slightly hyperbolic when he said "always" making it worse. Few libertarians argue that all government is completely bad. The (federal!) government could get FAR smaller without cutting off basic services.

    241. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      That's one difference, but there are far more. The insurgents we're fighting are neither self-financed nor equipped, they're not temporary soldiers, and they're far more trained. It's also arguable whether they are actually engaged in defensive fighting (certainly not Iraq where they were foreigners, though possibly true for some fraction of Afghan), but if you consider their military and political leaderships it doesn't qualify as defensive.

      That last part is why they aren't given POW status, which a lawful militia member would. It's not because we call them 'terrorists' (that's simply why we don't care what happens to them), it's the fact that they're persona non grata in all UN member states. A proper definition is absolutely necessary when you're talking about constitutional law.

    242. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Baseless, reactionary dogmatic negativity is no more inherently valid than baseless, reactionary dogmatic patriotism. (shrug)

      Someone slobbering senseless 'rah rah America' is brainless.
      Someone slobbering senseless 'i hate America' is EQUALLY brainless.

      --
      -Styopa
    243. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Actually they ARE they claims of authorship. The only thing you argue in those lines is that Person X said Y.
      You said nothing about Y itself. It only becomes a fallacy if you add: "therefore Y is true".

      Now I think you're being ridiculous just to be contrary. How in the blue blazes are those claims of authorship unless the physics professor and the literature professor _are_ Albert Einstein and Kurt Vonnegut? Also, the quotes did not say "nothing" about Y, they said that Y was stated by X, who is someone in a position to know, based on their title. There is clearly an implicit claim similar to "therefore Y is true". Those examples clearly are (non-fallacious) appeals to authority.

      The GP did so - he gave a quote implying he believes it true, with no evidence of his own.

      I think you meant GGGGGGGGP since the GP of your post was you. And why is an implicit belief that it's true suddenly ok to make it a an appeal to authority (fallacious or not), but my examples needed a "therefore it's true"? I think you're just making this up as you go along. As for it being a fallacy or not, let's consider who Jefferson was. He was one of the founding fathers of the country and he was its third President. He was the principal author of the declaration of independence, which was one of the founding documents of the country and highly relevant to the discussion at hand and his writings influenced the US constitution and later interpretation of it. So, Jefferson is an acknowledged expert the subject. That doesn't make him absolutely right, but his opinion does matter. Simply parroting the opinion of someone who had a lot to do with founding the country in the first place certainly qualifies as an appeal to authority and the expert nature of the subject prevents it from being a fallacy. That doesn't make it automatically right, it just makes it an argument for a particular position and an appeal to authority. I should also note that the GGGGGGGGP quoted Jefferson's whole (admittedly poetic) argument.

      Yes, it's a perfect example. Now replace "Physics professor with "Thomas Jefferson" and everything after "that" with the GP's quote - and you have the argument that I responded to the in the first place. Hence I called it a fallacy.

      Except that Jefferson isn't just an alleged "really smart" guy. His expertise is clearly applicable to the subject at hand. Fred Hoyle was a really smart guy, and he insisted that Archaeopteryx was a fake. No actual palaeontologist believed that, to my knowledge. Citing his opinion as an argument for a palaeontology debate was fallacious, but citing his opinion for a debate about stellar formation, where he was an acknowledged expert, was not. He could still be wrong, of course.

      Sorry, but it is, this is one reason why wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable research source - since the only evidence it offers for it's content is citations from authority. That is not proof - therefore the entire wikipedia is fallacious. Not all fallacy's are untrue of course, but you cannot consider a fallacious argument proven.

      Ok. You've completely jumped the shark here. "the entire wikipedia is fallacious", because they only cite authorities? Now you're just being an epistemological nihilist. You're essentially saying that every collection of knowledge is false with the possible exception of your own personal research, and then only to yourself (and maybe you don't think that's valid either). Fortunately, I don't have have to listen to your argument because you can't prove that you exist. I should point out that your argument here about Wikipedia disagrees with something you wrote in a previous post:

      "Einstein said the universe follows the theory of relativity and offered significant scientific evidence for this which has thus far stood up to experimental verification and supported numerous other theories that have likewise stood up to testing"

    244. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You're right further debate is pointless as you apparently don't speak English. You argue with me on points when I'm busy agreeing with you for crying out loud.

      Suffice to say - stick to the basic definition: an appeal to authority WITHOUT OTHER EVIDENCE is fallacious.
      It's not the appeal -it's the appeal BY ITSELF. Fallacious doesn't make it untrue - but it does make the argument invalid so it ought to be dismissed and the issue settled in some other manner.

      In this particular case Jefferson was making a generalized statement about all governments anywhere and anywhen - by definition there can be no true expert-by-involvement in THAT (unless you own a time machine I suppose). Even the greatest scholars of history would hesitate to speak in such absolutes but Jefferson was something else too: a politician - and they do it all the time.
      That in my book makes them - even on subjects where they have particular expertise - highly untrustworthy. So even if an appeal to authority by itself was not a fallacious argument then an appeal to authority involving a politician should be assumed to have a selfish or self-justifying true goal. At least, in my experience.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    245. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Sure. Insulting my ability to read English is a great way to clear up a debate. Which points do I argue with you where you agree with me? Sorry, but the posts have gotten so long it would be nice if you could provide a reference.

      As for sticking to the definition. I was sticking to the definition. Possibly a subtly different definition to yours. I had thought your definition had been pulled from Wikipedia, which you called Fallacious in its entirety, but I just went back and checked and that was an AC, was it you? In any case, if you're sticking to the definition, then you're appealing to the authority of whoever wrote that definition so, by your own argument, your argument is fallacious and should be dismissed. I really don't see how you can get around that with the statements you've made so far. Oh, I know how, insult my capacity to understand and declare the matter settled. Agreeing to disagree is one thing. Declaring that I'm just an idiot and you're right is another (as a matter of fact, it's another common rhetorical fallacy).

      Actually, Jefferson's comment was both general and specific. He was talking about Shay's rebellion. You're onto something when you point out that Jefferson was a politician. The problem is that you then end up in the same morass as the global warming debate. No expert opinion, or research done by an expert is safe there because they are all accused of having political motives. The problem is, when you cut things finely enough, all knowledge is collected by authorities, so appeal to any knowledge in any way is a form of appeal to authority. So, if all appeals to authority are fallacious, where are we then?

    246. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      And THAT my friends is another example of a fallacy. In this case the false dichotomy. The poster is attempting to imply that to reject the fallacy of call-to-authority one must reject anything learned from another person, implying that all knowledge is either brand new or a call to authority.

      Actually, not to put too fine a point on it, no. I did not say, infer, nor imply that rejecting call-to-authority meant one must reject anything learned from another person. What I implied was that you had learned that call-to-authority was a fallacy from someone, and, thus, you were committing the same fallacy you accused AmiMoJo of committing.

      Now, obviously, I could be mistaken about that. It's entirely possible that you've spent the last fifteen years constructing and conducting double blind experiments intended to falsify the claim that calls-to-authority are a good way to draw conclusions about the universe. I would be surprised to learn that at this late date, however, as you spent a hundred and fifty words telling all about the different possible sources of knowledge, but without ever saying how you knew that call-to-authority was a fallacy. One reason I say that is that call-to-authority is not a fallacy. If it were then we wouldn't go to a medical doctor when we wanted treatment for symptoms, the Office of Management and Budget when we want to know the effects of the President's new economic plan, nor to Carl Sagan when we want to know how many stars are in the galaxy. The actual fallacy that you're alluding to is called "appeal to inexpert authority" by Robert Paul Churchill in his book Logic: An Introduction. If you'll refer to pages 470 and 471 of the second edition of that book you'll find four rules that yield a valid appeal to expert authority. They are 1. The individual must be known as an authority on the subject under consideration. An expert in one field is not necessarily knowledgeable about another field. 2. There should be a limited amount of disagreement among experts in the field. The greater the degree of controversy among more-or-less equally qualified experts, the less reliable the judgement of any particular expert. 3. The expert should present, as far as possible, the evidence on which the judgement is based. In other words, the expert should present his or her reasons for a judgement, and argument, rather than merely expressing an opinion. 4. If the subject is in a new field about which there is little accepted knowledge, the expert consulted should have a reputation for having made successful predictions or accurate appraisals in the past.

      So, if we return to the original question that killfixx, luther349, dbet, letherial, artor3, and AmiMoJo were discussing we would find ourselves asking whether Thomas Jefferson were an expert regarding government, revolution, liberty, and violence. If he were, then no fallacy was committed.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    247. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by fahlesr1 · · Score: 1

      "What no one seemed to notice... was the ever widening gap... between the government and the people. The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway... and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that... one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. But the one great shocking occasion... never comes. That's the difficulty."

      - Milton Mayer (1908-1986) journalist and educator, writing about the Nazi takeover of Germany from the point of view of the average citizen, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1938-45

      It will never "get bad enough" for people to wake up. You can't wait for an external event to cause people to join you. You need to evangelize, you need to get out and spread your message. You need to be the one forcibly waking people up by shaking them out of their nice comfortable ignorance. Its hard work, its frustrating work, but its also the only way we'll ever "take our America back."

    248. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by djl4570 · · Score: 1

      It depends on what the meaning of is is. :)

    249. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by Iman+Azol · · Score: 1

      Apparently they didn't control the schools well enough to stop you from becoming an illiterate retard. I notice those who hate publik skool most are always those who clearly benefited least, but believe they're privy to some higher truth.

    250. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      i clearly won this if all you can do is flame post as a counter its just like real politics when they cant counter they just throw dirt.

    251. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >. The problem is, when you cut things finely enough, all knowledge is collected by authorities, so appeal to any knowledge in any way is a form of appeal to authority. So, if all appeals to authority are fallacious, where are we then?

      And THAT is why science is meant to be open and freely shared. So that the claims of a scientist don't just rest on his reputation - but on empirical EVIDENCE.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    252. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The appeal to authority has been held as a fallacy and proven to be one since ancient Greek times. I know it because I studied philosophy. Now as it stands I don't know about American Universities but in the rest of the world if you want a degree in a subject you are expected to do independent RESEARCH - merely knowing what the lecturer says - even if you know all of it by heart - will NOT let you pass. In the humanities the research requirements are even HIGHER. Classes literally consist of telling you what physical evidence exists - and exams of writing your own theories about what that evidence might mean.

      Now relying on an expert is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy. The appeal to authority is ONLY a fallacy if that is your ONLY source of evidence. We don't go to a doctor because he as a sign saying "doctor" in front of his door. We go to a doctor because he has a paper on his wall where a reputable institute of learning decrees that they have evaluated his skills at applying the empirical SCIENCE of medicine. Indeed when a doctor comes up with a new treatment we expect him to follow the scientific method to prove it's efficacy.

      We didn't just BELIEVE Christiaan Barnard when he said heart transplants could save lives (long before any other organ transplants were possible). He had to present empirical evidence that what he was proposing could work in theory before he was allowed to attempt one on a real person - and it had to be somebody who would be CERTAIN to die anyway if she didn't get a new heart. We didn't believe him until he PROVED it. Even though he was at that stage already one of the most respected cardiologists in the world.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    253. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You nailed #1, those arguments (in different words) were used against the first modern sewerage system deployed to clean up London's 19th century filth.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    254. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      My point was government is not ALWAYS bad (as the OP had opined), the day-to-day mundane infrastructure of modern life that they provide are right in front of your face. And yeah, as others have pointed out it could (theoretically) be done privately, but it wasn't, and historical events such as the Dark Ages strongly suggest that it wouldn't.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    255. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Yes. I agree with that. But if _all_ appeal to authority is fallacious, then you can't use anything from any of the original researchers or peer reviewers or anyone reporting on the original research in any way in an argument.

    256. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes you can - provided you also include the evidence they gave. In which case - it's not an appeal to authority.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    257. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      But when you include the evidence they give, you're still fundamentally saying X says Y. Why are the results to be believed? _You_ are the one who wrote: "wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable research source - since the only evidence it offers for it's content is citations from authority". You said that the entirety of Wikipedia was fallacious due to that, but Wikipedia frequently includes evidence from authorities it cites. If you stand by that declaration, how can you believe that other people making an argument can cite an authority and the evidence they've gathered?

    258. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      The appeal to authority has been held as a fallacy and proven to be one since ancient Greek times.

      So, the ancient Greeks were authorities on the subject of fallacies? And you wish me to accept their claims on that basis?

      I know it because I studied philosophy.

      So, you're something of an authority on the subject of ancient Greeks? And you wish me to accept your claims on that basis? ...if you want a degree in a subject you are expected to do independent RESEARCH...

      Perhaps so, but what if I'm not seeking a degree in the subject? What if I just want to know whether the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants?

      Classes literally consist of telling you what physical evidence exists - and exams of writing your own theories about what that evidence might mean.

      So what physical evidence exists that call-to-authority is always a fallacy, and how does the physical evidence relate to its meaning?

      Now relying on an expert is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy.

      So, relying on Thomas Jefferson is also not an appeal to authority fallacy.

      We didn't just BELIEVE Christiaan Barnard when he said heart transplants could save lives (long before any other organ transplants were possible). He had to present empirical evidence that what he was proposing could work in theory before he was allowed to attempt one on a real person

      So what empirical evidence is there that the heptatonic scale is a musical scale with seven pitches per octave?

      Furthermore, how did you, personally, discover that call-to-authority is a fallacy? I ask you not to do any additional research on this question. What I'm asking is what happened to you in your personal past. At some point you claim to have learned that call-to-authority is a fallacy, and you accepted that as a fact. What happened that day to convince you?

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    259. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >But when you include the evidence they give, you're still fundamentally saying X says Y.

      When they are scientists that evidence is empirical - so you are NOT saying that. You are pointing to empirical evidence, just about the only thing that ISN'T a fallacy is empirical evidence.

      Wikipedia doesn't offer proof, it only offers links to what it is based on. It's not a research source and rightfully any decent school will fail you for citing it. It relies on the authority of external sources. As I said that is not fallacious in itself- unless you accept a wikipedia page "as is". If you however investigate those sources and evaluate them independently on the basis of the empirical evidence they present then THAT is NOT a fallacy.

      Empirical evidence is never an appeal to authority - even if quoted since by definition ANYBODY could replicate the results - if not, then it isn't empirical evidence.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    260. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >So, the ancient Greeks were authorities on the subject of fallacies? And you wish me to accept their claims on that basis?

      No, but one of the valid measurements of the truth of a theory is how long people have tried and failed to prove it wrong. Theories that remain unchanged since ancient times are incredibly rare - and the few there are, are about as close to "truth" as any human knowledge will ever be.

      >So, you're something of an authority on the subject of ancient Greeks? And you wish me to accept your claims on that basis? .

      Clearly you know nothing of "philosophy". I studied PHILOSOPHY - that did include ancient greek philosophy but also most other historical philosophers and major centers of it - I even studied African philosophy and all that was just - background. My speciality within the field of philosophy was logic - so while history is very valuable in the study of philosophy - it's by no means the entirety or even the focus of philosophy - and least of all in logic.

      >Perhaps so, but what if I'm not seeking a degree in the subject? What if I just want to know whether the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants?

      Then fuck quotes and do some actual research and make up your mind based on empirical data. What empirical data exists ? They are called history books. If you see a recurring pattern that supports this theory that's strong evidence for it. If not - then there isn't. Then you know how it's always been - that's half the problem. The other half is: "does it always have to be like that?" - and on that one, since there isn't any real way to prove it, the question is up to you. That somebody like Jefferson seemed to believe "yes" is NOT evidence (that's where the appeal to authority comes in).

      >So what physical evidence exists that call-to-authority is always a fallacy, and how does the physical evidence relate to its meaning?

      I said empirical, not physical. As it happens the field of logic is the underlying field of mathematics and it obeys mathematical rules. Every single established fallacy can be mathematially PROVEN. They are as certain and reliable as 2+2 = 4... in fact - they are part of the REASON why 2+2 = 4.

      >So, relying on Thomas Jefferson is also not an appeal to authority fallacy.

      There's a difference between relying on an expert for the rendering on a service and relying on an expert for the discovery of truth. I clearly ONLY meant the former. Comparing a doctor's visit to Jefferson's ideas on history is a very weak analogy as the two scenarios have nothing in common. The doctor can do 90% of his work by looking at established and empirical scientific fact (as it stands at any given moment). Any scholar of history will tell you that in history there is no such thing as established and empirical fact. The physical evidence is little to nothing at best and ANY theory that accounts for them is as valid as ANY other theory that also does. Indeed the best way to get an A in university history is to write a theory that directly contradicts what your lecturer believes - if you can back it up from the tiny amount of evidence that ever exists (past historians are always rejected as a source by the way) then you've done your job. So Jefferson was speaking about a subject where the very idea of an expert is... well... ludicrous. There is no such thing as an expert on history - only theorists of history can ever exist as there is simply not enough evidence for anything more. In fact to use proper scientific parlance: you can't even find a theory on historical events - hypotheses is the best you can hope for. Sure you can know the date of the Boston tea party. That's not useful to a historian. We have some evidence of the context from writings of the time - but we have no proof that those writings were anything but false propaganda. Consider that they allign with some written British laws... well that's more evidence, but again. What REALLY motivated Paul Revere ? Did he really get

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    261. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      "When they are scientists, that evidence is emperical" Let me rephrase that:
      "X is a scientist and claims that evidence Y is emperical, therefore evidence Y is emperical"
      See, this is the problem I have. You keep using arguments like this, and I don't have a problem with these arguments as arguments, I do have a problem with the fact that you insist that you're correct in your definition of fallacious appeal to authority, but you still keep using a type of argument you're claiming is always fallacious to argue for your definition. You have me pulling my hair out. When a scientist presents their experiments, they're generally presenting their conclusions, not the raw data. Are scientific papers acceptable arguments for you? They shouldn't be, because of the way you've defined appeal to authority as always fallacious. A scientific paper is just "x says y". A peer reviewed paper is just "w says z, where z is 'x is correct when they say y'". You've tried to define appeal to authority as an absolute fallacy always, but all forms of knowledge not from direct personal experience (and even then you can argue about your senses being unreliable reporters) are logically equivalent in some way to an authority you're appealing to when you use them for the sake of argument.

      Wikipedia doesn't offer proof, it only offers links to what it is based on. It's not a research source and rightfully any decent school will fail you for citing it. It relies on the authority of external sources. As I said that is not fallacious in itself- unless you accept a wikipedia page "as is". If you however investigate those sources and evaluate them independently on the basis of the empirical evidence they present then THAT is NOT a fallacy.

      Wikipedia specifically has a policy against original research. Despite that, in many cases, it presents empirical evidence right in the article and provides a cite to where it came from. I think you seriously overreached in painting the entirety of Wikidpedia as fallacious appeal to authority, especially since the whole point of the citations is that wikipedia pages aren't meant to be taken "as is". Still, ultimately, the empirical evidence you'll find if you follow the links comes is still often second or third hand. Even when it's direct from the primary researchers, it's still their interpretations. Even if it's a direct data dump from their instruments, who calibrated them? Who are you believing about what the experimental set up actually was. Who are you trusting that it really _is_a data dump from their instruments and not doctored?

      Empirical evidence is never an appeal to authority - even if quoted since by definition ANYBODY could replicate the results - if not, then it isn't empirical evidence.

      Ok then. Replicate the results of of the Hubble telescope for the last week for me then. Or how about from the Large Hadron Collider? Better yet replicate the results of the SN 2003fg supernova (by the way, if you can actually do that, can I have a ride in your time machine?). The first one, virtually no-one can afford. The second two, no-one from earth can do again because they were observations of unique events in time. In order to observe them again, you'd need FTL travel or a time machine (seriously though, I'll agree to any definitions you want about anything for a ride). I'm going to claim though that those observations are still empirical evidence.

    262. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >See, this is the problem I have. You keep using arguments like this, and I don't have a problem with these arguments as arguments, I do have a problem with the fact that you insist that you're correct in your definition of fallacious appeal to authority, but you still keep using a type of argument you're claiming is always fallacious to argue for your definition. You have me pulling my hair out.

      No, I'm not. I don't consider evidence is empirical because a scientists SAYS so. I consider evidence empirical because it conforms to the definition of the damn word. Most importantly: repeatedable. If OTHER scientists can't replicate the results then they aren't empirical. In fact - ANYBODY can replicate the results if it's empirical - a scientist is just more likely to have practical access to the required equipment.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    263. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      What Orwell had to say about English was a lot more useful

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language

      English doesn't make you stupid, but it sure makes it easier...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    264. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      But ultimately, unless you're doing the experiment yourself, you're considering the evidence to be empirical because it "conforms to the definition of the damn word" because "a scientists [sic] says so". You believe Dr. (PHD from the University of Hamburg) Hans A working on the big, multi-national physics experiment that you've heard about when he releases last month's instrument data. You do this, even though all arguments that the experiment even exists are fallacious by your definition. Even if you've toured the facility, it's pretty difficult to tell if it isn't just a fake without taking someone's word for it. I seriously doubt that you believe Dr. (PHD, MD, DDS, MBA, DVM from the University of Cereal Boxtop) Hans B from the Electric Universe Research Institute when he presents the data collected from the instruments on the Institutes orbital research station that their website assures you exists. Both researchers are reporting empirical data gathered through a well described experimental process. Anyone can replicate (or fail to replicate, as the case may be) the results by repeating the experiments. Based on your definition of appeal to authority, the arguments for whether or not it's even worthwhile trying to replicate either experiment are equal, since they're both equally fallacious.

      You also didn't address at all my point about empirical evidence. Is an observed event from the past that can never be witnessed again or repeated not empirical evidence?

    265. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > Is an observed event from the past that can never be witnessed again or repeated not empirical evidence?

      I did. I said it's not empirical evidence. There's a good reason for that. Remember the old (but very true) observation that if 12 people all saw the same accident you would get 12 conflicting eyewitness accounts ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    266. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by davydagger · · Score: 1

      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.

      THIS!

      I am glad to know my military service is up in two months.

      will NOT be re-enlisting.

      To quote Mark Twain "I love my country, but I fear my government."

    267. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      So, since the same event never happens twice, then by your reasoning, no science is empirical. You can never perform the same chemical experiment twice. You'll never get the exact quantities the same, or the temperature or the actual motion and position of the individual molecules, nor can you isolate it from local magnetic and gravitational conditions or from unknown and possibly unknowable factors. Nothing is repeatable, therefore, if evidence is empirical only if it's repeatable, no evidence is empirical. You can't use absolutes, you have to draw the line somewhere on what's acceptable evidence and what isn't, usually by means of statistics.

      Your statement that "if 12 people all saw the same accident you would get 12 conflicting eyewitness accounts", if you truly believe it applies in all cases and not just for spontaneous observations of crimes and accidents, means that you don't believe in empirical science at all. After all, if you truly believe it, then you just blew peer review out of the water. Of course, you've previously done that anyway, since you believe that all appeal to authority is fallacious argument. The fact that peer review is a form of appeal to authority is right there in the name.

    268. Re:Dying from lack of surprise... by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      No, but one of the valid measurements of the truth of a theory is how long people have tried and failed to prove it wrong. Theories that remain unchanged since ancient times are incredibly rare - and the few there are, are about as close to "truth" as any human knowledge will ever be.

      That's an example of the fallacy known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, the idea that something is true or reliable because it's been around a long time.

      Clearly you know nothing of "philosophy". I studied PHILOSOPHY - that did include ancient greek philosophy but also most other historical philosophers and major centers of it - I even studied African philosophy and all that was just - background. My speciality within the field of philosophy was logic - so while history is very valuable in the study of philosophy - it's by no means the entirety or even the focus of philosophy - and least of all in logic.

      I think you're missing my point. What you're claiming is that you're something of an authority, and you got to be that way by studying other authorities. Furthermore, you're asking me to accept your claims based on that. Now one of two things must be true--either appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable, or appeal to authority is never acceptable. If appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable then I'm right, since that's the only thing I've been claiming all along--appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable. If appeal to authority is never acceptable then we must reject this argument of yours because it's an appeal to authority, and that's never acceptable.

      Then fuck quotes and do some actual research and make up your mind based on empirical data. What empirical data exists ? They are called history books. If you see a recurring pattern that supports this theory that's strong evidence for it. If not - then there isn't. Then you know how it's always been - that's half the problem. The other half is: "does it always have to be like that?" - and on that one, since there isn't any real way to prove it, the question is up to you. That somebody like Jefferson seemed to believe "yes" is NOT evidence (that's where the appeal to authority comes in).

      I think you've lost track of our discussion. As an initial matter, I claimed that appeal to authority isn't always a fallacy. Your response was that appeal to authority is always a fallacy, and that one needed to study the evidence to get a degree in philosophy. My point is that one doesn't need a degree in philosophy in order to make an argument. Now, if that's true, then it doesn't follow (from those premisses) that one needs to study the evidence in order to make an argument. In fact I'll go one step further, if one has agreed-upon premisses and means of inference then one can construct an argument without a degree in philosophy.

      I said empirical, not physical.

      Let me quote you. You said, "Classes literally consist of telling you what physical [sic] evidence exists - and exams of writing your own theories about what that evidence might mean."

      As it happens the field of logic is the underlying field of mathematics and it obeys mathematical rules.

      So, you're trying to convince me that mathematics depends on logic, and logic depends upon mathematics. That would mean that, together, they commit the fallacy of circulus in probando.

      Every single established fallacy can be mathematially PROVEN.

      I disagree. I think the formal fallacies can probably be proven mathematically. I think none of the informal fallacies can.

      They are as certain and reliable as 2+2 = 4... in fact - they are part of the REASON why 2+2 = 4.

      It's funny you should mention 2 + 2 = 4, since that's neither certain nor reliable. For example, let's ask the question whether 2 exists. Wouldn't you agree that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is meaningless if 2 doesn't exist? So, does it? I recall that Bertrand Russell was writing a monograph intending to prove that 1 exists. He had re

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
  2. Alright by Jethro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So lets go ask specific law enforcement agencies.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:Alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    2. Re:Alright by idbeholda · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    3. Re:Alright by SandmanWAIX · · Score: 2

      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?

    4. Re:Alright by evanism · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    5. Re:Alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Alright by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      The real problem.. and the real answer to the question... is that there's probably nothing illegal going on here. A politician accepted campaign contributions, and then introduced legislation that his contributor thought would be beneficial to the politician's constituents. That's all that provably happened. It's legal. The bitching afterward by the contributor that his bill didn't pass might make you think that the contributor *thought* they bought a law, but you can guarantee that at not point was such a thing explicitly said. And thanks to the Supreme Court, what few limits the Congress sought to impose on themselves to prevent this have been ruled Unconstitutional.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    7. Re:Alright by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Grope your genitals, or lock you up for the thought crime of using encryption

      So....we get to choose which they do? I can't guarantee which I would choose, but I can tell you with a great deal of certainty which I would choose.

    8. Re:Alright by Jethro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Small nitpick here: Dodd is not an elected official anymore. So he doesn't have a congressional district. He USED to be, and when he was he fought very hard for the MPAA... and now he has a very well-paying job with them. Shocking, I know.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    9. Re:Alright by Albanach · · Score: 2

      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?

      I agree that would be nice. Since they didn't, and since you ask, the answer would be the FBI and the US Attorney's Office. I believe you can contact them yourself if you believe a crime has been committed, it doesn't require the president.

    10. Re:Alright by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The President is the head of the Executive branch of the US government. Matters of law enforcement are the responsibility of the executive branch. The FBI and US Attorney General are below the President in this aspect. "The buck stops here" is dead and gone.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    11. Re:Alright by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      You're using the wrong method of getting things done, and expecting it to work because he's at the top. This is not how government works, not even remotely.

      If I knew the mayor of the city, I could maybe get him to stick his nose in a parking ticket I got. If .0081 percent of the city's population who don't know the mayor personally asked him to look into my parking ticket, nothing would get done. Especially not via a "request" website where it specifically states multiple times that it will not comment on any actual or potential investigation.

      Keep asking the wrong people to do things, the wrong way, and keep complaining when nothing happens. Let me know how your life turns out.

    12. Re:Alright by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Perhaps so. In fact, probably so. Doesn't mean some very strong spotlights shouldn't be pointed in that direction. What he did /is/ despicable and it should make all us Freedom/Democracy Lovers very, very nervous.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  3. Executive branch by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    1. Re:Executive branch by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Executive branch by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Executive branch by stms · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:Executive branch by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Executive branch by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      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?

    6. Re:Executive branch by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:Executive branch by eineerg · · Score: 1

      If the law has been broken i damn well do. Maybe not selectively but them selectively choosing not to enforce the law with regards to person in a position of power when it's brought to their attention by numerous individuals strikes me as highly immoral.

    8. Re:Executive branch by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More informed, really?

      There's a reason teachers don't teach details. It's because very few people can understand all the details of every field. Teachers and textbooks present simplified overviews of a field, so that interested students have a basic level of understanding to move on to further education later.

      This applies at every level. An elementary school teacher says "Congress makes laws". A High school teacher says "the committees of the House and Senate make bills, which are passes to become laws". A college professor says "The committees are influenced by lobbyists representing industries and activists who have interest in the bill" and in the real world, a politician finds that the committees are influenced by lobbyists, activists, legal precedent, and international treaties (which are themselves subject to a complicated procedure), and myriad other sources.

      This applies to every field. As more casual observers choose not to continue their education in a particular field, the study gets into more complex subjects. Knowing everything about everything is simply not possible today. There are too many fields with too much to know.

      Then, there's the Internet, with its vast availability of information. Surely, this will allow everyone to fully understand the complexities and nuances of every field, right? Absolutely not. There are few resources on the Web where one can go to study in adequate depth, and those arcane details are incomprehensible without the prior years of study to understand how all the details work together. Very few people want to devote that much time to studying online, so they'll abandon learning the complexity, and will simply follow the advice of some person or website they trust.

      Today, it appears that such trusted websites are predominantly social networks, where people hear the opinions of their peers, read a one-page summary of an issue, and instantly believe themselves qualified to debate it. This is why candidates with simple plans to fix everything get so much support from Internet-based grassroots movements, but can never gather support from the big corporations (who employ economic and political specialists who understand the complex consequences of the simple plans).

      People hear that the Federal Reserve Bank loaned out $16 trillion dollars without any special announcement, and they start rallying against the Fed for this policy of handing out money to banks. They flock to Ron Paul's banner, calling to eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank. The real story is that the $16 trillion figure was the cumulative total of one-day loans, meaning that a $100 loan for one month would be recorded as $3000, even though only $100 was loaned out, and $100 was paid back.

      The people in charge now understand the complexities of their fields, and the people in charge in the future will continue to understand the complexities of their fields. Hopefully, they will continue to ignore the uninformed masses, and take their short-sighted quick-fix plans with significant doses of salt.

      This is not to say that the Internet is useless. There is great potential for legitimate change to be effected via websites like the EFF's, where organizations with particular (and publicly-stated) goals can state their view on an issue, and the masses can donate their voice (by way of a petition signature and/or a monetary donation) to support the experts of the organization, who do understand the complexities involved.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    9. Re:Executive branch by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      You really expect an on-line petition is the right way to manage law enforcement decisions?

      Besides, at this point they haven't said that they are choosing not to enforce. They've only said they won't comment.

    10. Re:Executive branch by mentil · · Score: 2

      That line is crossed once you start handing prewritten bills to paid-for congressmen, and complain that 'your bill' received too much scrutiny from the people and should've been pushed through quicker and quieter.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    11. Re:Executive branch by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I'm sure it wouldn't intimidate him at all to know that federal prosecutors were breathing down his neck, looking for ANYTHING illegal.

      Because a guy like that has an otherwise clean record, yup yup.

      Aside: The question I ask myself sometimes about corruption is, what is it like to be the first person to be corrupt. Not knowing for sure that paying off a cop is going to work, not having a whole citadel of corruption around you showing you that people get away with it. The first cop running crooked, not knowing if he'll be stopped; the first politico scared shitless that someone will figure out he's taking bribes.

      Or maybe they're doing it because they're on drugs or alcohol and can't think straight for crap. I don't know.

    12. Re:Executive branch by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree he probably didn't break the law, but I'm running plays from the MPAA & RIAA handbook: Says right here, "If activity you dislike is not against the law, then slander the offender with derogatory terms alluding to rape, corruption and theft; Once properly vilified in the public eye via (possibly) fraudulent lawsuits, Make the act illegal by purchasing congressmen or offering them cushy high-pay jobs if they do your bidding."

      Shit. I lost the congressman price sheet... Well, maybe if we pool our money we could still buy a few -- wait, they'd still have more bought. Hmm, at the very least we could crucify Dodd in the public's eye. Oh, already done...people don't care. We're all too unemployed -- If we had jobs to offer anyone we'd take them ourselves.

      I... I do have the power to VOTE! YEAH MOTHERF--- ugh... almost forgot about Gerrymandering... Oh! I know! Guys! Why don't we just appeal directly to the Presi--DOH!

      You know what? This is the kind of helplessness that drives revolutionaries to do crazy things. I mean, if we went to war over taxation without representation, what should we do over Running an Entire Globe without representation?

    13. Re:Executive branch by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that no Police Investigation aside from those run by the Keystone Cops starts with a public announcement saying they will investigate.

      Is that always true in the US? In the UK, large public investivations are announced publicly after large debate in the media, commons and public (see e.g. the Leveson inquiry).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Executive branch by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Congress is full of lawyers, not economists. Should every state representative be forced to undergo a few years of education in economics before taking office? Congress is also supposed to authorize all military action. Should the representatives have requisite training in modern military tactics? Let's not forget the many bills affecting things like health care, building codes, and technology. By the time a representative is completely educated in all subjects necessary to fulfill his duties, he'll be dead!

      Relating only to the economy, I do have one other question: Who, exactly, are these true experts? Are they the ones who've managed large sums of money for decades and have shown themselves to understand the complexities of the economy reasonably well, or are they the ones who feed the hope of simplicity to a crowd of under-educated voters?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    15. Re:Executive branch by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      A comment on /. saying you can't know everything? You must be new here.

    16. Re:Executive branch by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      before the internet? haha! I can assure you there always was a significant portion of the populace who didn't believe and didn't trust the government, long long before the internet existed. You might have heard of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement? The Feminist Movement? All those and more were part of so-call counter-culture movement that went across the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s

  4. Who could say this was unexpected? by prehistoricman5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Fuck Beta
    1. Re:Who could say this was unexpected? by wonkavader · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Who could say this was unexpected? by CelticWhisper · · Score: 2

      Jill Stein?

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    3. Re:Who could say this was unexpected? by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Who could say this was unexpected? by twotailakitsune · · Score: 1

      Forgot to login. He is 34 (but should be 35 next month) Kevin Rose for President.

    5. Re:Who could say this was unexpected? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      This is silly. We need one more candidate, and that candidate has to emerge from a small group of people who have a structure around them which can make it possible for them compete.

      Neither I nor you (unless you're one of a very small number of people in the US) are nearly as likely to win as Mickey.

      Colbert would be a better choice than Mickey. But we really need someone who can actually win.

    6. Re:Who could say this was unexpected? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      This is how GWB won in 2000. Take Ralph Nader out of the picture and the decision wouldn't have been left up to the Supreme Court. Third parties always hurts the party they're most similar to, so their effect is usually negative to their cause.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    7. Re:Who could say this was unexpected? by prehistoricman5 · · Score: 1

      Ultimately my vote isn't going to affect anything except the popular vote. Obama would have to seriously fuck up to lose CA.

      --
      Fuck Beta
    8. Re:Who could say this was unexpected? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Which political party paid you to make this statement?

      --
      -
  5. Referred? by SandmanWAIX · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  6. Called it by gman003 · · Score: 1
  7. Did anyone really expect anything else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Did anyone really expect anything else? by eepok · · Score: 1

      I expected a better response. However, I didn't read the terms of participation which clearly states:

      "To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition. "

      Thus, I don't really fault them for declining to comment. It looks like another avenue will have to be taken.

  8. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:What? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:What? by JSBiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:What? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You can do all of those. It's called reporting a crime. The petition may be denied, but you certainly can petition and sometimes it's granted. For example if you petition for the arrest and investigation of that guy over there who you saw beating up elderly women in the park.

    4. Re:What? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      It is not a war. The American killed was an internet loser not on a battlefield. Most the stuff is police action type stuff not warfare. Oh, so saying bad stuff with the enemy is an act of war and not free speech? or not a simple police-level crime?

    5. Re:What? by SchroedingersCat · · Score: 1

      The President can order Attorney General to investigate the allegations. He is just not willing to respond for political reasons. I think it is an important lesson in how democracy really works in this country.

    6. Re:What? by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "Oh, so saying bad stuff with the enemy is an act of war and not free speech?"

      Usually, yes, if this saying bad stuff is combined with active organizing and support of armed aggression.

      "or not a simple police-level crime?"

      If it's inside jurisdiction you can pursue it as a crime.

    7. Re:What? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      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)

      So to get killed by a cop in the US not only do you have to be armed, but you also have to be resisting arrest? Wow. That's news to me. I thought American cops could just shoot whoever they wanted as long as there weren't too many civilian witnesses. BTW, in America you are always resisting arrest when a cop uses force against you. If he is using force against you obviously you must have been resisting, right?

      As far as the commander-in-chief of the US military being able to order anyone he wants killed, would you have a problem with it if he ordered your death or the death of someone you cared about? Probably he would have a good reason, like a twitter post critical of the DHS or something.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    8. Re:What? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      By all accounts he was unarmed when shot. Even in war you can't just shoot enemy solders who are not armed or resisting you. Assassination is never acceptable under international law.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:What? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Usually, yes, if this saying bad stuff is combined with active organizing and support of armed aggression.

      Yes, see the precedent of G. Gordon Liddy being shot in the head by a CIA team after he declared that federal agents should be shot in the head, because they could be wearing body armor. Oh wait, I mean see Brandenburg vs Ohio.

      They didn't even bother to bring charges against Al-Awlkai. Just like with war against Libya without Congressional authorization, Obama didn't do it because he had the Constitutional authority to do it.

      He did it because he could get away with it.

    10. Re:What? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      As the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, the president is within his authority to order military action against hostile military forces.

      Utterly false. It is up to Congress to declare War, not for a president to start a war by merely declaring a target to be a "hostile military force".

      Iran has a "hostile military force" - you'd be hostile too if your government had been overthrown by the CIA - can a president start shooting at the country without Congressional action? The Soviet Union had a "hostile military force" - could Kennedy have resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis by lobbing a few ICBM's at Russian military bases?

    11. Re:What? by alexo · · Score: 1

      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.

      The question is, can the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, at his sole discretion , declare any particular US citizen a traitor that has joined the enemy forces and orchestrate the targeted elimination of that individual?

      If that is the case, why are Gingrich and Romney still alive?

  9. Cop-out by Renstar · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:Cop-out by Mitreya · · Score: 2
      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!

  10. Darn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Darn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thank you for visiting the Department's "Contact Us" page. On behalf of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice would like to thank you for your many messages on law enforcement issues and activities and other matters of special interest to many groups across the nation. The Attorney General appreciates the fact that so many citizens have taken the time to express their views and thoughts on these important matters.

      By Mail

      Correspondence to the Department, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

              U.S. Department of Justice
              950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
              Washington, DC 20530-0001

      By Phone

      Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000

      Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line - 202-353-1555

      To call component officials, see the Directory of Department Officials

      By E-Mail

      E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. E-mails will be forwarded to the responsible Department of Justice component for appropriate handling.

      Please note:

              Before sending e-mail, please read our Privacy Policy for details about how we handle personal information.
              E-mail accounts are not available for service of official, case-related or legal documents and is not monitored for such submissions or for other time-sensitive communications.
              E-mails with attachments will be deleted as a precaution as they may contain viruses.
              Please include your mailing address in the event that the Department replies via United States Postal Service.

  11. So let me get this straight... by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by ktappe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:So let me get this straight... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Yep, Obama is all show and no go.

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

    4. Re:So let me get this straight... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:So let me get this straight... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      they listen in their capacity of policy making.

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

    6. Re:So let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think they ever responded to the petition to take these petitions seriously, 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 amusing (scroll down).

    7. Re:So let me get this straight... by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      The point of that website is collect names of those who are against the gov. This is so when they feel a revolution is coming, they just round up all the people who wanted to squash corruption through these online petitions.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    8. Re:So let me get this straight... by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Only because he was able to come out against the bit that had been removed the day before.

    9. Re:So let me get this straight... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Apparently the point of the service is to make it look like the White House is listening to the people.

      It's not doing a very good job then is it.

      I'm being flippant, but seriously, anyone politically aware enough to actually care about the petition is also aware when they're being fobbed off. It just gives a feeling of impotence.

    10. Re:So let me get this straight... by kenh · · Score: 1

      And let's not forget the latest - "he was shocked, shocked I tell you', to learn that someone, anyone with the word engineer in their education/job history could possibly be out of work in this economy.

      He asked a woman in a google+ town hall to send her husband's resume to him so he could personally look into this interesting phenomenon.

      Has the White House suddenly discovered H-1B visas?

      Did the Preident not think there were older white American with good job skills that couldn't find a job?

      Did the President really just want to see how many unemployed Americans would send him their resume?

      Or did he want to look concerned?

      --
      Ken
    11. Re:So let me get this straight... by PhinMak · · Score: 1

      Mod Up

    12. Re:So let me get this straight... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      What is the purview of the Executive branch?

      Wikipedia says, "The executive branch is the part of government that has sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state.[1] The division of power into separate branches of government is central to the idea of the separation of powers.[2]"

      That means that the service is to call the executive branch's attention to issues pertaining to the daily administration of the state.

      As a result, specific calls for investigation into other branches of government isn't really their purview -- it belongs to the AG and the FBI.

      What IS within their purview is a) calling out hidden clauses in legislation that may otherwise be rubber-stamped, b) raising issues with the makeup, formation, or execution of duties within the administration, or c) anything that will give them good publicity.

      A petition to reduce spending within the administration to fall below the amount allotted to the administration via taxation should be taken seriously. A petition to NOT go to war with some other country should be taken seriously. A petition to block SOPA due to clauses X, Y, and Z, which are not in the interests of the People should be taken seriously. A petition to block SOPA because it is unconstitutional should NOT be taken seriously (this should instead go to the other arms of government and the AG -- it will only be taken seriously by the Executive branch if it fulfills c) above).

  12. Declining to vote for Obama. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by decaffeinated · · Score: 1

      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:

      "“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.”

    2. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by bit+trollent · · Score: 2

      "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."

    4. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    5. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by Sipper · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      "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.

      You are clearly drinking the Kool-Aid. Barack Obama didn't pass anything. Congress passed the so-called "health-care reform" issue (in reality, a thinly veiled insurance company bailout through mandating everyone purchase coverage). They did this by hammering it down everyone's throat with the same despicable fear tactics the opposition used to oppose it. Your star-child Obama was nothing more than a partisan shill for this whole fiasco.

    8. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by timeOday · · Score: 2
      Check your facts:

      Dec. 16, 2009: President Obama signs a presidential memorandum ordering Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Defense secretary Robert Gates to acquire the state prison in Thompson, Illinois as the $350 million replacement for Guantanamo.

      May 19, 2010: The House Armed Services Committee, controlled by members of the president's own Democratic party, absolutely prohibits any opening of a Guantanamo detention replacement facility within these United States. To underline its ban, the powerful committee erupts in an unusual display of bipartisanship: The prohibition vote is unanimous.

      Have you forgotten all the fear-mongering that surrounded the proposal of imprisoning these people in the US? It was like a bad flashback to the Bush administration. When you could automatically win any argument by fear-mongering about terrorism. (A theory soundly proven by Bush's re-election in 2004).

      Do I hold Obama blameless? No. He should have fought longer & harder to keep his promise. But just writing this gave me a flashback to the whole Bush administration, it was like a fresh nightmare every day, idiots wielding fear like a club against reason, every damn day. You're welcome to your opinion, but IMHO it's a lot less bad now.

    9. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      No, this is REALLY the best reason not to vote for him. Because choosing executives to run his departments is one of his big epic fails. A decent choice in leadership would cause SOMEONE to step in and stop "We the People" from being a colossal insult to Us the People.

      Obama doesn't know how to run the Executive branch. He's incompetent. Fire him.

      Or maybe he's not incompetent. Maybe this is the response he wants, personally. Then he talks one way and acts another, in which case he's a snake. Fire him.

    10. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by Sipper · · Score: 1

      Ralph Nader? The guy who created mandatory seatbelt laws at the behest of the insurance companies, while claiming it was in the public good (because Nader knows best)? He's among the worst of the worst.

      That's your agument? Look, I'm not a fan of the "nanny state" either, but have you seen the result of a car accident when someone isn't wearing their seatbelt? It isn't pretty. Basically it boils down to (mostly) a list of bad endings: a) the person ripping their own face off after it smashed into the windshield, b) destroying of their knees after they smashed into the dashboard, c) the steering wheel breaking away (as it's designed to do) and the center shaft smashing into the driver's chest, d) the driver being thrown around the car and ending up apart and spread across several places, e) the driver being incredibly lucky to be thrown out the driver or passenger window during a side impact like the car being wrapped around a telephone pole.

      I've seen all of these. After a "b" accident I was asked by the driver to "please pull the piece of glass out of my leg, it's killing me" -- and the "piece of glass" turned out to be thier own broken bone sticking out of her leg. That gave me nightmares for weeks.

      And you want me to hate Ralph Nader because he made seatbelts manditory. sigh. That's not working for me; I want to see people at least in one piece after a car accident. Do you have a better argument?

      At least a protest vote for libertarians is still a protest vote, even if they are insane. A protest vote for Nader is like shopping at Sams Club because you think Walmart behaves badly.

      You've ignored that I said "or another Independent runner". The point is to vote for someone outside of the two-party system, and choosing specifically who using your own judgement. And preferably someone not insane. Geez.

    11. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Everybody is or becomes corrupt in this shitty political system that dominates the world.

      Please don't involve the rest of the world. They have their own problems, but atleast they don't have a two-party "democratic" system.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    12. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      I want to see people at least in one piece after a car accident.

      I want to see people in at most one piece after a car accident.

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    13. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      Well, but we (I'm part of the rest of the world) still are forced to live with corruption. Democracy (even if it is ironically a two-party system) doesn't work. However, what better choices do we have?

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    14. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Your first thought when choosing "using your own judgment" is the guy who no matter how you apologize, is not much different than the other options in thinking he knows best, and indeed has been around and part of the same political system just as long as most of the other candidates. If you truly think he is some kind of alternative, you need to actually do some research. Which I suspect you didn't, or you would give me more than a contrived excuse why some restrictions on freedom are good if they were supported by a guy you like, which is what your post comes across as.

      I understand your sentiment, but being a party-line voter for the third party is pretty pointless unless you're going to actually pick a better candidate. Third parties will never be elected in the United States. The election system does not allow it. So, when you vote third party, what you actually do is send a message to the two real parties what you like. Voting for Nader sends exactly the opposite message I want sent.

    15. Re:Declining to vote for Obama. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the whole reform bill is not merely some insurance company bailout. It does include policies that incentivize prevention over procedures. That is to say, it includes provisions whereby hospitals and health care officials can get paid based on keeping people from needing surgery and drugs instead of only paying based on what tests and surgery are performed and what drugs are prescribed. Health is more than just treatment.

      Of course both sides of the aisle completely ignore this part of the debate, choosing to focus on how to pay for the bill or how many additional people get covered because of it instead.

  13. Who is Chris Dodd... by dosware · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Who is Chris Dodd... by infurnus · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sean Connery: I do believe that would be your mother, Trebek! Mwehehehe

  14. Re:Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. Dear Sirs... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1, Troll

    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...

    1. Re:Dear Sirs... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      LOL mod Funny or Insightful XD

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. This is overblown nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:This is overblown nonsense by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      Way to miss the mark.

      Elected potiticians should be making decisions on the behalf of their electorate, which is made up of mostly citizens, and a few local businesses/corporations. Unfortunately, corporations have a disproportionate ability to be able to provide campaign funds versus regular citizens.

      Corruption in general is making decisions for personal gain instead of the reason you were employed. When corporations provide funds to polititcians (in return for policy decisions), they can use this to run bigger/lavish campaings, hopefully pull move votes and keep themselves a cushy high paying job, meanwhile ignoring the majority of their electorate.

      Also dont play down the inventive lengths that people will go to rort the system. It doesnt have to be paid into their bank acount directly for them to gain value from it.

      The whole thing stinks, and it is a very blurred between "contributions" and "quid pro quo". Private contributions should be scrapped entirely to avoid the temptation.

    2. Re:This is overblown nonsense by dreampod · · Score: 3, Informative

      They should be indicted - every last one of them.

      Being a elected official in the US is extremely lucrative with lots of 'gifts' and 'free' vacations from friends and supporters after they have finished serving their terms, highly paid jobs within industries they 'regulated', highly paid jobs with companies that got legislated overpriced no-bid contracts, highly paid lobbying jobs that take advantage of their access, and a rate of return on investments 60% higher than market average (and about 20% higher than average RoR with insider trading). Simply because the payoff is delayed doesn't mean that it isn't happening and because it is so well known about nobody ever has to actually make an agreement for the bribery because the politician takes the lead knowing that if they behave in a particular way that they are guaranteed a lucrative result.

      One of the reasons that other countries look at the US with horror is how blatant and openly corrupt your government officials are. In Canada the governing party for over 40 years fell and was replaced over a scandal directing work to a company that supported the Liberal party. The total amount was under $2 million dollars over 8 years which is less than every single representative and senator directs to supporters each and every budget. Even the most ethical politician on the national stage is wildly corrupted and should be charged and imprisoned.

    3. Re:This is overblown nonsense by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      It assumes that a campaign contribution can be equated with bribery.

      The important point here is that Dodd's own words imply that he considers those contributions to be bribes. It's a fine distinction, but there's a well-known precedent: Albert Fall went to prison because he considered a loan from his friend Doheny to be a bribe.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:This is overblown nonsense by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, corporations have a disproportionate ability to be able to provide campaign funds versus regular citizens.

      Corruption in general is making decisions for personal gain instead of the reason you were employed. When corporations provide funds to polititcians (in return for policy decisions), they can use this to run bigger/lavish campaings, hopefully pull move votes and keep themselves a cushy high paying job, meanwhile ignoring the majority of their electorate.

      Interesting. How about this: propose spending caps on individual campaigns?

      Say, anyone who wants to run for political office can spend no more than $X million on all advertising, staffing, transportation, personal salary, signage, etc. It's completely up to the politician how to divide the pie, but force the pie to be the same size for everybody (provided they can get enough contributions to make that cap). X should probably be a different amount for a presidential campaign vs. a senatorial campaign, etc., but the point is it would be the same X for anyone else running for that office regardless of party affiliations or lack thereof.

      And how about restricting total annual campaign contributions to that proposed dollar amount? So if lobbyist X wants to 'contribute' to a friendly senator or presidential candidate's campaign, well they can as long as there's room in the contribution cap...if not, sorry, try next year.

      I'm trying to think of what the negative aspects of such a policy would be...as far as I can see, it would mean politicians would be forced to compete based on their policies, not on the amount of airtime they can buy or mud they can sling. Another benefit *might* be the reduction of hate mongering campaigns and annoying pre-election FUD, who knows? Thoughts?

      Maybe John and Jane Doe can't contribute to their preferred candidate because the cap has been reached already, but they can always try next year, or contribute that money to a charity instead...maybe even make the charitable contribution in the name of the candidate they wanted to support, so people know that they approve of this guy/gal even if they couldn't contribute directly to his/her campaign. Or they could volunteer to personally assist with the campaign without any form of financial compensation (no volunteers salary, no accommodations paid, etc.) using only campaign-provided materials. Like taking home and stuffing envelopes, or volunteering to pass out campaign materials, that sort of thing.

      It might also be beneficial to have some sort of public-access database detailing contribution amounts from all sources for all candidates, so people could go online and see exactly who's bought and paid for the candidate they're considering voting for...

      Just some idle meanderings from an outside POV, take as you like. I'm sure there would be no pushback at all from the current administration for implementing these measures... </sarcasm>

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    5. Re:This is overblown nonsense by alexo · · Score: 1

      They should be indicted - every last one of them.

      By whom exactly?

    6. Re:This is overblown nonsense by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Umm...never mind. Thought I was being all clever and such, but it seems the US already has such limits in place...sort of.

      Soo...anyone know why these limits aren't working out? Maybe because there doesn't seem to be an overall cap to contributions, just spending caps on campaigns (I guess anything else is gravy)? Maybe the spending caps are just way too damn high ($84 million per candidate in 2008? seriously?) or not monitored closely enough? IDK.

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  17. Campaign contributions are not bribes by voss · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Campaign contributions are not bribes by guitardood · · Score: 1
      Withholding contributions is perfectly legal. Giving contributions for a favorable ruling is a bit grey but probably still legal or at the very least unprovable. Threatening to withhold contributions unless you vote my way is the equivalent of "Vote my way and I'll give you piles of money" and is quid-pro-quo bordering on extortion.

      This Dodd clown supposedly came right out and said:

      Candidly, those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.

      I would caution people don’t make the assumption that because the quote ‘Hollywood community’ has been historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don’t make the false assumptions this year that because we did it in years past, we will do it this year. These issues before us — this is the only issue that goes right to the heart of this industry.

      Sounds like extortion to me :)

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    2. Re:Campaign contributions are not bribes by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      So subpoena his email records and find evidence of the real bribery.

      His public statements make it sound probable that something like that has been going on behind the scenes.

      It's not like we haven't done investigations like this before. Abscam, the Keating Five, and so forth.

    3. Re:Campaign contributions are not bribes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you need some new laws. How about a cap on political donations and on campaign spending? Plus a ban on free lunches and other non-monetary gifts, as well as second jobs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  18. is there a new petition? by tibman · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  19. Site really slow? by gQuigs · · Score: 1

    I made a petition on the site (to end the corn subsidy) 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?

  20. If anybody was in any doubt by gun26 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:If anybody was in any doubt by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      "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 *GOVERNMENT* staffed from the RIAA and MPAA's "let's sue children for a living" legal teams."

      FTFY

      --
      -
  21. That's how it works. by Sturm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:That's how it works. by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    2. Re:That's how it works. by gd2shoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know it won't make you feel any better, but those of us living (and voting) here in the US feel the same way. When all you have to vote for is the lesser of two evils, you still wind up with electing evil. Not every political race deserves such a jaded attitude, but enough of them do to bork the system.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    3. Re:That's how it works. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Generally, the higher the public office, the more that's true. The people running for your local school board probably aren't all evil. The ones running for President almost always are (and this is more true once they weed out any non-evil ones that were in the Primaries and get to the general election).

    4. Re:That's how it works. by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      The people running for your local school board probably aren't all evil.

      No, not all of them. ;)
      (I do live in CA after all.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    5. Re:That's how it works. by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      You obviously ain't never been to the south son. Come on down to meth alley sometime, here we got three kinds of elected officials, we got the greedy little shits, power hungry little shits, and just plain vicious little shits. Why do you think so many elected officials are for the drug war? because they are making out like fucking bandits off it, that's why. Money is power and power corrupts and thanks to the drug trade even little towns can have plenty of power to be had.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:That's how it works. by Pikoro · · Score: 4, Funny

      See, now if you would have tweeted that, you would get a free ticket back to your country, compliments of the DHS :)

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    7. Re:That's how it works. by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      The point is not that Obama is innocent, but rather that he is guilty because of the way the system works

      I have not noticed him speaking out against that system so, sorry, but that means he either tacitly agrees with it or has given up any hope of trying to fix it and decided to accept it. Either way this makes him part of the problem and, I would argue, as guilty as the rest. This seems to be the achilles heal of US government - their founding fathers set up a fantastic system at the time but they were too worried about mob rule and put so many checks and balances in that the system is extremely inflexible and unable to adapt quickly enough to changing circumstances like most other modern democracies.

      Still I suppose that is how things usually work - the first to invent/implement something has the advantage of being first but those who follow end up with a better design by benefitting the existing experience.

    8. Re:That's how it works. by meadowsp · · Score: 1
    9. Re:That's how it works. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      When all you have to vote for is the lesser of two evils, you still wind up with electing evil.

      If you believe that that is true of a political race, the correct rule is not to vote for the lesser of two evils. The correct rule is, Vote the Ins, out. That is, if you believe that neither/none of the candidates is a good choice, vote against the incumbent. If the incumbent is not running for re-election, vote for the candidate who is not a lawyer (if there is a non-lawyer in the race).
      There have been several studies that show that the longer someone holds an office the less they serve the actual interests of thier constituents.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:That's how it works. by __aavqan3009 · · Score: 1

      "Obama HAS been the President for several years."
      See, that`s the problem. The lack of facts and reality. President Obama has in fact not been President for "several years", He has been President since January 20, 2009. And BTW, Bushs two terms were responsible for alot of the crap we are dealing with today. And if the Republicans would cooperate (aka do their jobs) instead of "trying to make Obama a one term President" maybe we would be a little farther down the road.

    11. Re:That's how it works. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      "He should be held accountable for NOT holding people account for things that happen on his watch."

      They way George Bush was held accountable for not holding people accountable for things that happened on his watch....yeah that worked well....

    12. Re:That's how it works. by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Glad to see you buy the illusion. However, they need to actually get on the ballot in enough states to get elected (a nightmare in itself - last presidential election, I had R, D, Green, and Libertarian). On top of that, you have Rs and Ds running as third party based solely on the fact they cannot get nominated in their own party. Again, last presidential election, the Libertarian was a Republican (Barr), and Green was a Democrat (McKinney).

      So where's my 3rd party option? My ballot choices last year was a Republican, a Republican as "third party," a Democrat, and a Democrat as "third party."

    13. Re:That's how it works. by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      Here's a great/terrible example: County sheriff and clerk are forced to resign for vote rigging

      This is the same county where the circuit clerk and assessor were convicted of vote buying a few years ago. After serving a little time in a federal prison, the assessor was hired by his buddy in the Assessor's office and he is now running for Sheriff.

      Two families have ran local politics in this county for decades. The school system is the county's largest employer and the county commission controls everything in the county, top to bottom. Deputies are given jobs as political favors. School consolidation was passed by the county school board during a meeting called on short notice when those who opposed the measure were out of town. People running against the local power base have been threatened, had their houses shot at, and even were physically assaulted.

    14. Re:That's how it works. by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Jan 2012 minus Jan 2009 makes three years. How is that not 'Several'?

    15. Re:That's how it works. by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      The whole world is married to the US, just like the US is married to the world -- though one gets the most out of the relationship.

      Oh, wait, you were trying to be funny!

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    16. Re:That's how it works. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      See, that`s the problem. The lack of facts and reality. President Obama has in fact not been President for "several years", He has been President since January 20, 2009

      Wait. What? Are you seriously arguing about whether or not "3" is sufficient to be considered "several," and giving him a pass on his inability to live up to even one of his grandiose promises based on that?

      Oh, you must be, because right after that, it's standard issue republican-bashing. Nothing to see here, after all.

    17. Re:That's how it works. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well in my area they have a little joke "Why does the sheriff bust so many meth labs, cus he don't like the competition" rimshot. Rumor has it the last one that tried to snitch around here on any of the local cops ops ended up having a Fargo pulled on him if you know what i mean. Next county over they had a body that was shot, stabbed, choked, beaten and finally thrown off a bridge. Cause of death? Suicide. Easy way to solve problems when you have the coroner in your pocket, its all just suicides. this is the same area where a couple of years back they got the coroner to sign off that a couple of kids had "got so intoxicated on pot they fell asleep on the railroad tracks and didn't wake up when the train came' while just ignoring the fact the engineer said the kids had been covered in a police tarp when he hit them and neither one had moved an inch with him blasting on his horn.

      So yeah, thinking local is ANY better than state or federal just means they don't know the local scene all that well. In most of these small towns you have multigenerational dynasties that have controlled things since before the civil war, the same families and their friends going back decades, hell my mom talks about when she was a kid working a local diner in the 50s she'd see the sheriff come in like clockwork every Friday to pick up his payoff for the diner selling speed to truckers out the back. Where there is money to be gained off illegal activities you are gonna have corruption, and if you think you can change it through legal channels you might want to ask that guy that got Fargo'd,but I don't think he'll say much.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    18. Re:That's how it works. by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

      It's called Duverger's law. Basically, we have so many people voting for the lesser of two evils that it reinforces the two party system. Real candidates stop running third party because they know they can't win, and they don't want to become "spoiler" candidates. That leaves the rest of us to either vote for the lesser of two evils, or waste it on a protest vote.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    19. Re:That's how it works. by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      That's generally a good rule of thumb. Unfortunately, it can take decades to effect change that way, and sometimes the incumbent really is far superior to the challenger. You do need to ensure that you're moving in the correct direction, and not just moving.

      Yet, even with this strategy, you still wind up electing evil. It just tends over the long run to be lesser to the original two choices.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    20. Re:That's how it works. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it can take decades to effect change that way, and sometimes the incumbent really is far superior to the challenger.

      Yes, it takes decades to effect change in this country. That is not a design flaw, the system was designed intentionally to work that way. While it takes decades to effect positive change, it also takes decades to effect negative change.
      And yes, sometimes, not often, the incumbent is the best choice. However, if your choice is between two evils, it is always best to take the non-incumbent because it is easier to unseat a single term office holder than it is a multiple term office holder. So, even if the incumbent is marginally better than the challenger, but still not a good choice, you are better off voting for the challenger, because it will be far easier to unseat the challenger, if they are elected, at the next election, than the incumbent, if they are re-elected.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    21. Re:That's how it works. by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      That's "a few" in common parlance. "Several" would be more than "a handful," which is generally accepted to be five (the number of fingers on the average hand).

    22. Re:That's how it works. by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. If the incumbent is far superior to the challenger, let them stand. You CAN move backwards if you don't.

      Take term limits, for example. They haven't fixed anything in California. If anything, they've made things worse. Blindly replacing incumbents doesn't lead to better politicians any more than blindly reelecting incumbents for decades.

      No, we should make incumbents really work at earning reelection, and we need to keep the truly insane out of public office.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    23. Re:That's how it works. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If your choice is between two evils, it is always best to take the non-incumbent. If the incumbent is not evil, that is a different story.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    24. Re:That's how it works. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      It's kind of hard to tell under the froth, but I think he mayhave been agreeing with me instead of arguing with me, since I got the (possibly mistaken) impression he had the same problem with the post I was responding to... another douche ignoring 3 years of failure by trying to minimize the time frame so that he could blame it all on the previous failure, who just happened to be on the other team.

    25. Re:That's how it works. by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      ???

      You can have one evil that is far superior to another (competence, ideological honesty, etc). It happens every once in a while in elections. It almost always happens in primaries. (Granted, there are rarely any incumbents in primaries.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    26. Re:That's how it works. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Maybe. Given the disjointedness of the rant, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that he's as bad at reading comprehension as you are.

    27. Re:That's how it works. by Toonol · · Score: 1

      In my impression, general parlance has always seemed to indicate 'several' as three or more. Maybe we just live in different neck of the woods and usage is regional.

  22. In fairness by anom · · Score: 1

    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 :)

  23. Don't be STUPID. by MarkvW · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Don't be STUPID. by PPH · · Score: 2

      The power to investigate is the power to DESTROY.

      Nope. That power lies within the Judiciary. All the Executive Branch can do is to bring charges. If charges are justified. Its the courts that will bring Dodd down. If the charges prove to be true.

      Check and balance. That's what keeps the system honest.

      the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots

      Otherwise known (in the text of the First Amendment) as "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Don't be STUPID. by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      "We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers."

      So what would you prefer? The politicians decide when to investigate themselves? It obviously isn't happening. I kind of consider taking public office such as Dodd did as putting someone in a higher bracket of scrutiny. If we can't hold corrupt politicians to some standards, we'll end up just like the soviet bloc countries. Oh, wait, many of them are becoming LESS corrupt...

    3. Re:Don't be STUPID. by babywhiz · · Score: 1

      "We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers." Really? That seemed to work so well when people were talking about a dress stain instead of the terrorist...

    4. Re:Don't be STUPID. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      They arent shrieking zealots, they are THE PEOPLE.

      >> can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers

      Oh you mean like would happen, say, in a proper and uncorrupted democracy?

    5. Re:Don't be STUPID. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      I remember the civil rights movement and the way that the majority used prosecutors as a tool to oppress the minority.

      Sorry. Can't agree.

    6. Re:Don't be STUPID. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      The majority getting what they want is the very definition of democracy. Anything else is basically a dictatorship.

      No system can
      a) Give people have enough freedom of choice to want opposing things.
        and
      b) Please everyone all the time.

      Get over it.

  24. Ignoring petitions because they request justice? by mykos · · Score: 1

    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?

  25. Re:Fuck forbid the government enforce LAWS on itse by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  26. the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the plutocracy sucks by joocemann · · Score: 2

      ...if you knew what Corporate Fascism looked like, or were studious enough to have omniscient perspective of our current state, you might understand why some feel it is time.

      The big thing you've missed is this: the heinous and atrocious acts and influences of our current fascist state is masked and shrouded as "normal"; without global or retrospective context, such horrid things go unnoticed. At this very moment, the majority are as imbeciles, useful idiots that do not realize the offenses against them.

      Its just as bad to have a nation of fat, poisoned, apathetic, distracted, depressed, overworked, paranoid, self-loathing zombies, as having a nation whose government forcefully oppresses them.

      Notice there are far more zombies.... thats scary.

    2. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no we have assholes who have no clue what real fascism is and water down the real horror of the term by applying it to every minor quibble they have with the idea of authority. see: teenagers calling their parents fascists. see also how the term terrorism is abused and watered down by ignorants and demagogues

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i have an ancestor who fought in the american revolution. i think he would be the first to be interested in correcting the cannon fodder you see posting here who seem so eager for bloodlust, about how hellish the option is and how carefully you need to consider it

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Informative

      hey, asshole:

      we don't live in a fascist country

      all you have demonstrated with your comment is that you are historically ignorant and have not the slightest fucking clue of what real fascism is like

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      im not interested in writing a research paper. im interested in inconsequentially venting on a comment board through a smartphone's lame faux keyboard. so im not quite sure why you think its important to speak up for standards that i have no motivation to care about

      do you go into sports bars and contemptuously tell strangers to tuck in their shirt? the only effect of your comment is to make yourself appear mentally brittle and petty. we get it: you have difficulty in informal settings and due to mental inflexibility you cling to rules

      thats the sum total of your comments meaning to me

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:the plutocracy sucks by tibit · · Score: 2

      It's not about historical illiteracy -- please end with this "history repeats itself" bullshit, it's not helpful in the least -- we know better. We have some theories as to how humans make decisions, and what external and internal factors affect those decisions. To know this doesn't require knowing any history, it's the human nature itself, yet somehow it's all glorified because it happened "ago". I don't know if there'd be consensus as to how much further "we" are to be pushed, but it's not to be determined by looking at history, it's to be determined from what we know about human behavior. History is not a science -- apart from archeology, if you bundle it under history umbrella. History is an art, and it has no theories and no predictive power. Whatever theories I've seen peddled by historians seemed to be material for dissection by students of intro to philosophy of science, and not much else. Enough has happened in the past that "history repeating itself" is a meaningless tautology: sure, someone somewhere messed up (or succeeded) very similarly to what we see now. This clairvoyance isn't, it only works backward, there's no way to pick from historical facts to predict the future unless we apply some, you know, scientific theories to this data. And those theories don't come from history, they come from, you know, science -- like physiology, various branches of psychology, bioinformatics as applied in psychology, etc. History collects data, but by itself it offers little more.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:the plutocracy sucks by TempestRose · · Score: 1

      Bingo! MOD up!

    8. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      You are one hard working troll or one glorious crackpot, I can't decide

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know guns work just as well in the hands of those who mean evil as those who mean good. I don't quite understand this mythological belief that a well armed populace is some sort of protection from fascism. If fascism ever does come to this country, those at the vanguard of this nation's fall will be well armed "patriots" whipped into a xenophobic frenzy by a silver tongued demagogue.

      When domestic matters are settled by guns rather than words, the country is lost. Therefore, to depend on guns or look forward to their use means you are part of the problem: you've already given up on your country, whether you realize that or not.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    10. Re:the plutocracy sucks by j35ter · · Score: 2

      As someone from outside of the US, currently in the US...I must say, that you are quite close to fascism. Even though I see that as something even worse...raw capitalism; only money counts!

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    11. Re:the plutocracy sucks by j35ter · · Score: 1

      Hey jerk: Yes You Do! Forget the shit you saw in WW2 movies. most Nazis were actually very decent and patriotic people who had a great respect for their country; and they tended to believe what their government told them. And, they willingly fought wars for their country. Only in retrospect, after losing a big war, they got the idea that their governments agenda was not freedom and the wars fought (abroad!!!) might not have been entirely in self defense...

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    12. Re:the plutocracy sucks by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      And the Nazis also came to power with much public approval, on a platform of anti-corporate and anti-capitalist rhetoric, that only turned to antisemitism as the party needed industry support.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    13. Re:the plutocracy sucks by Sarten-X · · Score: 1
      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    14. Re:the plutocracy sucks by j35ter · · Score: 1

      IIRC their rhetoric was mostly targeted against social leftist. They were claiming to represent the ordinary worker (aka Joe Plumber) and the man from the street. Also they had their far right consolidated into a militarized movement, full of hateful rhetoric and openly violent (tea party, anyone?). But I agree, they learned a lot from their past mistakes and are now trying a new approach, this time they will use the rich for their purposes, without killing them off later...

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    15. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      all you are demonstrating with your comment is a colossal ignorance about what real fascism is

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    16. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      it's happening. it hasn't happened. it's not a done deal. people still vote, no?

      so let's fix our government rather than throw up our hands and act like it's already happened? what kind of person does that? if you see one cockroach do you go "alright, it's over, i'm abandoning my house"?

      jesus fucking christ the useless tools posting on this site

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes, and the law SHOULD be enforced by men with guns. and those men with guns answer to the guys who write the laws. who answer to us... and, increasingly, they answer more to only the guys with the money

      but its not a done deal. so let's make sure the guys passing the laws still understand the "we the people" part and get lawmakers in there ready to pass laws getting rid of the money infection in our government

      or: what's the other choice? you want to start shooting?

      the fucking tools posting here with their ignorant bloodlust

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    18. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      win!

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    19. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      A bear breathes air

      So do I

      A bear eats fish

      So do I!

      Oh my gosh: im a bear!

      There are kindergarteners with better abilities at compare and contrast than you

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    20. Re:the plutocracy sucks by tibit · · Score: 1

      How the heck you came to this conclusion is beyond me. The glaring thing in the wikipedia link on praxeology is that "Austrian economists argue that they [ economic models and statistical methods] are a flawed, unreliable, and insufficient means of analyzing and testing economic theory.". This is not an opinion, this is a testable claim -- you can tell how good the economic model and statistical methods are at predicting what's going to happen in terms of economy. You can mix and match those with what we know about human behavior, and see how good a particular mixture of methods / subtheories is at giving you predictions. That's what a scientific theory's major point is: to have predictive power. Theories that don't give this are useless, they are not really theories.

      What I'm saying is that saying "history repeats itself" is a fairly useless yet true statement: yeah, people do what people always did, big deal. To be really useful though, whatever theories surround such statement must have predictive power. They are useless otherwise. What history offers, essentially, is a bunch of experimental data on human behavior where the conditions are poorly controlled, and where you rarely have any control groups. Anyone doing experimental psychology will tell you that such data are almost useless in isolation. You can of course apply statistical models, and those may have predictive power.

      By saying that "history repeats itself" and that we should "learn" from it, there's an implied statement that you can use the past to predict the future. To do this in any way that is not crackpot, you need theories -- in the scientific sense, the latter not necessarily having much in common with nebulous popular notion of "theory". So, please, educate me: show me history texts or papers that propose scientific theories that build on historical facts and that one can use to make testable predictions on future human behavior. History's sole focus is, after all, documentation of past human behavior (I exclude the misnomer known as natural history -- that's just diluting history to cover paleobotany, geology, etc). Historians are like librarians in a way, IMHO. There's not much science to it, but surely it's a practical and necessary thing to be involved in.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    21. Re:the plutocracy sucks by tibit · · Score: 1

      I should have, pretty much said what I implied: any theory that works when applied to human behavior is "good", it doesn't necessarily have to explain it (theories don't do that). So when I mentioned physiology, various branches of psychology, bioinformatics, I implied that other valid method apply too, so one can list statistical modeling, etc.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    22. Re:the plutocracy sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You haven't elucidated a very compelling argument. Allow me to summarize: Those who support any form of violence or revolution (even the tepid and ambiguous GP) are young, male, ignorant, illiterate, historically naive, brainwashed by cinematic grandeur, and gun happy. Insults and hate are the basis for any all-star argument. Congratulations.

      captcha: suffrage

    23. Re:the plutocracy sucks by ab0mb88 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on the watering down of the term fascism, but I disagree with your assessment on terrorism. With the current fringe elements having such a strong position in the current political scene what is really blatant terrorism can't be called terrorism because it was done by a brave American patriot. In a world where there can be a televised debate whether shooting a standing congressman was terrorism or patriotism how could anything short of destroying a populated building really be a terrorist act.

    24. Re:the plutocracy sucks by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Hey,asshole.

      All you demonstrated is that you dont have an informed perspective of our current state. We are, and have been, under corporate fascism for decades.

      But if you have limited knowledge and simple thinking, today's problems arent like Mussolini, so its not so bad..... WRONG. Having mostly useless zombies for fellow citizens is just as bad, if not worse, for they are dumb enough to fight against their own best interests; not just in a revolution, but even as we speak.

    25. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      I recognize that the USA can become a fascist state. I also recognize it currently isn't a fascist state.

      Additionally, I am not a ballerina. However, with hard practice, I can become one.

      Any other amazing lines of thought we need to ruminate on today?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    26. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i don't like cockroaches

      i'm going to start ranting about cockroach fascism

      do you think that will make me sound more intelligent?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    27. Re:the plutocracy sucks by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I think you're an idiot with no sense of informed perspective. You have perspective; but you've yet to have the information required to know wtf you're looking at.

      Its the naivety and fervor of buffoons like you that maintain the disgusting and corrupt existence we have in the US. You don't see Mussolini, therefore there is nothing awry... I'm sure examples will fall on deaf ears, blind eyes, poor critical thinking, and and limited scope of intellect....

      You *are* the zombie I talked about. I bet you don't like being called that, deny its truth, and will never understand why.

      You're a waste of my time because of the same corporate fascism that you cannot realize; you *are* their product and example of how a 'peaceful' yet horrid takeover has been achieved.

      Fucking tool.

    28. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      "dad, can i borrow the car keys"

      "no, son"

      {insert babbling about corporate fascism}

      this is the level of outrage and moral coherence you work on

      mentally, if not chronologically, you're just a teenager

      the idea is not to extend the word "fascism" to every power structure you dislike. in fact, we dislike the same power structures infecting the USA and other countries

      the idea is to oppose these power structures on the merits of how these power structures suck and work against the rights and freedoms of us all

      or rant about fascism

      your choice

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    29. Re:the plutocracy sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      so what you are telling me is that i am a slave, because i am not ready to start shooting people?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    30. Re:the plutocracy sucks by joocemann · · Score: 1

      So.... in your estimation.... oligopolies in blatant collusion, enforcing self-interest policy in washington from telecoms, to defense industry, to automotive, to resources, to energy distribution, to agriculture/food supply..... whose control over our day to day lives leaves us with no alternatives, funds them through subsidy direct from our pockets, and has established majority control over media and political funding......... you think this isn't real.

      I could spend hours and hours providing you examples of how each and every point I just mentioned is real, but you're not worth it. You've already assumed you know enough and closed your reasoning down.

      So, as I said before, I won't waste my time trying to convince the useful idiots that they should know something when the useful idiot contends they don't need to; you're in that group.

  27. Executive Branch = enforcing the laws by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. Well, I don't know about the rest of y'all by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    But I'm gonna kick back and fire up a fatty

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  29. Uhhh by Foxhoundz · · Score: 1

    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.

  30. Re:Voting by Jesse_vd · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if it's legal where you are, but in that case I would cast a blank ballot instead.

  31. Fight This Petition With The Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ok guys, enough with the war mongering and all that, sure its all corrupt and hopefully we will have a bloodless civil war but I would be happier if the folks with their fingers on the buttons would take notice; after all they are all for sale one way or another :)

    A petition pointing out the error in refusing to comment on the last Dodd petition:
    https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/change-its-position-re-chris-doddriaampaa-executing-specific-law-enforcement-actions-its/KYwdcQb2
    shorty:
    http://wh.gov/kD6

    They painted themselves in the corner; the irony is that the whole mess this started with was a private company (may as well be a citizen) requested a "specific law enforcement action" so while ignoring this petition would be very sad for all of us, there is that glimmer left that they could be forced to care?

  32. And that's kinda the whole point of democracy... by raehl · · Score: 2

    ...it prevents violent revolution, because by the time enough people are agitated enough to actually violently revolt against the government, they would have just voted the government out already.

  33. ok, so petition law enforcement by jonwil · · Score: 1

    If (as the white house said) they cant comment because it would require specific law enforcement agency action petition the relevant law enforcement agency (whoever that might be) to carry out whatever action is required to investigate Dodd.

  34. Well, at least the White House is being consistent by smchris · · Score: 2

    Obama never wants to prosecute anything past (oh, say: war crimes, torture, murder) because it's, like, so "yesterday." Let's just get all hopey and come together for a brighter future instead of being gloomy old negative gusses. I"m sure Mr. Happy President wants us all to sing "Kumbaya" and see happy faces all around, OK? OK?

  35. Re:Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When you don't vote, you send no signal, or a signal of apathy. Vote for a third party -- ANY third party* -- and, while having equal effect on who wins, you send a message that you're fed up with the two masses of suckitude and suck-upage that currently rule our country.

    When we finally get a third of the popular vote split amongst 10 or 20 third-parties, then the stage will be set for a voting reform party, which could conceivably allow the range-vote (or similar), and let people actually select the candidates that most people find most acceptable (or least unacceptable, if you prefer). I know that's an optimistic projection, but there's literally no outcome I can conceive of this way that's worse than "more of the same", which is exactly what you vote for when you refuse to vote.

    *If you can't find any third party you agree with enough to vote for them with a clear conscience, then write in, I dunno, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, even V -- just vote for something to show that you hate both options, and are mad enough to get off your arse and to the polling place,

  36. Hmm by OopsIDied · · Score: 1

    The reason given: 'because it requests a specific law enforcement action.'"

    I know this is probably wrong but in grade school I was always told one of the Executive Branch's jobs is to enforce laws?

  37. Re:And that's kinda the whole point of democracy.. by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yes, and even with the plutocratic infection we are still far from revolution

    but we WILL get to revolution eventually if we do not clear the money infection that is turning "we the people" into "we the rich people and corporations"

    we need to cure our government

    the morons ready to reach for guns already are just pathetic useless fools

    the same sort of ignorant tool who were happy and excited to suit up and get into world war i and the american civil war, and died very quickly with a surprised expression on their face

    that's the sort of fucking useless cannon fodderwho are happy to talk about real armed revolution, because of... the RIAA?!

    jesus christ what useless stupid people there are in this world

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  38. Still a fucking wuss by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    The man has no qualms about fighting a war elsewhere, but keeps rolling over for domestic policy.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  39. Won't happen by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    So what happened to all the hippies from the 60s who were going to get into govt and legalize pot? Oh right they got paid instead.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Won't happen by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So what happened to all the hippies from the 60s who were going to get into govt and legalize pot? Oh right they got paid instead.

      It's also possible that they were only a small minority of the 60s generation, but since they were so "colorful" they had undue attention paid to them.

  40. You're being silly by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    there will be no civil war. A modern military can put down it's populace in no time. You don't have the weapons, tactics or manpower to take on a police force, let alone the US army. Plus our ruling class own the media. Look how far Occupy Wall Street got...

    You want to do something that works? Don't have children (Ok, /.ers, get the jokes out of your system, I'll be here when you're done giggling). Seriously. So long as there's more people than we need to keep the rich living like kings they'll be able to take advantage of us. You want kids? Have 1, then stop. Or go full Darwin award and have none. The ruling class of Japan is freaking the fuck out because they can't get their people to have kids. So is a good chunk of Europe. Stop giving them fodder for their factories and machines. Stop convincing yourself that your fsckin' crotchfruit is so amazing they'll rise above the misery you left in your wake. Stop reproducing, and watch our rulers turn impotent (pun not intended).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're being silly by mdenham · · Score: 1, Funny

      While I appreciate your attempts to gain converts to the Zero Population cause, it's not going to help either. The rich will just start declaring that childless people are henceforth the property of the state and forcibly impregnate them.

      Even the men.

    2. Re:You're being silly by j35ter · · Score: 2

      Did you get that idea from a Monty Python script? :)

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    3. Re:You're being silly by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There will be no civil war. A modern military can put down it's populace in no time. You don't have the weapons, tactics or manpower to take on a police force, let alone the US army. Plus our ruling class own the media. Look how far Occupy Wall Street got.

      It just takes a critical mass. A mass that goes from "a bunch of bored kids" to "friends and family". Are you telling me that the US Army is going to follow through with orders to shoot their fellow countrymen? Sure. A few will. (Stanford Prison Experiment). But if you get enough people that are upset with the way things are no army is going to stand in their way.

      And the way everyone has been acting (Police shooting a Marine in the head with a flashbag) I wouldn't be surprised if the Military turned on the Police before the Citizens.

    4. Re:You're being silly by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing about civil wars is that the dividing line goes as much across the military as it does across other parts of society.

    5. Re:You're being silly by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      You gonna murder all the Catholics and the third world? Because for your plan to work they'll have to have no way to import peasants from Mexico. Japan is freaked because they have always been xenophobic so importing Chinese or other Asians is right out, here they can just leave the border open while supporting el Presidente types in the South american hellholes and get all the peasants they want. after all they'll never have to talk to the fuckers so why should they care what language they speak? As long as they can slave for the man that's all that matters. Hell you can already see this trend in the way they are ignoring those that are blatantly hiring illegals, go to most construction sites and yell "Immigra!" and watch them scatter like deer. lots of peasants they can work like dogs for scraps.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:You're being silly by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      there will be no civil war. A modern military can put down it's populace in no time. You don't have the weapons, tactics or manpower to take on a police force, let alone the US army. Plus our ruling class own the media. Look how far Occupy Wall Street got...
       

      Tell that to the rulers of- Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Yemen. Also try the broadly non-violent Colour Revolutions.

      OK, now I realise that the US military (the best funded in the world by a very wide margin) is somewhat a different kettle of fish. But the point of many of those revolutions was that, when push came to shove, many soldiers simply couldn't be forced to massacre their own populations. It's why Egypt ended so quickly, and it's why civil war won out in Libya (and is simmering away in Syria), with massive defections. I can't see the rank and file college kids of the US Army really turning their guns on unarmed crowds of their friends and neighbours.

    7. Re:You're being silly by Splab · · Score: 1

      Since the US military is largely consisting of people from low income areas, wouldn't there be a greater number of persons in the military fighting for the revolution?

    8. Re:You're being silly by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, back in the Russian Civil War, there was that - Whites had more officers (and hence better tactics), while Reds had more soldiers (and hence more manpower).

      It's kinda hard to make any guesses or draw analogies for a some hypothetical future civil war in US, though. What will it be fought over? What will be the sides?

    9. Re:You're being silly by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      The ruling class of Japan is freaking the fuck out because they can't get their people to have kids.

      That would be because the ruling class of Japan is a bunch of racists obsessed with the purity of Japanese blood.

      So is a good chunk of Europe.

      See above, but substitute "European culture".

      Stop giving them fodder for their factories and machines.

      And watch in amazement as they simply loosen immigration restrictions instead, and millions of Mexicans gladly rush northwards to a better life!

      Seriously, the only reason Japan is hurting is because they make it so damn difficult for anyone else to settle there (even Chinese and Koreans, let alone anyone with a different eye shape or skin color), and the only reason western Europe is hurting is because so many of the immigrants offering cheap labor have the unfortunate habit of wearing a turban or headscarf. But it's the poor people in America who are virulently racist against Latin@s, not the rich ...

    10. Re:You're being silly by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      The media takes proper care of friends and family already.

    11. Re:You're being silly by skegg · · Score: 1

      there will be no civil war. A modern military can put down it's populace in no time.

      How can you say such a thing following a year that saw multiple long-standing heads of state ousted from leadership ???

      You're thinking in terms of Occupy Wall Street; a handful of people on the street. (A thousand people? A few thousand? Whatever.)

      Now think what would happen if 4 million people marched on Wall Street. Or if 8 million gathered around the White House. For a month.

      If no civil war ensued it would be because the government-of-the-day would likely amend its policies in order to appease the masses, so as to hold onto office. However if said government remained obstinate, cf. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc.

    12. Re:You're being silly by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      But it's the poor people in America who are virulently racist against Latin@s, not the rich ...

      I'm sure you find comments like this helpful in keeping your level of irrational hate viable, but can you seriously just jump off the cliff so the rest of us don't have to hear your racist bullshit.

    13. Re:You're being silly by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      One word: Immigrants.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    14. Re:You're being silly by Asmodae · · Score: 1

      Bah, look at the labor put downs during the industrial revolution. The army is good at one thing only, following orders. The soldiers themselves probably won't have any idea what's really going on until long after it's over (if they ever get over the misinformation they've been fed).

      Just look at how our military, in general, treated the people of Iraq or Afghanistan. Lots of news stories about unethical behavior. In order to wage war you need to dehumanize the enemy, and then the soldiers do whatever they want to them. That will easily happen with any group inside the US that the army would be ordered to fight. They wouldn't be citizens they'd be "evil animals threatening your family, friends, and way of life, we must stop them now!"

      All this aside, the executive has already ordered the assassination of American citizens so it's hard to imagine any group even being allowed to get to that stage of organization in the first place. (see: red scare and McCarthyism, WW II Japanese American camps, etc. for how these things are handled historically)

    15. Re:You're being silly by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      You're thinking in terms that are very optimistic. Tunisia et al. worked for the same reason that every non-violent protest in history has; the threat of someone else's force. All of these are predicated on the idea that there's someone else out there that won't let the current rulers (British Colonial rulers for Gandhi, Mubarak in Egypt, etc.) treat people that way, and will intervene.

      In the US, there is no one who could intervene. The rest of the world may stand there horrified, but if the US government decided to put down a protest, they could do so with impunity; no one has the firepower to challenge them (maybe Russia, but their government supports the Right to Suppress the Populace), and no one with the economic power to leverage would care (China's ruling party also supports the Right to Suppress the Populace).

    16. Re:You're being silly by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      The rulers lost the support of their generals. That wasn't because the generals had anything against turning guns on their citizens, they just thought the rulers were taking too big a piece of the pie. The lesson will be learned, the ruling class will adapt, and it won't happen again.

      That's kinda the problem. Our oppressors are learning from their mistakes. We're not.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    17. Re:You're being silly by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It's kinda hard to make any guesses or draw analogies for a some hypothetical future civil war in US, though. What will it be fought over? What will be the sides?

      Age, probably, and I'm sad to say it.

      I better keep taking my vitamins so I can hope to blend in!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  41. Give it a week by pkphilip · · Score: 1

    Don't worry.. give it a week.. we will be back to talking about IMPORTANT things such as if iphone is better than Samsung Galaxy.

  42. Re:Fuck forbid the government enforce LAWS on itse by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.

    The astonishing level of legal savvy in the geek community is well, astonishing.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  43. corruption breeds corruption by nickberry · · Score: 1

    Hmm, imagine that, an establishment democrat covering for another corrupt establishment democrat.

  44. No. The petition asked for the wrong thing. by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

    The correct request for a petition would be to impeach Dodd for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of what actions constitute grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, a state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.

    .

    hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#The_federal_impeachment_procedure

    A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours

    Despite that he left office on 3 Jan 2011 and went on to head the MPAA in March 2011, and therefore was not in office, there is precedent for impeaching a government official after leaving office. That precedent is the 1876 case of General William Belknap, who was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives shortly after he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments (bribery).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap

    Other precedents also exist. Feel free to consult a real lawyer before submitting the next petition so that a stronger case can be made and actually trigger action.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:No. The petition asked for the wrong thing. by fsterman · · Score: 1

      Too bad we can't just hire a lawyer to go after the guy. Are there any state or territorial legislatures that might be willing to do this, even if it's just to make the point?

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    2. Re:No. The petition asked for the wrong thing. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Chris Dodd is no longer a Senator, so impeachment proceedings are irrelevant. As to your link showing that the House impeached someone after they had resigned, that link also shows that the majority of the Senate believed that the Senate did not have jurisdiction because he had resigned and that belief played a major role in why the Senate did not convict him of the impeachment charges.
      More importantly, that was someone who was impeached for actions taken while holding public office. You are suggesting impeaching Chris Dodd for actions taken after he left office (or at least that is what this petition was about).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:No. The petition asked for the wrong thing. by spidr_mnky · · Score: 1
      The post to which you responded directly addressed that point.

      [...]there is precedent for impeaching a government official after leaving office.

      Did I miss a distinction?

  45. We wont survive. by Bensam123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America wont survive a revolution. The moment people start thinking like this is the moment people who ARE corrupt and are in seats of power at the moment can claim even more power on the grounds of insurgants, terrorists, and rebels are trying to corrupt our pure country. They'll ride their white horse and smear any sort of truth that can be mustered to bring people to the cause and then with their new claimed power they will strike back with the full force of military aid at their disposal and they have a lot of that currently.

    People armed with guns can't retake our country. This is a long cry from the civil war where all you had to do was pick up a musket and you'd be on relatively equal terms with the foe you're facing. They have military and strategic dominance on every level, not to mention they can do all sorts of underhanded things to make everyone involved disappear. I do believe such soldiers may turn sides, but it's highly unlikely. They country in and of itself has become too powerful to take back by a common citizen with a rifle. Such a imbalance of power would lead to an extremely bloody conflict with the people without it getting slaughtered in droves attempting to take it back from people with it. The american zeitgeist isn't ready for such a conflict either. We have too many differing opinions to split things down the middle and we easily get bored of things when it doesn't involve everyone dying around us.

    This is completely putting aside how it will turn the country upside down and leaves us open to people who would never dream of trying to take america going and doing it. You shouldn't think in such short sighted terms. Picking up a weapon and starting to shoot people without any forethought is a bad decision.

    You have to change things from the inside, bit by bit, piece by piece. Witch hunts need to be performed and we need something similar to the inquisition that will willingly investigate every part of the system (not the people) and burn the heretics retroactively. It needs to be done peacefully so when the side that gets power hungry and decides to use an iron fist they can be branded as such. So there is a right and wrong, so that the people can understand that one side is fighting for something better then power...

    When and IF this happens it will start to signify a new golden age for America, one that is founded on the future rather then making more money then the other person. We need to help each other rather then trying to drive each other in the dirt. Just because the country was founded with capitalism in mind, doesn't mean we need to stay that way. We are much better then that. It's the direction most first world countries are taking and it's the right one.

    1. Re:We wont survive. by Bensam123 · · Score: 1

      I would also like to add to this that our army is now experts at fighting insurgent forces and small militias (in part due to the oil war and vietnam)... which would be what any sort of rebel resistance would be in our country.

    2. Re:We wont survive. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I think the people could have a largely bloodless revolution just by recalling members of congress. Or the several times in the past years where 100,000+ people showed up to protest in D.C, what if that mob occupied Congress and the White House? Just sat there not allowing them to get anything down while recalls took place?

      There have been several politicians and intelligent policy analysts speaking about how to repeal the SCOTUS Citizens United decision by having the States call a Constitutional Convention. If enough people care, it would be far easier to change your State congress to one sympathetic to a Constitutional Convention in order to amend the constitution to reform Congress.

      You can see minor version of this happening in the States where politicians went too far and stripped union rights. Many successful recalls of politicians over that already, and more to come.

      I think the vicious political divide, the tea party, the OWS folks, are real visible symptoms that the Country is awakening. The further D.C takes us from the Constitution, the further we slide away from the the ideals that formed this Country, and the larger the wealth inequality gets, I think you'll see an increasingly discontented population. Eventually it'll reach a boiling point. But I doubt it will lead to violent revolution. First the States, and people, have a myriad of things to try to force change.

  46. specific law enforcement action by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    That makes sense, since law enforcement isn't part of the executive branch. They just make laws by executive decree, give away tax payer money to corrupt foreign governments (including Red China) and to political contributors who are going bankrupt, and stuff like that. Far be it from them to be involved in enforcing our laws. If they start doing that them some crackpot is going to suggest that the laws apply to them too.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  47. Federal Reserve by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    ... all of the things Obama has personally done to screw up integrity in our government such as... keeping the Federal Reserve rather than abolishing it, ...

    You sound like a Ron Paul nut. That would just move the power/responsibility elsewhere in the Federal bureaucracy. What's needed is to make the Fed more open and accountable. Besides, the president alone couldn't abolish it. It would take a major push through Congress - probably harder than the healthcare bill.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re:Federal Reserve by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Because you know, heaven forbid that we actually have a real check on the monetary supply or -gasp- a meaningful currency rather than just meaningless variables on a computer screen and worthless pieces of paper and junk metal tokens.

      There is a reason why our constitution gives congress the power to coin money and regulate its value. First our founders experimented with fiat currency and it ended in disaster (Continental Currency) also from that experiment they knew that any monetary program needed to have oversight by the people (rather than various states just making worthless pieces of paper). The federal reserve has circumvented those safeguards. Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, we have had an inflation rate of over 1900%. We've also seen many abuses such as secret loans to the tune of 7.5 trillion dollars + to various banks, all of this without voter oversight.

      Wealth is too big of a thing to place in the hands of bureaucrats. Direct accountability means abolishing the federal reserve.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Federal Reserve by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

      Some of your arguments are absolutely true and valid. Intentional sustained inflation is theft. It is a tax that goes, not to the government, but to the financial sector (granted, some of it offsets the national debt).

      The reason the Continental Currency failed so badly was severalfold. (1) Congress at the time was even worse at managing monetary policy than the Fed is now. (hardly an argument for or against the Fed) They were basically being treated as a bond redeemable when paying taxes. Bonds during wartime tend to fall bellow face value, as risk of non-payment rises. (2) The colonies were already flooded by foreign currency. You didn't need to gamble about whether the British or the colonist would win. You just traded in Spanish coin. Besides, the British empire wasn't going to go away. The British pound sterling was still going to have value. (3) British counterfeiting further propelled inflation. (Strangely enough, this is what the Nazis were preparing to do at the end of the war.) Both sides were paying for the war by printing Continentals. How could the currency not fail? Even if it had been backed by gold, they would have become worthless.

      Further, even currencies backed by gold have failed, leading to government default. Spain did this repeatedly. Tying to the gold standard doesn't remove the politicians and their antics, but it does expose you to additional foreign problems. It just makes mismanagement harder to prevent, and makes government fraud easier to hide. (harder to perpetrate, but easier to hide == more attractive to fraud)

      Wealth is too big of a thing to place in the hands of bureaucrats. Direct accountability means abolishing the federal reserve.

      Yet, you haven't explained where the authority would go, or why specifically it would be better. Surely you don't want it to go to Congress, which has a pervasive history of corruption. You wouldn't be increasing transparency nor accountability, I can tell you that right now.

      Because you know, heaven forbid that we actually have a real check on the monetary supply or -gasp- a meaningful currency rather than just meaningless variables on a computer screen and worthless pieces of paper and junk metal tokens.

      And you mean gold isn't? They both have value specifically because people place value in them as money. (exchangeable stores of perceived value) They are both worthless otherwise. True, "precious" metals have some industrial and aesthetic value, but not nearly enough to support any prices that we've ever seen. (same with the metals in fiat coin, if you think about it)

      And as for having a real check on monetary policy, it's really hard to devise. The makeup and rules of the FOMC should probably be adjusted. Fed actions and rational need to be openly published. Somebody outside the Fed needs veto power. Etc. Just abolishing the Fed only serves to move the problems somewhere else. It's easier to fix them where they stand. (in other words, extremely hard but possible)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  48. What investigation? by ehiris · · Score: 1

    The only investigation mentioned on the News is the investigation of Megaupload.
    They might be using that as a premise to hide the bribery and impede an investigation there.

  49. Re:Voting by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    So who do you propose we do vote for? Mr. 18th Century Economist? He seems to be the only one not beholden to the system, yet he has enough problems of his own to make me wonder which is worse.

    It's easy to condemn others, but what have YOU done? Cast a vote in a primary? I doubt even that.

  50. Read the third link; he doesn't have to be sitting by tlambert · · Score: 1

    He can be impeached after the fact. This is the same legal argument that certain groups have been trying to apply to Bush and Cheney.

    -- Terry

  51. *Sigh*, a n00b and his hot air...... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I was torn between modding all the n00bs down and posting, but this tears it.

    Look, the white house isn't the justice department. Obama could ask them to look at this, but they don't have to listen to him. He could threaten to can the lot of them, but they still could say no. (In fact, I think something similar happened during Nixon's presidency.)

    Supposing that either Obama asked them to look into this, and they decided to do so, it would be early into an investigation into political corruption, which will take a VERY long time to run. They will be extra careful to make sure that any charges they throw at Dodd will stick. On top of all that, I don't know that its a common practice to publicly announce that you are starting an investigation into political corruption.

    What are you really expecting, them to haul Dodd out and lynch him before lunch, just because some people signed a petition?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  52. you are wrong sir by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Judges judge, they don't investigate and they don't prosecute. That is most definitely a function of the Executive branch. The justice department should be looking into this, they should be reporting to the President, and he should be asking why they are not doing anything about it. You need to get a much better understanding. Perhaps you are confused because judge and justice department both begin with a "J", but the judicial branch doesn't and can't investigate or prosecute. In the case of Federal Law issues that falls to the Justice department in the Executive branch, under the President.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  53. That depends by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    Since it's the witchunters who determine who the witches are I will mostly be one of those labeled. Why? Because I have a firm belief that the founders chose the order of the words "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for a very good reason. You can't have liberty if you are not alive, and you can't pursure happiness if you aren't free to do so. Logically then the number one focus of government must be to ensure that everyone all that is necessary to live. The prevelant view in the US today is more "I've gots to get mine and screw you if you didn't get yours!"

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:That depends by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Interesting point.

      My fear, personally now, is that I've seen the people who claim to uphold life. They carry a gun everywhere they go "just in case, I'd rather they die than me". The people in power are NOT focused on life. They have WAY more power than they should and seem quite focused on doing whatever is necessary to get what they want, and burn anyone they deem "unfit".

      My point: the fear of those who claim to defend life, the (imo founded) fear they are not telling the truth, seems to cause an awful lot of trouble.

      Personally, I think it's the system. Some paranoid greed-headed gun nut who's a federal employee with an inferiority complex, toting around a pistol in an entirely peaceful, crowded tourist area is 1000x more dangerous than anyone sitting here advocating bloodshed on the internet. At least here we can each communicate and reason with each other, dissuade people from doing what is clearly the wrong thing (violence). With the above-mentioned person? HE IS THE LAW. Do not attempt to communicate with him, for he is doing this for your own good. Which is scarier to you?

      --
      -
    2. Re:That depends by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Scarier to me are the government mandated witch hunts that you say are necessary.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  54. Re:More Republican Poutrage by darth+dickinson · · Score: 2

    Yes because someone taking their *legally acquired* money and using *legal* constructs in the tax code to pay less taxes is exactly like a politician passing legislation that favors one particular company, and then getting a senior position at said company when they retire.

    Exactly. The. Same.

  55. Re:Voting by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    So basically you're voting to let other people control your life?
    Atleast vote for a third party you actually do like, even if you think they have zero chance.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  56. Re:More Republican Poutrage by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chris Dodd is hardly the only politician who has done such a thing, and there is currently no law against it unless there is an actual promised payment (even Delay/Gingrich have been smart enough to avoid that). Some might argue that there should be laws against such 'retirement plans' for politicians, but it would be hard to enforce, and likely unconstitutional. There are however laws against money laundering and using foreign bank accounts for tax evasion, perhaps Mitt has been completely honest, perhaps not. As 'we' all know, online polls are easy to game, it wouldn't be hard to ask them to investigate using a couple of thousand email addresses.

    Whenever the GOP is in power they seem to spend more time grandstanding for political advantage than doing the work of the people (for example, 'where's that jobs bill?').

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  57. And it continues by wreakyhavoc · · Score: 1

    I waited 20 years. Then I waited another 20. And it's still the same ol' ^%@#@. I've been waiting for the old guard to pass away my whole life. The old white bigoted, sexist, racist dudes. You know the ones. You've seen them on TV recently "debating". Well, it's been years, and some of them are gone, but it seems there's an endless supply. And some of them aren't even old, white, or male. Despite the consciousness raising of the mid-to-late 20th century. Despite the promise of democratized education through technology - remember the utopian dreamers who thought the radio/television/internet would educate the world, instead of becoming a palliative pablum? We still have would-be rulers who are "tired of being criticized for not being sensitive to other religions of the world". The mayor of Oakland this week entreating Occupiers not to use violent means, after authorizing riot police to escalate protest into riot so as to be able to justify point blank non-lethal response (flashbang, beanbag shotgun, jumbo pepper spray, teargas to the head). The hypocrisy is stunning. In the ecosystem of governance and politics there is always a niche for such folks, and a surfeit of up and comers eager to fill it.

    1. Re:And it continues by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I've been waiting for the old guard to pass away my whole life. The old white bigoted, sexist, racist dudes.

      Some might say perhaps they may a little assistance to pass away a little faster.

  58. he will be taking credit for all those dept's work by decora · · Score: 1

    during the election cycle. so its bullshit.

  59. Re:And that's kinda the whole point of democracy.. by Outtascope · · Score: 1

    I had a lengthy reply, partly agreeing and partly disagreeing (revolution is hyperbolic bs) with you. But I can say it much more concisely: If you truly believe that this reaction is about the RIAA then you are really missing the point.

  60. Greg Proops by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    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.

    To quote Greg Proops vis-a-vis China becoming the dominant world power: 'Oh, you're going to miss US when we're gone.'

  61. What Measure of "Bad Enough" is Enough for You? by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    1 in 3 American children now lives in poverty. Our government holds prisoners indefinitely without trial and tortures them. It has given entire industries get out of jail free cards after they broke the law (telecoms w/ spying, in case you weren't paying attention). Now it's turning a blind eye to a public admission of bribery from the spokesperson for another entire industry. It's also violating our constitutional rights on a daily basis with complete impugnity.

    By what measure does this not equal "bad enough?" Oh, no, wait, I get it. YOU have enough to satisfy your material needs. YOU have a job. YOU have not lost YOUR house. None of YOUR family has suffered. Yet. So all this must be in everyone else's imaginations. Everyone else must be simply melodramatic.

    In case you haven't been paying attention, people have been voting. The entire government has entirely changed hands twice in the last 10 years. And you know what? NOTHING has changed. So please tell me another fairy tale about how, gosh, all we need to do is get off our butts and vote.

    Wake up, or shut up. The rest of us want our country back.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  62. Make the right one by Benanov · · Score: 1

    I suggest starting the "right" one then. You push it to slashdot & reddit, that might be enough to get the ball rolling.

  63. Not sure I understand... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    "The White House has issued a statement in which they refuse to comment on the petition to investigate Chris Dodd for bribery from the MPAA to pass legislation. The reason given: 'because it requests a specific law enforcement action."

    Isn't the president the EXECUTIVE branch?

    From Whitehouse.gov: "...The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress..."

    Yes, we're requesting a law enforcement action. That's (essentially) the Executive's job. You know...the Justice Dept, the FBI, ATF, all those guys?

    --
    -Styopa
  64. Keep writing and signing petitions by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, the responses, when there are responses to whitehouse.gov petitions are usually pretty bad. No, as far as I know no specific policy has been the result of a whitehouse.gov petition. People are frustrated and there is even a petition to take the petitions more seriously.

    So what?

    The cutoff point for a response to a petition is 25,000 signatures. The Chris Dodd petition was somewhere around 35,000 the last I checked. Would you really want Obama to take decisive actions based on the will of 25-35,000 people? We (the US) are a nation of over 300 million individuals! How much say should a mere 10s of thousands have?

    However... 30 some thousand people bothered to sign it. Many probably had to go through the trouble to create accounts showing they cared more than just enough to click a link. Do you think this goes entirely unnoticed among the politicians? Please don't get me wrong, they are not going to suddenly become good. They are still getting all sorts of money and perks legal and otherwise from special interests including the movie and record industries. They can probably count on buying far more than 30,000 votes just by name recognition from the ads they can buy with lobbyist money. They aren't going to just throw that away. But they do know they can't be so bold about it. Elections are never more than 4 years away which means they will be considering both voters and campaign money. If we give up then the only voice they hear is the ones giving them the campaign money.

    The world is not going to change because of our little petitions but they will make some small difference. Even if it is only a little subconscious influence on politicians minds as they make decisions in the future that is something.

  65. Re:Something slightly different by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Because the presidents have been overstepping their positions for a really long time now, probably ever since George Washington retired. No president (or whitehouse website lackey) is ever going to publicly spell out the president's limitations to have it thrown back in his face at some later date when he IS trying to 'direct the legal system'.

  66. We have different definitions of "hostile" by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    The definition of hostile you are using is simply, "doesn't like us". That's not the usage I was making. In this case, hostile means "actively engaging in violent attacks against US forces, civilians, and/or property."

    If Iran decided to attack a U.S. ship in international waters, then I'd say the President has both the authority and duty to order the military to take appropriate responses.

  67. Re:More Republican Poutrage by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    Because Chris Dodd accepting outright bribes is exactly the same as someone earning money through a job. Seriously, do you ever read your own tripe?

  68. Whitehouse is blocking petitions with robots.txt by Nonac · · Score: 1

    I wanted to try searching for other petitions that have been similarly denied comment, but I couldn't because whitehouse.gov/robots.txt disallows all petition and response pages. Seems that the petition pages are the only ones they disallow. Also, the petition search on the site doesn't return 86ed petitions.

  69. Re:What should Obama have done? by tragedy · · Score: 1

    Based on what he said, I sadly have to agree with you. On the other hand, based on what he said, I think there might be a case against anyone who takes money from him in the future. In any case, strictly illegal, or not, his statement throws into sharp relief how clearly corrupt the system is.

  70. Re:he will be taking credit for all those dept's w by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    no you moron.

    If the Obama administration comments on such a law enforcement act in this manner before anything is charged, it would derail the whole process before it starts.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  71. A law enforcement action... by segfault_0 · · Score: 1

    Of course they can't comment, even if they were going to nail him to a cross, they would remain silent on the matter.

    The real question is did Dodd (and other current and past legislators) get the message or do we need to ring the bell again...

    --

    I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
  72. You fail at the constitution by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

    Impeachment is not available as a remedy against Article 1 elected officials. Impeachment is a power granted to Article 1 as a tool to be used against Article 2 and Article 3.

    See Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 and Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7.

    Article 1 gives both houses of Congress the power to police and sanction their own members, but good luck getting them to use it.

    --




    Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
  73. Re:Prosecute for what? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    Prosecute one guy for what? Which law has he broken? He threatened not to make campaign donations, and presumably on behalf of part of the MAFIAA. Is not contributing to a campaign illegal? Is it illegal to ask your representatives to do what you voted them in office to do?

    Even if you ignore Citizens United, this was blatant idiocy at best, and at worst a childish tantrum.

    So what do we prosecute him for exactly? And yes, I signed the petition. My reasons are obviously not the same as most peoples'.

  74. What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People actually thought that the executive branch would direct the "Justice" department to investigate Chris Dodd? We are talking about the same "Justice" department that is run by the following five RIAA lawyers:

    Ian Gershengorn
    Donald Verrilli
    Tom Perrilli
    Brian Hauck
    Ginger Anders

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/

    That is like appointing the fox to investigate the case of the dead chickens in the hen house.

  75. Clarification Please by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    What is an example of, "because it requests a specific law enforcement action." My understanding is; Government Employee "A" accepts Something from Agent "B" Representing Client "C". At this point, my understanding is that Government Employee "A" has been bribed. Prison should be consequence for Government Employee "A", Client "B", and Agent "C".

  76. Re:And that's kinda the whole point of democracy.. by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    As much as your point is taken, your ad hominem pretty much unveils you to be as deluded as these "gun nuts". While I'm sure you want to put a very fine point o n the horrors of war/revolution, consider also that some people are simply expressing that they feel completely hopeless, and that all they see before them is bloodshed to affect change.

    If you sympathize that way, if you provide a real example of hope (none of which I personally see right now, honestly), then perhaps you'd win more minds to your side. Your point is taken, though: War is terrifying, but the sad fact is that one wonders whether, given how apathetic so many seem to be, if bloodshed isn't the only thing that will wake enough people up to cause any real change. Even then, that change may make things even worse than they are now.

    --
    -
  77. Vote Republican (or Libertarian) for visibility by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The problem you have is simple - the press as-is, is loathe to report on Democratic corruption.

    If the president were a Republican, this "no comment" on investigation of this very OBVIOUS corruption would be at the top of every headline.

    If you want our Democracy to work, the key is that the people have to have visibility as to problems. That will not happen with Democrats in charge, it's is simple as that.

    So if you REALLY want Joe Sixpack to notice, don't vote Democrat. If you want even more mischief swept under the rug, by all means vote back in the current scoundrels.

    Note please I'm not saying Republicans or Libertarians are any less corrupt; it's simply that they cannot hide it with anywhere near the same level of (sl)ease.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  78. their buddies, which by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    Seriously? Three incorrect homophones in a row? Please tell me that was a joke.

  79. The investigation petition did not specify *when* by tlambert · · Score: 1

    The investigation petition did not specify when the bribes may have taken place.

    I suspect, as do many others, that his position with the MPAA after leaving office may have had some connection to his voting record on legislation impacting the MPAA before he left office, and that campaign contributions, and perhaps the promise of such a position, may have played a role in such decisions.

    So the investigation was, in the collective opinion of those who signed the petition, warranted to determine whether or no those suspicions were backed by evidence, or merely suspicions.

    Let's be very clear: anyone against SOPA or PIPA is an idiot if they fail to dislike the man. Whether or not there's something that can be legally done about that dislike, or to send a message to other SOPA/PIPA supporters, or supporters of similar future attempts at legislation remains to be seen.

    -- Terry

  80. And you fail at petitions by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Even if we accept your argument, despite case and federal law, which makes it a strict Constitutional Constructivist argument, that doesn't change things.

    The petition is a public petition, and all you are arguing at that point is that it should be presented to the House, rather than presenting it to the Executive, when it fact it was presented publicly, which means that it already meets your additional criteria.

    My point is, bribery is impeachable, and impeachment is the correct legal road forward for dealing with bribery. The point is to get someone to act on the correct legal road forward without being able to dodge the issue again.

    The Obama administration neatly sidestepped the intent of the petition on a legal technicality based on form. You're now trying to do the same thing based on presentation. Both approaches are disingenuous dodges with regards to elected officials being responsible for carrying out the will of the people.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:And you fail at petitions by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

      Congress can only exercise the powers that the constitution grants it. In some areas (like the ACA mandate) there is legitimate disagreement about the proper scope for that grant of power (does commerce clause allow Congress to pass laws regulating economic inactivity? I think Raich and Wickard were wrongly decided too, but the fact that I don't disagree with the law doesn't give me license to disobey it).

      There is no meaningful dispute that Congress can impeach its own members. It can't. The impeachment power may be exercised over the following persons: (let's read it together now, Article 2 section 4): "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors."

      senators (and ex-senators) are not Article 2 "civil Officers." This clause is commonly understood to apply to executive branch persons appointed by the president. It also applies to federal judges, who are (guess what?) appointed by the president.

      Congress members are not subject to the impeachment powers of their own house, because the constitution doesn't grant that power to the House or the Senate.

      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
  81. The problem is Joe Sixpack by sohmc · · Score: 1

    Joe Sixpack stays happy so long as his overall taxes don't increase, his local traffic stays managable, and overall expenses don't increase.

    The "average American" usually votes the party line and doesn't remember that his representative voted for Bill 1 and didn't vote for Bill 2.

    Once you understand this, it's easy to understand why politicians stay in business (yes, I said it!) for so long.

    Rarely does a politician, once entrenched in office, stick his or her neck out. But when it does happen, it should not only be noted, but applauded.

    The most recent example is Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. She could have stayed in Congress. In fact, if she ran again, she would probably run unopposed. But the fact that she saw herself and said, "The people of my district deserve the best and that is not me" showed that she needed to step down. (Full disclosure, I'm a registered Republican and don't agree with many of her positions. But I can say that what she did took courage and a bit sadden that her district is losing someone who actually thought of them first.)

    The problem is Joe Sixpack who continually vote these jokers back into office. Until we can get them to care more about their vote, we won't see radical change anytime soon.

    --
    We don't live in Shouldland.
  82. Reasoning? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Chris Dodd is a democrat. Or the fact that the RIAA and MPAA gave millions to Obama. Or the large number of MPAA and RIAA stooges in the Obama administration.
    Though it's good to know that the White House doesn't have to follow through with what they agreed to do, as long as they can come up with a half-assed reason.

  83. Re:The investigation petition did not specify *whe by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    The articles I saw about the petition said that the petition was in response to his calling on Congressmen and Senators who received campaign contributions from the MPAA to vote according to the MPAA's wishes (which was phrased in a way that suggests that the campaign donations were very much quid pro quo).

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  84. Re:What should Obama have done? by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

    What he said might be legal, but it certainly rouses a "reasonable suspicion" that there are illegal things going on. That is what an investigation (what was called for here) actually does, you know. Looks at a questionable situation and tries to determine what is actually happening.

    --
    ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  85. Re:More Republican Poutrage by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    Whenever the GOP is in power they seem to spend more time grandstanding for political advantage than doing the work of the people

    ...he says in response to a news story about a Democratic in power refusing to do the work of the people.

    Can we get past the idea that either major US party cares more about the citizenry than the other?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  86. Good point... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I'll one up that. The US Did put down a protest. They crushed OWS using provisions of the Patriot Act. The rest of the world ran a few news stories and then got on with their lives.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  87. Robots don't disobey orders. by bd580slashdot · · Score: 1

    Robots are coming on fast in the military. Ethical robotics in in it's infancy while full autonomy for mass killing looms large. The argument that the military won't shoot it's own citizens is dying fast. See "Wired for war" for stats.

  88. Why is this even posted here by teknosapien · · Score: 1

    I always thought this country was one based on due process
    This is clearly a law enforcement issue not a Executive branch of the .gov problem

    the accusations have been made now sit back and watch

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  89. Re:Dying from lack of surprise.. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    My Goodness, would you expect them to investigate the hand that feeds them?

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada