Slashdot Mirror


We The People Petition Signature Requirement Bumped To 100,000

New submitter schneidafunk writes with news that the White House is raising the signature requirement for petitions from 25,000 to 100,000. From the source: "When we first raised the threshold — from 5,000 to 25,000 — we called it 'a good problem to have.' Turns out that 'good problem' is only getting better, so we're making another adjustment to ensure we’re able to continue to give the most popular ideas the time they deserve. ... In the first 10 months of 2012, it took an average of 18 days for a new petition to cross the 25,000-signature threshold. In the last two months of the year, that average time was cut in half to just 9 days, and most petitions that crossed the threshold collected 25,000 signatures within five days of their creation. More than 60 percent of the petitions to cross threshold in all of 2012 did so in the last two months of the year."

337 comments

  1. IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by killfixx · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We're so pleased at the response, we're going to make it that much more difficult to earn a response from this office. Good luck!"

    Shenanigans.

    Next stop, 1 Million!

    Yay.

    --
    "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    1. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps if people stopped submitting nonsense petitions there wouldn't be a need to adjust the threshold for an official response.

    2. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Or in other words "You're giving us too much work. Here, we're making it so we only have to answer like... 3 things a year."

      Y'know guys... if there's an overwhelming number of petitions to dramatically change things, maybe, just maybe, you should consider actually fixing shit that's constantly being petitioned about instead of saying "no, fuck you", and closing the petition.

    3. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by biek · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's no way there are 75,000 more people on the internet with nothing to do.

    4. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, "Try taking this shit seriously, idiots. You're given a chance and you ruin it".

    5. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Y'know guys... if there's an overwhelming number of petitions to dramatically change things, maybe, just maybe, you should consider actually fixing shit that's constantly being petitioned about instead of saying "no, fuck you", and closing the petition.

      Okay. How about if there's an overwhelming number of petitions for ridiculous garbage like building Death Stars or annexing Canada? What should they consider doing then?

      I'm thinking they should raise the number of signatures that trigger a response, but that's just me.

    6. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my country, Switzerland, the initiative requirement is 100k. Admittedly, the it's quite a difference (the initiative causes a binding popular vote), but it's a thorouhgly proven systen and with a roughly 50x bigger population the US probably wouldn't do too badly with a limit of 5 Million. You'd have to build up a comparable communication and voting infrastructure first, though ;)

    7. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if there's an overwhelming number of petitions for ridiculous garbage like building Death Stars or annexing Canada? What should they consider doing then?

      Clearly they should send all Canadians up on the Death Star so we can have their land and natural resources.

    8. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yes, but aside from the racism, Swiss democracy is working. Not so in the U.S. How we can have a democracy where 90% of people are unsatisfied with the net results(at least for congress) is baffling.

      (I guess that's kind of like saying, "aside from the feces in it, this sandwich is delicious" though)

    9. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compromise is everyone agree to be unhappy with the results.

    10. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Okay. How about if there's an overwhelming number of petitions for ridiculous garbage like building Death Stars or annexing Canada? What should they consider doing then?

      Build the Death Star, then use it to annex Canada

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    11. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, there was a petition that got WELL over the required number of signatures but was quietly swept under the rug... something along the lines of "stop giving do-nothing answers and take the petitions seriously."

      So clearly according to you, that line of thought can only go in one direction. They can take the suggestions as un-seriously as possible, but when the shoe's on the other foot... well shit, gotta punish people.

    12. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by peeping_Thomist · · Score: 1

      It's possible to have a democracy in which every decision is made by majority rule, but the majority is dissatisfied with the majority of the decisions. You just have to have a small percentage that wins all the time.

      --
      Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
    13. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by causality · · Score: 1

      Y'know guys... if there's an overwhelming number of petitions to dramatically change things, maybe, just maybe, you should consider actually fixing shit that's constantly being petitioned about instead of saying "no, fuck you", and closing the petition.

      Okay. How about if there's an overwhelming number of petitions for ridiculous garbage like building Death Stars or annexing Canada? What should they consider doing then?

      I'm thinking they should raise the number of signatures that trigger a response, but that's just me.

      They should ignore the petitions about "building Death Stars" and respond to the realistic ones, such as legalizing marijuana.

      This is not difficult.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    14. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps if they stopped submitting nonsense responses there wouldn't be a need to submit nonsense petitions.

    15. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that building a Death Star is more realistic, actually.

    16. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      What racism? Do you mean the ban on minarets? That isn't racism.

    17. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should consider building the stinkin death star so that people can shut up about it.

      I mean here I thought we were a democracy.

    18. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *GASP* Heaven forbid they have to use humour to answer a humorous petition once or twice a year. Why, this is an outrage, and they should be allowed NO smiles!

      If they get a blatantly obviously funny petition, answer it in a funny manner. What's so fucking hard about that? That way, you don't just tell people "this is too much work, go fuck yourselves" by raising the limit.

      Besides, the single only reason there's "joke" petitions is because everyone has figured out that they don't give even the slightest of two shits about actually listening to any of the "real" ones.

    19. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by gnoshi · · Score: 2

      They should ignore the petitions about "building Death Stars" and respond to the realistic ones, such as legalizing marijuana.
      This is not difficult.

      I can't tell if you're being funny or not, but actually you've hit the nail on the head: it isn't always easy to differentiate serious and 'humorous' petitions. Legalizing marijuana is a real issue for many people, and I think the current criminalization in so many countries is a terrible idea, but such a petition could equally be created as a joke.

      Also, what is crazy (not humorous, but properly nuts) to one person is not crazy to another. e.g. a petition to deport someone for their views on gun control. Crazy? Yes, I think so, but those putting it up didn't think so. Needs a response? Equally, yes.

    20. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Right, because responding with 'No, sorry, but this one is nonsense' is SO time consuming. How on earth can the heads of office be expected to spend tens of seconds a day responding to the less important issues on their mere $200,000 a year salaries?! Obviously it was a clear case of either increase the threshold or increase their salaries to compensate. We all know how The People would cry foul if the poor deprived politicians tried to seek fair compensation for their seconds of hard work per day in the current economic climate.

    21. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by m3000 · · Score: 2

      They did respond to the marijuana one. They just didn't give the answer the people who signed it wanted.

      I'm kind of baffled why people were shocked they got a response that said they weren't interested in legalizing marijuana, when that was ALWAYS his point of view. It's not like they didn't already know some good percentage of people want it legal, but a petition of 25,000 people isn't going to automatically change policy all of the sudden if they don't want to do that.

      I always saw the petition site as a way to force a response from the administration on some topic, not a way to force them to change their minds on that stance.

    22. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      You mean like building a death star?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    23. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this whole thing not the equivalent of distracting people with stupid petitions while they are dismantling the Bill of Rights?

    24. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      In the US if you have 5 million voters seriously motivated on a topic you can bet it will get some attention, as that is about 5% of the people who are likely to vote in any given election. 5% is PLENTY enough to win you practically any national election in US history.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    25. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Or in other words "You're giving us too much work. Here, we're making it so we only have to answer like... 3 things a year."

      Y'know guys... if there's an overwhelming number of petitions to dramatically change things, maybe, just maybe, you should consider actually fixing shit that's constantly being petitioned about instead of saying "no, fuck you", and closing the petition.

      There are 150M registered voters in the USA (out of around 200M eligible voters). Raising the petition limit to 0.067% of registered voters doesn't seem out of line and helps keep down the noise to allow more thorough answers to the petitions that do make the cut.

    26. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does it really matter? It's a piece of theater to placate idiots into thinking anything they have to say -- even in numbers -- means a shit. Make it five people. Make it a million. It's irrelevant.

    27. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by smitty97 · · Score: 4, Funny

      But we really wanted a Death Star!

      --
      mod me funny
    28. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps if people stopped submitting nonsense petitions there wouldn't be a need to adjust the threshold for an official response.

      Exactly.

      Death Stars? Really?
      Thanks a lot all you idiots that jumped on that bandwagon! Nice Job.

      You've proven to the elected officials that constituents should be ignored. Happy now?

      Equal bitchslaps are deserved by this administration for agreeing that any obviously ridiculous request gets consideration if it shows up in the in-box with enough idiots signing on.

      The US has a republican form of government, a Representative Democracy, because the founding fathers foresaw this level of idiocy.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    29. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the threshold were 1, it would clearly be too time consuming.

      If the threshold were 300 million, where you need near-unanimous support, it would not.

      Finding the right balance, especially when the response rate is increasing, is nontrivial. You must also consider the petitions that aren't utter nonsense but are stupid or impractical for non-obvious reasons, and the fact that even for valid petitions you can only consider so many unless you want to burn another $200k per year taxpayer money for more help.

      I don't know how much time is actually spent on nonsense petitions (I saw a few), bad petitions, etc., and I don't know what a reasonable projection is, but there's no reason to be married to the number 25000. Maybe the right number is more. It might even be less, but I honestly though 25k was a bit low in the age of the Internet. A single tweet from a high-profile celebrity would be almost guaranteed to turn into a petition no matter what its merits.

    30. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      I mean here I thought we were a democracy.

      Nope. Never was meant to be one. Try again.

    31. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Judge Dredd law enforcement officers.
      And to deport Piers Morgan.
      And lots and lots of pot.
      And to balance the budget. roflcopter.

    32. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not. Not some jumped up bureaucrat or an AC fascist apologist. While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the chance to put anything to their fellow citizens and have the White House consider them without raising the threshold to un-democratically restrictive levels.

    33. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They did respond to the marijuana one. They just didn't give the answer the people who signed it wanted.

      I'm kind of baffled why people were shocked they got a response that said they weren't interested in legalizing marijuana, when that was ALWAYS his point of view.

      Asking the President to legalize marijuana is the wrong way to go. Just get it on your State ballots and problem solved.
      When enough states legalize it, those representatives and senators will force the feds to legalize it, or withhold all enforcement
      funds until DEA removes it from the banned list.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    34. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should consider building the stinkin death star so that people can shut up about it.

      I mean here I thought we were a democracy.

      You thought wrong. We are a Republic.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    35. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 0

      Like Hilliary Clinton's moronic support for UN HRC Resolution 16/18 where she promised to suppress ('name and shame' she said) the Constitutional First Amendment Free Speech rights of her own citizens at the behest of the repressive Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) [who are the mafia voting bloc who now run the United Nations]. This is absolutely scandalous yet the majority of US citizens seem more concerned with retaining the ability to obtain unlicensed semi-automatic weapons or the Kardashian foibles rather than making a fuss about the current Administration's assault on Free Speech (eg. the US military now has a list of words it may not use, like "Islamic terrorism" etc).

    36. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by icebike · · Score: 1

      *GASP* Heaven forbid they have to use humour to answer a humorous petition once or twice a year. Why, this is an outrage, and they should be allowed NO smiles!

      If they get a blatantly obviously funny petition, answer it in a funny manner. What's so fucking hard about that?

      Because funny answers engender more funny petitions, and pretty soon we have an entire Department of Jokes and Witty Riposte, complete with a Cabinet level secretary and quarter million minions.

      We all know guys in power are a bunch of chuckle heads already. Not sense giving them projects with which to prove it.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    37. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I always saw the petition site as a way to force a response from the administration on some topic, not a way to force them to change their minds on that stance.

      You've got to get 25,000 signatures to get them to re-iterate their policy position?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    38. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by dnahelicase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not. Not some jumped up bureaucrat or an AC fascist apologist. While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the chance to put anything to their fellow citizens and have the White House consider them without raising the threshold to un-democratically restrictive levels.

      I think people should be allowed to put anything forward, and they still can, the threshold is just bigger before the White House will recognize it.

      Given how these have taken off, I don't feel like this is unreasonable or in any way undemocratic. If it only takes about a week to get 25k, it seems like 100k should be in reach if its a half decent petition.

      I mean, isn't that around 0.03% of the population? Up from around 0.008%?

    39. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Problem is, a petition with a signiture of 1 may be a completely valid petition, requiring a completely valid response, should it not be heard by those in power?

      Likewise, a petition that garners the 300 million signitures may not be valid, and may not require a valid response (ie "nonsense"). Should this be heard by those in power?

      There is no "right balance" that will not hide valid requests and yet not let nonsense through. The real question is, how to we decide what is valid and not valid in a petition of our government?

      AND from what I've seen, this whole "petition" thing is only slightly more than a combination Joke machine and a way to let people voice their concerns while not ever addressing them. It isn't accomplishing anything other than noise. My Best example ....

      A pro-gun control petition submitted on Friday through the White House's "We the People" platform has quickly emerged as the most popular cause ever championed on the website.

      And yet, they are still attempting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment on a daily basis.

      IF you want to do gun control, REPEAL the 2nd Amendment properly. Problem is, the left wing loons know they can't so they ignore it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    40. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      Build the Death Star, then use it to annex Canada

      No, build X-Wings and Y-Wings. Cheaper, and we'll be ready to destroy China's death star before it clears our mutual moon.

    41. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      What about the people who wanted texas to secede from the union?

      is that legit or not?

      Politics is rarely black and white. it is mostly gray and green(morals and money).

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    42. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how much time is actually spent on nonsense petitions (I saw a few), bad petitions, etc.

      Considering the amount of time they seem to spend on good and actionable petitions, I would say zero is a fair guess.

    43. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by causality · · Score: 1

      Also, what is crazy (not humorous, but properly nuts) to one person is not crazy to another. e.g. a petition to deport someone for their views on gun control. Crazy? Yes, I think so, but those putting it up didn't think so. Needs a response? Equally, yes.

      I realize that crazy people subjectively believe themselves to be sane. That's why so few of them want to change. The sign of such people is that they get angry and insulting when asked to explain their views. But you would hardly rely on people like this to derive your standard of sanity, unless of course you found them useful for providing a contrast.

      In a nation which has the First Amendment, punishing someone for expressing an opinion is objectively crazy. If these people would like to make an attempt to amend the Constitution and remove such First Amendment protections, there is a process for doing so. Until then, not only would deporting someone for a mere view be both crazy and illegal, it is also the classic sign of insecurity shown by small-minded people who feel threatened by opposing points of view. These are not individuals who can stand on the merits of their own reason. These are sheep who must be part of a like-minded flock, to give themselves the illusion of legitimacy by the numbers of other sheep, else they feel alone, isolated, and threatened by the prospect of thinking for themselves.

      No one who has sensible views based on solid principles feels a need to persecute and materially harm the lives of others merely for disagreeing. Those who are secure in their well-founded beliefs never deal with dissent by lashing out in such an infantile manner.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    44. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by causality · · Score: 1

      We all know guys in power are a bunch of chuckle heads already. Not sense giving them projects with which to prove it.

      I don't know, it may distract them from serious matters, thereby limiting the damage they can do.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    45. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by causality · · Score: 1

      It's possible to have a democracy in which every decision is made by majority rule, but the majority is dissatisfied with the majority of the decisions. You just have to have a small percentage that wins all the time.

      Here in the USA, we call them "lobbyists".

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    46. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by oGMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not.

      Don't make me laugh. If popular news media, slashdot, and 4chan are any indication of anything, it's that "nonsense" appeals far more than "sense". A lot of people are going to vote for something because they think it's funny.

      If the majority of people were reliable arbiters of sense, we'd have a lot fewer problems in the world.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    47. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The White House started it by submitting nonsense petition responses.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    48. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by johnny+cashed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Check your facts, the USA is a democratic republic . It is not a pure, mob rule democracy. And that is a good thing.

    49. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The White House itself demonstrated that the petitions were worthless long before any sarcastic petition got approved. 75,000 people asked why Cannabis could not be regulated like alcohol. The White House had the drug czar, who is statutorily prohibited from advocating for drug law reform, respond. He failed to mention alcohol once.

      If the White House won't treat our petitions with respect, why should we treat their petition site with respect?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    50. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      In a democracy

      This isn't a democracy - it's a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation. Worlds of difference.

      While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the chance to put anything to their fellow citizens and have the White House consider them without raising the threshold to un-democratically restrictive levels.

      Caveat - I completely agree.

      However, you don't need democracy for that - the Constitution guarantees your right, as an individual, to petition the government for redress of grievances. Group participation is not a requirement.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    51. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Y'know guys... if there's an overwhelming number of petitions to dramatically change things, maybe, just maybe, you should consider actually fixing shit that's constantly being petitioned about instead of saying "no, fuck you", and closing the petition.

      Okay. How about if there's an overwhelming number of petitions for ridiculous garbage like building Death Stars or annexing Canada? What should they consider doing then?

      How about giving the legitimate petitions real answers, instead of boilerplate political bullshit?

      As I recall, the first few batches of petitions were quite serious indeed, but the answers we received were not. It's hilarious irony - the White House brought this upon themselves, started the idiocy, then bitch about people not taking it seriously.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    52. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by fafalone · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair the petitions are already a joke. It's not like they've been giving serious responses to anything.

    53. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Could their response have anything to do with the death star by chance?

    54. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition

      If you think the Death Star petition was idiotic, then you agree with the OP.

      Your argument is about as salient and convincing as the "don't curtail my 1st amendment rights!" screech one hears from time to time after crticizing an obviously stupid idea.

      In short: sometimes, ideas are objectively nonsense, and elected officials shouldn't have to waste their time on such matters.

    55. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon the chances of the White House being required to respond will be similar to the chances of winning the lottery.

    56. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by headcase88-2 · · Score: 2

      But the Death Star response was informative, and no one should draw the line of what is "nonsense". Not saying this petition system actually brings forth any change, but I do think it's a good idea and hope it's taken up by future administrations. It's nice to see them tasked to make a response if enough people demand it; even a superficial one helps clue one in to what the administration is about when a "no comment" response is off the table.

    57. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's 200M possible voters... but how many actually GO TO THAT SITE AND VOTE? Hell, how many people vote in general?

      What's that? An abysmally small percentage for both, the former being far, far smaller than the latter? Then shutup.

      Raising the limit to 100k just means that the ONLY petitions that get through will be the viral joke ones, or knee-jerk emotional reactions to something that happened in the immediate past (which is exactly when you do NOT want to make any sudden, drastic changes without looking into the consequences of said changes first).

      tl;dr: They've just successfully turned the 'We The People' site into a way to push idiotic agendas based on single, ultra-rare outlier incidents (after filtering out the viral joke ones).

      Answer me this... how many votes do you think a petition for "Create the TSA to protect us from terrorists" would have gotten a week after 9/11?

      The oooooonly purpose of this site now is to push through bills based on knee-jerk reactions to further erode privacy. Enjoy your utopia, USA, you've earned it. Try to avoid dragging the rest of the world down with you, I rather like it where I am.

    58. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks god we've not a democracy, you ninny hammer.

    59. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by causality · · Score: 1

      What racism? Do you mean the ban on minarets? That isn't racism.

      Pretty soon the word "racism" will be devoid of all meaning, due to being constantly diluted and trivialized by constantly being used where it does not apply.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    60. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by MatrixCubed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bloody peasant.

    61. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100,000 'signatures' isn't even 2% of the minority vote that elected G.W.B. in 2000. And why not require some threshold of reasonablity along with 100,000 anonymous signatures?

      Even a whitehouse intern should have better things to do than post a link to the Constitution for the 119,000 people who supposedly signed on to the petition to let Texas secede from the union. It's unconstiutional, and all the whitehouse should have done was post a link to the section of the Consitution that deals with amendments.

      I think there should be a rider attached to the gun control Bill that couples the right to vote with background checks. Let's start a petition.

    62. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep the Channel to the White House Open
      White House doesn't want your petitions or opinions.
      Tell the Administration, Listen to Us!
      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/return-threshold-response-25000-signatures/CTRFGHFr
      Petition to:
      1. To Keep the White House responsive to We the People
      2. We demand a return to the 25,000 signature threshold from the revised 100,000 threshold.
      3. The White House will not stifle, muffle or silence We the People.

    63. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or applying Randian Libertarianism to reality??

      The last time I tried applying randy libertarianism to reality, I had to attend a sexual harassment class....

    64. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't a democracy - it's a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation. Worlds of difference.

      Ugh. Here's a quick refresher on terminology:
      Republic. Or at least a very good overview of the definitions that you'll find in dictionaries.
      Democracy. Or at least a very good overview of the definitions that you'll find in dictionaries.
      A democracy is a subset of a republic. A direct democracy is a subset of both a republic and a democracy. A "Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation" is a subset of both a republic and a democracy. You can't have a democracy without a republic, but you can have a republic without a democracy (leaders chosen at random is one example).

      I really wish conservatives wouldn't invent new meanings to words just so that they don't have to update their world view.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    65. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An how, exactly do you define the limit to "un-democratically restrictive"? They arbitrarily chose one value, then arbitrarily changed it to another; why is this new value suddenly so restrictive in your eyes?

    66. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Tokolosh · · Score: 3, Funny

      "We fought for freedom and all we got was democracy"
      - Pieter-Dirk Uys

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    67. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a democracy - it's a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation. Worlds of difference.

      Any form of government that uses elections falls under the category of Democracy. You're trying to conflate Democracy with Direct Democracy. So yes, America is a Democracy. America is not a Direct Democracy, but nobody said it was.

    68. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by meglon · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. This administration should go back to the democratically non-restrictive method used by prior administrations...not taking any petitions like this at all. Oh....wait....

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    69. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if people stopped submitting nonsense petitions there wouldn't be a need to adjust the threshold for an official response.

      Perhaps if the administration stopped submitting nonsense responses there wouldn't be a need to troll the fucking shit out of them.

    70. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't a democracy - it's a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation. Worlds of difference.

      Having democratically elected representatives also counts as a democracy

      According to Wiktionary democracy is ...

      -- " Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives (representative democracy)"

    71. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      This isn't a democracy - it's a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation. Worlds of difference.

      Ugh. Here's a quick refresher on terminology:
      Republic. Or at least a very good overview of the definitions that you'll find in dictionaries.
      Democracy. Or at least a very good overview of the definitions that you'll find in dictionaries.
      A democracy is a subset of a republic. A direct democracy is a subset of both a republic and a democracy. A "Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation" is a subset of both a republic and a democracy. You can't have a democracy without a republic, but you can have a republic without a democracy (leaders chosen at random is one example).

      I really wish conservatives wouldn't invent new meanings to words just so that they don't have to update their world view.

      1) You absolutely can have a democracy without a republic. (Good luck getting anything done though.)
      2) None of what you said changes the fact that the United States of America is not a democracy. You can cry about conservatives pointing that simple fact out to you, or you can deal with the simple truth of the matter. The USA is democratic (in theory - in practice LOL) but it is not a democracy.

    72. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by meglon · · Score: 1

      We're both. There's a nice little post up above by NeutronCowboy clarifying basic political science for those who failed high school US history.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    73. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by meglon · · Score: 1

      We're both. See the post by NeutronCowboy clarifying basic political science for those who failed high school US history.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    74. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by sustik · · Score: 1

      I do not understand what is the big problem with idiot petitions. A one liner response would do: "We had a good laugh at the office. Now we are back to work." These petitions are not binding...

      Regarding the Death Star petition in particular, could it be that the public's interest should be interpreted a little bit more on an abstracted level? For example the White House could have said: "Considering the enourmous interest, there will be a Death Star stamp issued in March 2013, commemorating the 30 year anniversary of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative." Or put the Death Star on the new trillion dollar coin to be minted. Whatever. Bureaucrats! Show some class!

    75. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the Constitution guarantees your right, as an individual, to petition the government for redress of grievances.

      Indeed.

      Redress: Remedy or set right (an undesirable or unfair situation): "the power to redress the grievances of our citizens".

      I've found the administration's choice to merely re-state their existing position instead a very intriguing way of short-circuiting that right. It appears to be the intended purpose of the petition site functionality.

    76. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by meglon · · Score: 2

      Clearly you've never been in the military. Military personnel do not have freedom of speech. You want an opinion? You will be issued on by your supply sgt.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    77. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely scandalous yet the majority of US citizens seem more concerned with retaining the ability to obtain unlicensed semi-automatic weapons or the Kardashian foibles rather than making a fuss about the current Administration's assault on Free Speech (eg. the US military now has a list of words it may not use, like "Islamic terrorism" etc).

      So the current administration is assaulting the First Amendment AND the Second Amendment?

      When you decide that the Second is as important as the First, I'll consider caring about what Hillary and Obama are saying....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    78. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by runeghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somehow I doubt the "majority of people" in the U.S. would be in favor of:

      regularly using robots to kill random strangers in distant countries
      spending hundreds of billions prosecuting minor, victimless crimes
      while consistently ignoring massive and wide-spread criminal wrongdoing by giant corporations because, "hey, they're big!"
      handing control of their currency to a clique of unelected bankers who then hand out said money by the (virtual) truckload to the aforementioned giant corporations
      cutting sweetheart deals with industry on everything from medical care to oil spill cleanup, at the expense of said majority

    79. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God forbid they be human!

    80. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Informative

      Especially the one about the TSA. They didn't even try to make it seem as if they actually care in that case.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    81. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      I can think of a couple of Kingdoms (not republics) with democratically elected representation...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    82. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      They're not a democracy, they're a constitutional monarchy. I.e., great Britain.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    83. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's only ok for the king to smoke. The peasants aren't allowed to do anything like that. They might actually start thinking or something. Realize the red white and blue cock in their ass is actually making them choke its in so far. Can't have that now can we... Besides, there is more money in prohibition than there will ever be in legalization. So... no.

    84. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by segfault_0 · · Score: 0

      Well things have been so great the past few years -- how could anyone argue with this logic?

      --

      I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
    85. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Becoming an empire....

    86. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .

      Death Stars? Really?
      Thanks a lot all you idiots that jumped on that bandwagon! Nice Job.

      You've proven to the elected officials that constituents should be ignored. Happy now?

      I think it was a way for the people to say "you don't seem to take this seriously, so why should we?"
      Name just one petition that caused any change, or even that the government appointed a study group to get facts. This is no better than your congressman's automated canned replies stating how much he values your input, followed by ten lines of text proving that he didn't value it enough to even skim-read it. Well, the difference is that the congressman sends a reply for each petition, while the government is honest enough to admit it ignores individuals (but not honest enough to admit it ignores thousands of them too).

      Sadly, the only way to the government's ears is through a CEO (or, for some presidents, through charlatans like astrologists and reverends).

    87. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      Not having a forum vs. having the forum but not providing meaningful responses / discussion is effectively the same thing. If making your voice heard in this way simply results in some PR hack glossing over your points and restating the current policy on a given subject, there's really not much point in participating in the forum in the first place. You may well be better off wandering around randomly in public shouting your views or maybe finding the nearest free speech zone where you can go get it out of your system.

    88. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is an information sink. It's not there for your benefit. It's there to map the demographic layout of people angry enough to attach their opinions and desires to their personal information for careful cataloging in a database.Hey, we had a nutball President; Nixon, who made Elvis a special Federal Narcotics officer and asked him to spy on the Beatles.How 'bout ol Bush Sr and the C.I.A.? Frankly, the privacy and freedom vacuum got turned up pretty badly during the Clinton administration and has sucked hard since.
      Ask yourself, what has this device accomplished in it's history?
      It drew all sorts of freaks out of the woodwork with their concerns du jour. Freaks being anyone outside the philosophy of the current Reich.
      A few cutsie G rated pleas get some thoughtful responses to legitimatize it's existence
      Some causes get put up and spammed by various corporate sized interests to gain press notoriety and control public perception.
      This is such a suspicious, smelly " service " performed by the current figurehead with a smile and open arms.
      "Come whisper in my ear, what's bothering you, I feel close to you so you can tell me who you are, where you are and give me a way to track your habits.We can be sooooo much closer. Just think of me as Big Brother, looking out for you."
      Cross reference databases from the F.B.I., N.S.A.(and their datamining activities) C.I.A. and whoever is pointing Hubble class telescopes at earth.
      Where do they draw the line on "enemy of the state","person of interest""radical" Just how far outside the opinions of the current administration can you be, before you are a growing file on a stripe in the middle of some server farm the size of the Astrodome ?
      Aww, go ahead, sign it, Obama's alright, people really can get what they want by showing up in numbers and letting the government know what they're supposed to do.What do you got to lose?

    89. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by icebike · · Score: 1

      I think it was a way for the people to say "you don't seem to take this seriously, so why should we?"
      Name just one petition that caused any change, or even that the government appointed a study group to get facts.
      This is no better than your congressman's automated canned replies

      Its EXACTLY like your congressman's canned replies, and it could never have been anything other than that.
      Welcome to reality.
      Look, this was a off the cuff campaign promise by a guy who is not used to being held to his promises.

      Its naivety of the first order to have believed this was EVER anything other than a "get me elected" ploy. Why did anyone expect this to ever work? Why did everyone jump on the band wagon and insist this was different, because it was from the Prophet Obama?

      Anyone who thinks 25,000 signatures or 100,000 matters in a country with 315 million where there already exists a system of elections
      and a representative form of government, or that clicking a mouse and a few keystrokes actually accounts for civic involvement is
      delusional. Would you REALLY want to live in a country where 25,000 couch potato digital hippies could whip-saw the government into doing
      something real, spending any time or tax payer dollars on total crap suggestions? Come on.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    90. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Oloryn · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon the word "racism" will be devoid of all meaning, due to being constantly diluted and trivialized by constantly being used where it does not apply.

      What makes you think we haven't actually gotten there already?

    91. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by GNious · · Score: 2

      You can't have a democracy without a republic

      Crap, I thought the Scandinavian countries were democracies...

    92. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Liberals believe that Liberty is given to you by the government.

      The whole idea that Liberty is given to you by your God, and therefor not up to a government to take away... you know, the Enlightenment ideas that gave rise to the US Constitution, well that's just old racists talking.

      So the old "Rights" of free speech, have a gun if you want, worship how you want.... that shits on the Liberal Chopping Block. To be replaced with mandatory socialist-issued healthcare as a "right".

      The hell of it is they used the system created by Freedom-loving people and are redirecting it to a Marxist wonderland.

    93. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well too many of these petitions were actual shenanigans. People seeing what they can do to get a reponse. Get a silly idea, tout it on all the social networks, and you can get your numbers on an electronic petition in short order.

    94. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      This new petition requirement is still only about 0.03% of the public. I would actually be more interested if they raised the requirement to 3+ million signatures. It would be interesting to see if they would still blow off the questions when an entire 1% of the population were asking them. You can look at the way it works now and say that, based on the turnout, 3 million signatures would never be achievable. On the other hand, requiring that many signatures would also strongly imply that they would take the results more seriously, attracting more people. If they then didn't take the questions seriously, the negative fallout would presumably be something that would actually affect them.

    95. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no one reasonable ever thought that this was a real thing.

      the fact that people BOUGHT this bullshit (that those in charge care about our needs) is even more amazing.

      give it up, people. they don't CARE about us. they simply don't care. they got theirs and that's all that matters to them.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    96. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by ArtemaOne · · Score: 0

      I really wish conservatives wouldn't invent new meanings to words just so that they don't have to update their world view.

      Really? Like liberals didn't redefine "assault weapon" to mean "scary looking rifle" instead of its true definition of "full-automatic firearm"? Don't call out conservative or liberal crap when it is all B.S.

    97. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      not going to happen, federally.

      as long as the feds (and cronies) make GOOD MONEY at the citizens' expense, they won't change their views or laws.

      we make a lot of money by jailing people. the lobbiest have a lot of power and this cash cow won't be sent to the butcher for years and years. if ever.

      see, it means admitting they were wrong, all along.

      you ever see a politician do that? I have not. not ever. not even once.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    98. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      it did serve a purpose. but not one they intended.

      it proved to us, with no doubts at all, that they DON'T CARE.

      if you didn't know that before, you know it now.

      so, in a way, it was educational to some. many of us knew this was BS all along, but some of you actually did fall for it.

      hopefully, you now realize what kind of government we really have. and this is not about obama; any clown in office basically does the same shit and cares less about the regular people and their needs.

      (btw, when are the fires and pitchforks? are we there, yet?)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    99. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people are going to vote for something because they think it's funny.

      Didn't monarchists use similar arguments, before being hanged, anyway?

    100. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by icebike · · Score: 1

      see, it means admitting they were wrong, all along.
      you ever see a politician do that? I have not. not ever. not even once.

      State after state is falling all over themselves to legalize gay marriage.
      Politicians who voted "hell no" just a couple years ago are now jumping on the bandwagon as fast as they can.
      If you haven't seen this even once you haven't been paying attention.

      As soon as even a third of the states legalize pot the rest will jump on board. It will happen.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    101. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You call it nonsense. I saw something else.

      Most politicians are so full of shit, and so full of themselves, they can't pause a moment to share a joke. They are so busy screwing us over, they can't stop to spend some time with us. It's "Wham, bam!" and not even a "Thank you, Ma'am".

      Badmouth Obama, badmouth the people who submit the "nonsense" petitions if you like. But, I saw a little bit of interaction between the administration and the population that wasn't all doom and gloom. A bit of playful nonsense is good now and then.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    102. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only now noticing the disrespect? It's been going on since the early 60s...

    103. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't make me laugh. If popular news media, slashdot, and 4chan are any indication of anything, it's that "nonsense" appeals far more than "sense". A lot of people are going to vote for something because they think it's funny.

      If the majority of people were reliable arbiters of sense, we'd have a lot fewer problems in the world.

      Welcome to the general throng of humanity, where the intelligence of half the population is below average....

      The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
      --Winston Churchill

    104. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      before the deathstar it's pretty much a bunch of marijuana ones not exactly silly. I took the death star as a fuck it you won't be seriouse we won't kind of thing with a subtle I no longer want to live on this world aftertaste.

    105. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not every state is willing to do that whole not do what the federal government says you shouldn't do thing we had a big war over this.

    106. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Two have, the rest will follow. Somebody always has to be first.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    107. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Because a square is a particular kind of rectangle does not mean that it isnt a rectangle at all.

      Replace "square" with "our country", etc.

    108. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "IF you want to do gun control, REPEAL the 2nd Amendment properly. Problem is, the left wing loons know they can't so they ignore it."

            Pro-gun control ignoring it doesn't make anything they pass anymore legal as long as the rest of us don't let them. Otherwise, we're screwed. I guess we need to get out our guns and start killing these fuckers for treason since they are ignoring the constitution and passing fake laws regardless and insisting we follow them.

    109. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      This is no better than your congressman's automated canned replies

      I get canned replies/propaganda from a congresswoman, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
    110. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are 150M registered voters in the USA"

              Maybe you should go by the number/percentage that actually voted in the last election.

    111. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know right? If there was a "death star" petition every day of the year, by golly they might have to bump the response writer up to full time! Thanks to Obamacare that guy's benefits could put the whole government into the red!

    112. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      The White House itself demonstrated that the petitions were worthless long before any sarcastic petition got approved.

      You are most likely correct. The value in this system is that it allows issues that don't bubble to the top of mass media to be addressed, and there are many. However the major parties already have a position on most everything, and you can get this by writing to the office of your representative, so nothing new is going to come from these responses.

      There is equal culpability on the other side - the petitioners. They write a petition which is nothing more than a re-statement of their existing political position to score visibility.

      The other purpose of petitions is to provide feedback to politicians. This is also redundant in an era where untold millions are spent on polling and demographic analysis. In your example, they know there are X hippies out there who want marijuana legalised. Further, because the internet is so sensitive to flash hype and memes, the numbers of online petitions make them worthless (hence the death star).

      So ultimately there may be an expectation that it goes like this;

      Petition: N of us think that given fact X and logic Y, marijuana should be legalised.
      Current party: You know that makes a lot of sense, and you have a lot of support, we'll reverse our longheld policy.

      It won't happen because the 'efficiency' of the current political system means it's already taken into account.

    113. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      I've been meaning to look this up for a while, but is there a proper term for the act of applying logic to a nonsensical proposal?

      I believe that would be "Nerd Humor".

      It was discussed in about 2 pages worth of detail in the Yellow Book.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    114. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by nadaou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I've said it before and I'll say it again, Democracy simply doesn't work."
          -- Kent Brockman, Channel 6 News

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    115. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if the United States were a classical democracy, you would need over ~150,000,000 signatures since the population is ~300,000,000. I.E. greater that 50% of the population.

    116. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I get canned replies/propaganda from a congresswoman, you insensitive clod!

      A woman can be a congressman (or freshman or ombudsman) too. All women are men; mankind comprises both sexes, despite what the PC brigade and redstockings want you to believe. Sometimes women manhandle people and commit manslaughter, and have their manservant drop the body down a manhole. Or shoot a minuteman rocket over no-man's-land with showmanship.
      A woman is human, not huwoman.

      It's men that are discriminated against by language - we don't have the counterpart word to woman that excludes females and children. If I said "werman", no man would understand what I meant.

      I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but I think it's important to let "man" continue to mean "person" for as long as possible, and where it's natural to do so.
      And a person's gender shouldn't matter anyhow unless you're sexist.

    117. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In what sense is UK (and other Commonwealth monarchies) not a democracy? They have people controlling the political process through elected representatives, monarch or no monarch.

    118. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by aevan · · Score: 2

      Why would democracy without a republic be a monarchy?
      Simply have everything as an idea/project/request/law be submitted by anyone, then have everyone vote on it, and if it hits 51% it happens... until the next idea/complaint/request, where everyone votes again and if it reaches 51% the first is tossed out.

      No president, congress, senators, leaders...just people, ideas, and votes votes votes.

      Which.. obviously will never get anywhere...too much voting, and too much opinion by everyone not knowing or caring (voter fatique) and just voting to get their duty to vote out of the way. You can have it, but don't think anyone would want it.

    119. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Careful analysis of the strategic situation reveals that using the death star to shoot Canada could have somewhat inconvenient results for the US.

    120. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course the United States is NOT a democracy. It's a Democratic Republic. Where we elect those who govern us. We don't govern ourselves. Thank god the architects of the Republic had the sense to avoid mob rule.

    121. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Informative

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that what defines a republic is representation.

      A republic is a state where The People are sovereign; a "people's thing", res publica. In contrast to one in which, say, The Crown is sovereign. In either case, how the government (the administration of the state) operates, who constitutes it and how it passes laws, is a separate question.

      The US and the UK are a great pair to highlight this difference. Both are representative democracies: both have governments composed of representatives elected by the people and accountable to them, who in turn legislate by voting among those representatives. But the parliament of the UK acts in the name of The Crown, and is in theory exercising The Crown's power; while the congress of the US acts in the name of The People, and is in theory exercising The People's power.

      It's a much more subtle, theoretical and less practical distinction than that between a democracy and, say, an autocracy, but that's what it means. It has nothing to do with whether anybody is representing anybody.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    122. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Agreed that the Death Star petition was nonsense, but I got a sense (that I cannot prove) that many were protest signatures based on inadequate responses to much more serious petitions that met the requirement.

    123. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > democratically elected Representation

      Not really. Your changes of getting elected if you got less than a million dollars to be spent (for marketing) are almost zero. So current system actually favors the rich and therefore it is not democracy.

    124. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland is the closest country in the world to a direct democracy, just look at all the 'mob rule' problems they have!

    125. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Askmum · · Score: 1

      In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not. Not some jumped up bureaucrat or an AC fascist apologist. While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the chance to put anything to their fellow citizens and have the White House consider them without raising the threshold to un-democratically restrictive levels.

      And the people still have the change to put anything forward. But just like the shouting masses, you can not answer everybody.
      I fail to see why 100.000 signatures out of a population of virtualy infinite (because I do not see a requirement to be a US citizen to create an account on thewhitehouse.gov, or even a ban on multiple accounts per person) would be any threshold.

    126. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by devitto · · Score: 1

      Next stop, 300 million !

    127. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because funny answers engender more funny petitions, and pretty soon we have an entire Department of Jokes and Witty Riposte

      Seems more useful than most of the other departments.

    128. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by deimtee · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon the word "racism" will be devoid of all meaning, due to being constantly diluted and trivialized by constantly being used where it does not apply.

      What makes you think we haven't actually gotten there already?

      That's a pretty racist remark.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    129. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      Next up: A petition to get the total number of votes required for a petition to get a response from the Whitehouse back down to 25k.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    130. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      No, as much as it would be nice to split things up like this the real world is messier.

      You have implicitly labelled the UK as a constitutional monarchy, but it really isn't if we are going to be as literal as you are. It is more like a theocracy if we are talking about how the power is supposed to be derived. Of course how the power is *supposed* to be derived doesn't matter as much as how it is actually sourced, something you clearly recognise because you highlight the sovereign role of the people in a republic.

      Both the UK and the US are a mixture of oligarchy, republic, democracy and theocracy, but they are by an large oligarchies. Ironically more so the US than the UK because the US has legalised bribery on a massive scale. Both have democratic components which can override the oligarchs wishes acting as a sort of ultimate veto, and in both the pretence of republican values have to be maintained which affects the politics.

      The simplest thing to do is to label both the US and the UK as representative democracies and be done with it, recognising that the meaning of the word democracy here reflects the ultimate way in which power is distributed.

    131. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by too2late · · Score: 1

      Just get it on your State ballots and problem solved. When enough states legalize it, those representatives and senators will force the feds to legalize it, or withhold all enforcement funds until DEA removes it from the banned list.

      This. People need to stop worry so much about getting the Federal gubmint to help them and start focusing on their State and local governments. Real change happens from the bottom up.

      --
      My rights don't end where your feelings begin.
    132. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      I love the fact that robots are killing random strangers in distract countries. Why? Because those distant countries believe that they are the only ones to get to decide anything and they will kill us to enforce it.
      Also there is no such thing as a victimless crime. You engaging in an activity that harms yourself, you are the victim. Unless you are alone the entire time you are under the influence, others are too.
      Oh and the clique of Unelected bankers started in 1837 in Europe. So see those robots could kill them too. Finally thats how industry works.

    133. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      You are right. thats what the We the people is. Unfortunately, the founding fathers never anticipated a day where the entire population could petition individually all at the same time. (and for the lulz too) So some had to be created.

    134. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      Hey I really wish people who actually look at the orgins of words and what they meant when they are written not what they mean now. For the record, as wonderful as wikipedia is, if you use it as a source in any actual document in any college 9or high school) it won't be accepted. So try again. Republics don't need democracies to function. Its just more convenient. .

    135. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      only partically true. Now the congress of the US acts in the name of the campaign contributors and special interests who put them there, and is in theory exercising there power. The people who dont vote or contribute to either have no power or say. hell they are worse of that in the UK.

    136. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      Sorry, who decides what is nonsense? 25,000 people wanted a death star and 125,000 Texans wanted it to be a country again. neither are nonsense. Nonsense is what Piers Morgan spouts every night during his CNN time slot.

    137. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      A we are not a democracy, B Swiss pop is equal to NYC alone. So what works for them simply won't work for us. Hell it doesn't even work for NYC. If you want to quote to what works go to China or India who have populations similar to us. No European solution will ever work because none of them are any where near the size of even a large state.

    138. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by danbob999 · · Score: 2

      A democratic republic is a pure democracy, as pure as all other forms of democracy. It is only not a direct democracy.

    139. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      This isn't a democracy - it's a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation. Worlds of difference.

      A "Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation" is a form of democracy. It just isn't a direct democracy.

    140. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about proposing a petition for the new improved version of the death star (the one from Jedi). It will not have the vulnerabilities of the first one, it will be fully operational in a fraction of the time, and because it is not a complete sphere, that station will cost a lot less.

    141. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So ultimately there may be an expectation that it goes like this;

      Petition: N of us think that given fact X and logic Y, marijuana should be legalised.
      Current party: You know that makes a lot of sense, and you have a lot of support, we'll reverse our longheld policy.

      That's not what anyone expected. But we could at least get an honest answer to an honest question. What are the reasons that Obama thinks marijuana should not be regulated like alcohol? That was the question posed, and it was completely evaded.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    142. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by dywolf · · Score: 0

      regularly using robots to kill random strangers in distant countries

      factually incorrect troll statement. they are neither random, nor strangers. if you ever had any real exposure tot he intel world or the drone ops, you would never spout such BS. also, most people are of that mind that if you can get a bad guy without risking a good guy, it's a good thing; basic us vs them evaluation.

      spending hundreds of billions prosecuting minor, victimless crimes

      too vague to be worth debating. could be any of a hundred little pet topics people have around here. specifics needed

      while consistently ignoring massive and wide-spread criminal wrongdoing by giant corporations because, "hey, they're big!"

      again too vague. some people, especilly around here, simply consider CEO's being paid according to their contracts, or the idea that companies are oriented around making money and not morals, a crime.

      handing control of their currency to a clique of unelected bankers who then hand out said money by the (virtual) truckload to the aforementioned giant corporations

      something tells me you're one of those anti-federal reserve guys who sees it as a vast conspiracy...

      cutting sweetheart deals with industry on everything from medical care to oil spill cleanup, at the expense of said majority

      and now im convinced of it. and again, its a simple us vs them evaluation. ask someone if they want jobs and money to flow to their community, see what they say. go ahead.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    143. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      this is such BS, two reasons:
      -the silly "its not a democracy" stuff...."it's not a tree, its a woody flowering shrub with a single stem that grows really tall....but not a tree!". whatever
      -with the way politicians pander to ever little whim of the people, using anything to get an edge and get elected, it's only about a gnat's ass hair away from being mob rule

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    144. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      I actually mostly agree with you, but I had to comment on this:

      Likewise, a petition that garners the 300 million signitures may not be valid, and may not require a valid response (ie "nonsense"). Should this be heard by those in power?

      It's hard to put a number on something like these petitions, but there is a clear tipping point where it becomes nearly impossible to get people to agree on anything. I would argue that ANY petition that can get essentially 100% of the US population to sign it must be taken seriously. While I won't quite go so far as to say it should be immediately implemented, I'm having difficulty believing that anything with such widespread support could be against the nation's best interests.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    145. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well why not a Death Star? Their not doing their damn jobs anyway. You are also assuming that we take them seriously! I stopped that after Reagan.

    146. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if they stopped submitting nonsense responses there wouldn't be a need to submit nonsense petitions.

      maybe it's because governments have too few employees, and sifting through people suggestion is a very time consuming activity. Tax returns, anyone?

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    147. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1
    148. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      The USA is a plutocracy disguised as a constitutional republic sold to the proletariat as a democracy.

      --

      Question everything

    149. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      One man's nonsense petition is another man's heartfelt position. This is the core reason for the freedom of speech. Not silencing dissenting voices - particularly minority dissenting voices - is crucial to maintaining democratic distance from fascism.

      --

      Question everything

    150. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the U.S.A. is a republic.

    151. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish conservatives wouldn't invent new meanings to words just so that they don't have to update their world view.

      We'll do that when Liberals stop changing the definitions as they go.

    152. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Well, I may be a bit alone here, but I do see this as a good thing. It makes petitions harder to complete but less legitimate to dismiss. 100,000 persons begins to be a significant demographic group. At one million, we get closer to a percent of the US voting population.

      At this level, it will be worth pointing out that in Switzerland, it is mandatory to make a referendum when a petition reaches such a level of support (50,000 signatures, apx 1% of the poppulation). Dismissing such a petition would be far less acceptable.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    153. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Uh, as a sensible republic we are supposed to be insulated from the mob of democracy. But I see what you're saying.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    154. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Not so much as a percentage of the total population, but a percentage of the population that participates or is willing to participate. I would rather count the statistic out of that group than say out of a group which really doesn't matter aside from their inalienable rights.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    155. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Can't see any good ending from handing a weapon of that proportion to this particular bunch of idiots.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    156. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      But then you would need alternatives to all of those things. And no, the alternatives are not just "not doing them." These things happen for a reason. Newsflash: Corporations are beholden to banks and all major companies have a stake in most other companies because of major investments in each other.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    157. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot all you idiots that jumped on that bandwagon! Nice Job.

      I thought the White House did a pretty good job handling that one by turning it into an opportunity to advance the cause of STEM outreach.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    158. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two legislative bodies are more similar than different, though you're on the right track. The House of Lords (UK) and Senate (US) represent the interests of the government, while the House of Commons (UK) and House of Representatives represent the interests of the populace.

    159. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      Woosh!

      But as long as you mention it, anywhere that "man" should mean "person", it should be "human". The prevalence of the former in the English language is due to the patriarchal nature of our society.

      BTW, I am a man and I do say "manhole".

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
    160. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      It seems silly to doubt something that is obviously true.

      Yes, most Americans want to use flying robots with missiles to blow up terrorists without going through trials. This shouldn't be hard to believe, considering it is the world you live in.

      Yes, a majority of Americans want to continue prosecuting the war on drugs. This shouldn't be hard to believe, considering it's a cornerstone of winning elections for the last three generations.

      Is it really hard for you to believe that people considered the same issues you consider, and concluded differently? You just really really can't even fathom that possibility?

    161. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "un-democratic?"

      In a representative democracy, you speak to the person who represents you ( e.g. members of Congress ) and through a process of consensus building, laws and policy is formed. Prior to the advent of the Internet, if you sent a letter to the President, you may or may not get a response. There is no law requiring the head of government to respond to individual citizens directly, even though it is probably a good common sense idea for a leader to be responsive to the people lest they lose their office.

      This administration setup a method where people could easily and conveniently sign petitions that passed a certain threshold and they promised to respond, and so far they have not reneged on that promise. That hasn't changed, even though the threshold has, for obvious and pragmatic reasons. If you really feel strongly about something and are all up in arms about the democratic process, then send a letter to your representative in the House and have them forward it along to the White House.

    162. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by chakan2 · · Score: 2

      "It is not a pure, mob rule democracy."

      That is mostly untrue. The state of the union today is a pretty sad affair of ignorance and who can yell the loudest...IMHO that's a mob. Things like creationism and intelligent design are getting back in schools. Equal rights for same sex marriage is still opposed by the majority (in some places). American Idol is still on TV.

      I think George Carlin said it best..."Think of how stupid the average American is, now realize that half the people are dumber than that." Those people vote unfortunately. They typically do so at the bidding of their pastor, local leaders, or whatever the popular guy on Fox News tells them to do.

      I think that's mob rule. I just wish I could take torches and pitchforks to the voting booth.

    163. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Oh you did? Well, they're not, not all of them, not even most of them. Two thirds of Scandanavia is ruled by monarchs.

      Denmark: monarchy
      Finland: democracy
      Greenland: monarchy
      Iceland: democracy
      Norway: monarchy
      Sweden: monarchy

      Some people try to say "oh, that's silly, our King doesn't really rule the country". Oh, he doesn't? Then why is he the king? If your countrymen are willing to abide the notion of royalty and the presence of a monarch, then sorry, you aren't a democracy, you're a bunch of fools. The entire concept of "royalty" is anathema to the individual equality upon which real democracy is premised.

      If your* country has a king, then you live in a kingdom. Stop trying to quorum with modern states. Dump the royals, then we'll talk.

      *The general you, not you GNious.

    164. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Agreed. GP mistakenly equates these two statements:

      1. Like all humans, politicians are egotistical and hate to admit when they are wrong, so do it as rarely as the average person (perhaps even less)
      2. No politician has ever changed his stance

      If GP thinks #2 is right, then he isn't paying attention. Shit, this month we even saw some Republicans willing to raise taxes and tell Norquist to FOAD. If that can happen, then anything can happen.

      The gay marriage thing is, as you point out, perhaps the best example. In that case it was a straightforward calculus of democracy: literally the month that polls showed 50% of Americans supporting marriage equality, the GOP shut up about it -- and almost immediately suddenly Obama "evolved" to support it (which is to say, sacked up and openly admitted his longstanding opinion).

    165. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      Of course the majority won't be in favor of those things, if that's the spin you put on it.

      On the other hand, if you change the spin into issues of national defense and keeping our children safe, things would be quite different.

      You see the exact same thing when it comes to politicians and their platforms. I can't imagine things would be much better if we voted on issues directly.

    166. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      That statistic about 90% of voters disapprove of Congress is nonsense. Voters who disapprove of Congress don't re-elect the same people to Congress, and America just re-elected the same people to Congress. Based on that, America is absolutely satisfied with their representation.

      What that statistic really means is people like to pretend they are angry when they really aren't. This is a corollary to people like to pretend they are for small government when they really aren't. We have a government which is fantastically, almost perfectly aligned with what nearly every single voter wants. But, it's not in line with what voters like to pretend they want.

    167. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by GNious · · Score: 1

      Cute :)

      Yes, we have a monarch (Constitutional Monarcy), and a democratically elected government (Representational Democracy).

      The queen is our head of state, and as such we do not have a truly free country - I'd still keep it, since I like our monarch, I like some of what they do and represent.

      So you are right on the technicalities - wrong on the whole dumping royals, at least as far as emotions go*

      *: Emotions arent part of the equation, I know - but your statement betray a hint of emotion.

    168. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Point you're trying to make about corruption aside, this illustrates the difference between republic-or-not and democracy-or-not perfectly. You are making a point that the US government does not operate democratically, but rather plutocratically or the like. But whether or not that is the case, when the government does something -- whether it's what the people want, or what the biggest campaign contributors want -- it does so officially on behalf of The People, in their name, claiming its authority to derive from there.

      The important distinction is between "where does claimed power derive from", and "who directs the use of that power". A republic is a "people-powered" state; one where, formally, authority rests originally with the people, and is delegated by them to the government, which may then be controlled by the people or by some other means. A monarchy, in contrast, is a "crown-powered" state; one where, formally, authority rests originally with the monarch, and is delegated by him or her to the government, which may then be controlled by the people or by some other means.

      Consider for analogy a business corporation. It has an administrative structure, some way of deciding who calls the shots and what shots get called. It may take a lot of input in from its employees, or it may have a more top-down administrative structure. This is like democracy vs alternatives. But in any case, there is a separate question: who owns the company? Is it employee-owned, is it a sole proprietorship owned by the CEO, is it owned by some external stockholders? That is like a republic vs alternatives. While it seems most natural that an employee-owned company would be administrated with lots of employee input, and a sole proprietorship would be administrated from the top down, you could have an employee-owned company where the employees are not all intimately involved in the day-to-day administration of it (ala a non-democratic republic), or a sole proprietorship which takes in lots of employee input (ala a non-republican democracy).

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    169. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Woosh yourself.

      GP's point was that etymologically "man" means human, male or female, and the "wom" prefix indicates a specifically female human; the counterpart "werman" would indicate a specifically male human, except nobody today would understand that because people don't know their etymology.

      There is a distortion of language due to sexism, but it is not in using a male term to refer to all humans; it is in assuming that human, without further qualification, is male, and letting the term for "human" come to mean "male human". Nobody ever set out to speak of "mankind" to the exclusion of women; what they did wrong was assume that if you're talking about a member of mankind, a man, then unless otherwise specified they are male.

      If we were to reverse that sexist erroneous assumption and make language non-sexist, we would drop the term "woman" entirely except where identifying a person's sex is really important (in which situations we would also use "weman" when we need to indicate males), and call everybody a "man" without assuming that that meant a male.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    170. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next stop, 1 Million!

      Yay.

      A million sounds good. 1/3 of 1% of the population, to suggest a Death Star or that Texas secede from the Union?

      Much as I like both ideas, the bar seems low.

    171. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, people today wouldn't understand 'werman' because they speak Modern English, not Old English. I don't actually know why 'wer' was replaced by 'man' circa late 13c. I should have said "I speculate the prevalence..." - it is my fault for not being clear and I stand corrected.

      I think context is more important than PC-ness, though, hence my original (attempt at a) joke. I suppose some people feel more strongly about etymological ramifications than I do.

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
    172. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the Fifth Amendment was also effectively shut down. Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, pretending he had "serious reservation", but in fact it was the Administration which forced Senator Levine to remove safeguards in the original draft law.

      Here's Bill Whittle explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgrktRgjBXk

      Obama gets great press (since the press are Left-sympathetic). However, if you bother to watch what is going on in the long-term, and delve into details, it is very apparent he has a neo-Marxist agenda. This means that the State trumps the individual liberties that Americans have had for hundreds of years. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican (I'm a New Zealander, so appreciate the Lord of the Rings references in the video I linked; since filming and post-production was done nearby to me). As a citizen of the Free World that recognizes how the US Constitution protects not only US citizens but also provides leadership to governments and citizens of other countries too. Seeing Obama's trajectory, which will almost certainly get worse in his second term, is very worrying. He's currently overturning hundreds of years of Enlightenment-inspired laws, and destroying decades of global alliances. Obama's dim-witted Secretary of State kowtowed to the OIC in the UN and promising to enforce UN HRC Resolution 16/18 which limits the Free Speech of citizens everywhere, but also is against the US First Amendment rights of US citizens in the US (hence, every US citizens should be asking wtf? about Hilliary and Obama; if they stopped watching the American Idol contents for a little bit). Obama is appeasing the enemies of America and the Free World, and he is isolating or abandoning many of America's allies around the globe.

      Of course, unless you dig for the details the mainstream media are selectively presenting you facts, in the US these days its as bad as the selective news coming from Al Jazeera or Russia today. I suggest listening to Bill Whittle and Thomas Sowell with an open mind - you will see that the fact-based analyses will lead you to conclude that Obama's agenda is both deliberate and harmful to the strategic interests of the US and the Free World. Remember, not only do you have to listen to the politicians you agree with, you ought to also listen to the counter-points made by the politicians you disagree with - you will learn so much more and sometimes those counter-arguments have merit. In fact, by listening to counter-arguments of Obama's opponents I quickly learned that their criticisms were often fact-based and it was Obama's positions that were ideological and counter-productive to individual liberty.

      It seems the "Change" Obama promised is not what you hoped it would be (noticed he was light on details? - that's because you [and I] would never have supported him if you knew what he wanted to do; unless he can be pinned down it looks like the next four years could well do damage that will take four decades to repair, and some liberties may never be restored).

    173. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Actually, I graduated the officer school of the Royal New Zealand Airforce two decades ago. Military personnel have complete freedom of speech and thought. They just can't present those *in public* without authorization. There is a world of difference between that and your cartoon caricature statement.

    174. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't capitalism and democracy great !

    175. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by meglon · · Score: 1

      Not really. I enlisted after college, i wasn't an officer; there is no brass on my shoulder, i worked for a living. It's a lot different enlisted than as an O, and i would imagine it's a bit different in NZ as opposed to the USA; then, of course, theirs the whole air force thing.... The army is always different than the 8-5 flyboys who play military during work hours.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    176. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Ha! It's all emotion. Perhaps it's only because I'm an American, but I feel strongly that the entire concept of royalty is disgusting. It's very nice, however, that European monarchs haven't done much oppressing in the last couple hundred years (have they? I can't think of any).

      My suggestion is if you like the queen so much, then elect her.

    177. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Oloryn · · Score: 1

      Sure enough, we're there.

    178. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by cavebison · · Score: 1

      In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not.

      Which people? The ~50% who vote Republican, or the ~50% that vote Democrat?

      Or the corporate "people" that support whichever politicians represent their commercial interests?

    179. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      regularly using robots to kill random strangers in distant countries

      factually incorrect troll statement. they are neither random, nor strangers. if you ever had any real exposure tot he intel world or the drone ops, you would never spout such BS. also, most people are of that mind that if you can get a bad guy without risking a good guy, it's a good thing; basic us vs them evaluation.

      Bare refutation without reason or evidence, appeal to authority, ad hominem, appeal to fear, and a ridiculous level of simplification. Yes, it would be nice if we had a magic button that just blew up "bad guys" without any bad effect, ever. Unfortunately...
      Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says
      http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html
      From the article, "TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children."

      spending hundreds of billions prosecuting minor, victimless crimes

      too vague to be worth debating. could be any of a hundred little pet topics people have around here. specifics needed

      You're not debating, you're just engaging in fallacious naysaying. When you actually make a point, I may deign to respond in detail. XD

      while consistently ignoring massive and wide-spread criminal wrongdoing by giant corporations because, "hey, they're big!"

      again too vague. some people, especilly around here, simply consider CEO's being paid according to their contracts, or the idea that companies are oriented around making money and not morals, a crime.

      Straw man. Try billions in money laundering, or causing deaths by deliberately avoiding FDA testing, or rampant mortgage fraud, just to get started.

      handing control of their currency to a clique of unelected bankers who then hand out said money by the (virtual) truckload to the aforementioned giant corporations

      something tells me you're one of those anti-federal reserve guys who sees it as a vast conspiracy...

      Ignored my point, attempted ridicule and ad hominem. You're probably attempting to poison the well, too. Going for a new record on different fallacious attacks in a single post? XD

      cutting sweetheart deals with industry on everything from medical care to oil spill cleanup, at the expense of said majority

      and now im convinced of it. and again, its a simple us vs them evaluation. ask someone if they want jobs and money to flow to their community, see what they say. go ahead.

      Wow. Red herring and False dilemma, without even bothering to present an implausibly bad alternative. Good job!

    180. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      thats it. disagree so mod it down. typical.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    181. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying that a four wheeled vehicle is not purely a vehicle because it has four wheels. Get your head straight.

    182. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose we should give up voting as well. No one reasonable should think that it is real. The fact that people believe in voting is even more amazing. The government simply doesn't care about us.

  2. YOU there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop Collaborating!

    1. Re:YOU there by BriggsBU · · Score: 1

      Ultimately the problem is that it is far easier to drum up support for these stupid petitions (like building a Death Star) than it is to drum up support on something intelligent (like, say, forcing Congressmen to read bills before voting on them).

      Facebook and such have conditioned us to support funny/interesting things and ignore mundane topics. "Oh! Funny cat picture! Like! Share! .. Build a Death Star! Hah! That would be awesome! Like! Share! Sign the petition! .. Hm, Congress is voting to allocate $2.5 million to research the effect of pollution on the Northern Womprat. Boooring. Pass."

      So by raising this limit they are just making it even more difficult for legitimate petitions to be accepted. The funny/absurd petitions are still going to take off and easily hit the new margins while the relevant/serious petitions will flounder in obscurity.

  3. Translation by longbot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We got tired of answering crazy shit like building a Death Star or putting a Starbucks on the moon, so we want to make it more difficult for the people to express crazy shit while still looking like we give a damn about them."

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
    1. Re:Translation by Barryke · · Score: 1

      It also got more rewarding to ask for a mc donalds drivethrough in the pacific ocean.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    2. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We got tired of answering crazy shit like building a Death Star or putting a Starbucks on the moon, so we want to make it more difficult for the people to express crazy shit while still looking like we give a damn about them."

      As a Tax Paying Citizen, I'm disappointed they acknowledged the crazy questions in the first place.

    3. Re:Translation by Rhacman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the sad thing is that in all likelyhood raising the threshold will just filter out more of the reasonable petitions in favor of the pop-culture distractions and other bat shit crazy petitions.

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    4. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already accomplished
      Drive-through hours are 5AM-11PM on weekdays.

    5. Re:Translation by Bureaucromancer · · Score: 1

      And what's the problem with this? The system is intended for serious discussion, and when it becomes so easy for stupid shit to get through why NOT raise the threshold? It's not as if answering these things doesn't take significant time and effort.

    6. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your presumption is that by raising the threshold you are filtering out the bad ideas.

      If anything, I would argue that with a legion of reddit, chan, or random bored people on the internet, it would be far easier to create and push through a joke petition than a "good" petition. Just look at the statistics for voter turnout versus nielson ratings for television if you want an example of why people don't care about serious issues but are all too happy to waste 30 minutes doing something for the lulz.

    7. Re:Translation by mrbester · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everyone is latching on to the Death Star petition (which got a reasonable answer in my opinion. An aide who loves Star Wars took the time to compose that response. Compare with more serious petitions that just got a boilerplate answer).

      I don't think this is about the joke petitions but about the speed of getting 25000 signatories for the removal of publicity hound Carmen Ortiz because of her part in Aaron Swartz's suicide. She's part of The Establishment, they want to keep her so it is far better to raise the bar than address a perceived problem.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    8. Re:Translation by Frontier+Owner · · Score: 1

      I think the translation should be "We dont wanna answer the 15 petitions for impeachment or leaving the 2nd Amendment alone" so we are gonna change the rules. Just my opinion. Ive been told I've been wrong before.

    9. Re:Translation by longbot · · Score: 1

      I believe that falls under the umbrella of "crazy shit", or at least the related "ill-informed and excessively simple ideas". But undoubtedly that plays a part as well.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
    10. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't think this is about the joke petitions but about the speed of getting 25000 signatories for the removal of publicity hound Carmen Ortiz because of her part in Aaron Swartz's suicide. She's part of The Establishment, they want to keep her so it is far better to raise the bar than address a perceived problem."

              Agreed, I thought that too. The timing is just too close.

    11. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can barely believe how far down this page I got before reading this. Awful convenient timing, wasn't it? And demanding the resignation of an official is a lot different than voicing a grievance with a bill, law or general policy.

      Hey idiots - endlessly complaining about the Death Star Petition is the same signal-to-noise issue that made that petition happen in the first place!

    12. Re:Translation by Raenex · · Score: 2

      I don't think this is about the joke petitions but about the speed of getting 25000 signatories for the removal of publicity hound Carmen Ortiz because of her part in Aaron Swartz's suicide. She's part of The Establishment, they want to keep her so it is far better to raise the bar than address a perceived problem.

      Failed hypothesis:

      "[..] although petitions already underway as of Wednesday, such as the one to remove the federal prosecutor in the Aaron Swarz case, will only require the original 25,000 for White House review."

      And the petition has already passed the threshold:

      "SIGNATURES NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 11, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000: 0"

      TOTAL SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION: 39,825"

  4. Thanks to the jokesters by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks to those who started petitions for Master Chief statues, roaming motorcycle gangs of justices, and Death Stars. Without you folks making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues, we might not have had our collective voices diluted. Making a mockery of those interested in forcing the white house to defend, or oppose, or otherwise make a solid stand of issues sure is helpful.

    Let's see what nonsense you can come up with to raise that threshold from 100,000 to 250,000.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      looool. You think this site was about making political headway on important issues.

    2. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Challenge...ACCEPTED!

    3. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by waspleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People only did this because they ignored the real petitions and even most of the ones they answer are canned bullshit PR responses. It's a gimmick to make you think they care at all in any way whatsoever what you think.

    4. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who gives a crap? The government certainly doesn't. Any petition worth signing will either be ignored or given a BS reply.

      Have any of the petitions actually resulted in positive action?

    5. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Making a mockery of those interested in forcing the white house

      As if this is bad? The point is awareness that unless you pay money, nothing will change. Making a joke about a joke is not bad.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 0

      Politics is already a joke from the blackest of comedies.

    7. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues

      Ah hahahahahahaha.

      Wait, you're serious? The jokes are the only ones getting attention because people have realised just how pointless putting a real issue up for debate is. Bring up anything remotely important, and all you'll get is the canned response about how the current policies are best.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    8. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd hardly call these petitions a "serious attempt to make political headway." People figured out pretty early on, from responses like that to the highly earnest pot legalization petition, that the White House was basically going to be using these things to trot out boilerplate responses and the occasional cutesy "haha, Star Wars reference" fluff piece. Better that people recognize these petition responses for the pointless PR exercise they are than labor under the delusion that this (or any) administration cares that a few thousand people have signed a viral internet petition. If you want to actually influence the policy of either political party on a federal level, you better bring a few hundred million dollars (or a few thousand swing state voters) to the table.

    9. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by synapse7 · · Score: 2

      Does it matter, has there ever been any response to "important topics"? I think it is all for show.

    10. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      What does it say when it's far FAR easier to find 25,000 people willing to support a joke cause than to find 25,000 people willing to tackle actual issues? The fact is, raising it just puts it further and further out of reach for the people with actual issues that need to be addressed, whereas it'll never be that difficult to find tens of thousands of Internet folks interested in trolling or being silly. Now that that site has become more well-known, it's getting easier and easier for people to recruit friends for nonsense petitions.

    11. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looool. You think this site was about making political headway on important issues.

      laughing out out out out loud? do you type-stutter?

    12. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see what nonsense you can come up with to raise that threshold from 100,000 to 250,000.

      "In consideration of the lack of potential for harm, combined with the inordinate cost of enforcement and imprisonment, and the ensuing fiscal strain on both federal, state, and local budgets, the DEA shall be ordered to remove cannabis and its derivatives from all schedules of controlled substances."

      Or even 1,000,000, or 2,500,000.

      I don't smoke the shit, I probably won't smoke it even if I live long enough to see it legalized. I'm just sick of having to pay a fortune in taxes to lock up the people who do.

    13. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks to those who started petitions for Master Chief statues, roaming motorcycle gangs of justices, and Death Stars. Without you folks making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues, we might not have had our collective voices diluted.

      You have it exactly backward. People did take it seriously. Only when it became apparent that the administration did not also take it seriously, did we begin to deliberately mock the system with these made-up issues. It is clear the administration doesn't care what petitioners are saying. By filling the queue with ridiculous nonsense we are perpetrating a satire designed to expose the false nature of the thing.

      When the administration takes it seriously then we will also. We started in good faith and received only bullshit in response. Now we're feeding the bullshit back into the system.

    14. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were five Os; do you count?

    15. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the serious ones get a response that boils down to FOAD (when they are respectful enough of the people to even give that much response).

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/addressing-legalization-marijuana

      That was addressing THREE petitions, the largest of which got over three times the required number of signatures (almost making enough to meet the NEW requirement) all of which significantly broke the required number at the time. What was the "response?" A complete dodge of the question written by someone who stood to lose a significant amount of his power had there been real action on this.

      The response was a joke, and showed for all that the entire site has been a joke from day one. I applaud those who post and sign the "ridiculous" petitions, I consider it a mass performance piece accentuating through irony the (lack of) value of the "we the people" site.

    16. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Kindgott · · Score: 1

      I took these petitions seriously once. ONCE.

      --
      If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
    17. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      Perpetual kittens, for every citizen. You'll probably crash their site.

    18. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Applekid · · Score: 2

      People only did this because they ignored the real petitions and even most of the ones they answer are canned bullshit PR responses. It's a gimmick to make you think they care at all in any way whatsoever what you think.

      Which I think is part of the accidental brilliance of the program. It lays bare the spinworks in play in politics. When you see a political advertisement that goes on and on about how much some candidate cares about YOU and your problems, here is the undeniable indisputable evidence of a government that doesn't give a crap about you.

      The best image in the spirit of this revelation is this one IMO.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    19. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by fufufang · · Score: 1

      Thanks to those who started petitions for Master Chief statues, roaming motorcycle gangs of justices, and Death Stars. Without you folks making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues, we might not have had our collective voices diluted. Making a mockery of those interested in forcing the white house to defend, or oppose, or otherwise make a solid stand of issues sure is helpful.

      Let's see what nonsense you can come up with to raise that threshold from 100,000 to 250,000.

      Here is the Death Star petition, take a look before it expires.
      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking

    20. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by sootman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent up. I came here to say the same thing. Once they demonstrated that they weren't going to give meaningful answers to serious questions, it turned into "well, we may as well use this to entertain ourselves."

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    21. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by jd.schmidt · · Score: 2

      Making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues

      Ah hahahahahahaha.

      Wait, you're serious? The jokes are the only ones getting attention because people have realised just how pointless putting a real issue up for debate is. Bring up anything remotely important, and all you'll get is the canned response about how the current policies are best.

      Well, I know you are making a joke, but this is worth responding to.

      The Whitehouse response is probably the least important part of the petition process. Politicians of all stripes are more than willing to give their ideas and opinions to you (well, what they claim to be but close enough). Really, read whitehouse.gov or either party's web sites. They are just full of stuff the politicians want to tell you and why their solutions to whatever problems is best. You may not like it or find is unsatisfying, but that is the product you are voting for.

      The petition process is by definition just a chance for the general public to get their voice heard. No more. Think online town hall.

      Also I think the idea of a negative vote on a petition is very interesting.

    22. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by brkello · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think the problem is that any answer they come up with that disagrees with your own will be considered "bullshit".

      Perfect example is the pro-legalization crowd. This has never been something Obama was interested in pursuing. Yeah, I think it is dumb and illogical to waste money on putting people in jail instead of taxing and regulating it just as much as the next guy. The political reality is that it isn't there yet at a national level. So keep fighting in the states, as enough states change, so will the country.

      Additionally, even if Obama would 100% agree with the petition, he is dealing with Republicans who would vote no against a bill that made it illegal to shoot kittens.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    23. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by cpm99352 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There were at least two serious petitions that were blown off - legalization of marijuana and elimination of TSA.

      Kudos to the White House for changing the URLs so that Google searches return bad links, and no search on the petition page.

      Oddly, searching for "Neill Franklin" the author of a petition, returns no results. His petition is discussed here

      Searching the White House petition page for "TSA" also returns zero results, despite it having been open for voting.

      I find it astonishing that anyone with an IQ over 120 supports this administration.

    24. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time to revisit this. Sure, 25,000 signatures are a lot, but it's a very small, insignificant number compared to 100,000 or even 1 million signatures. At some point, the threshold would almost make the administration take the petition seriously.

      If certain petitions were signed by millions of Americans, I'm almost certain there will be a better response. It's like the Do Not Call list. It may or may not be within the FCC's powers when it was implemented, but if 200 million Americans signed up for it, it sure as hell will be.

      At the moment, there isn't enough of a user base to reach a million responses within the allotted timeframe. But as more and more people get wind of this, there will be. It's important to keep submitting nonsensical but popular petitions, but it's also important to continue submitting serious ones as well.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    25. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I think the problem is that any answer they come up with that disagrees with your own will be considered "bullshit".

      But the fact that they got someone from the TSA to respond to a petition stating that we should disband the TSA is rather disturbing.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    26. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The petition process is by definition just a chance for the general public to get their voice heard. No more. Think online town hall."

            It might get your voice heard if anyone was listening. Want them to listen, go in with guns blazing or have lots of money.

    27. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 0

      There! Are! Four! Os!

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
    28. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Raenex · · Score: 1

      There were at least two serious petitions that were blown off - legalization of marijuana and elimination of TSA.

      The marijuana one got a response. You can argue about how valid the response was, but it wasn't blown off. The TSA one didn't pass the threshold, as noted in your link. Maybe there were some shenanigans with "maintenance" to thwart it, but if it had overwhelming support it could have easily passed the threshold without waiting for the last minute.

      Kudos to the White House for changing the URLs so that Google searches return bad links, and no search on the petition page.

      It's easily fixable by comparing the new URL scheme with the old one. While I think it's a really shitty practice by web devs/admins to break links without redirects, it happens all the time and wasn't necessarily intentional.

      Oddly, searching for "Neill Franklin" the author of a petition, returns no results.

      Try doing the same for any author of any petition. You'll note that petition signatures and creators only include the first name and last initial.

      I find it astonishing that anyone with an IQ over 120 supports this administration.

      Did somebody with an IQ over 120 write your post?

    29. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by schneidafunk · · Score: 1
      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    30. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to find some superglue now for the ass I just laughed off.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    31. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Well, having an official answer to a petition that gathered 25 000 people to sign it is not putting the administration under duress... From what I understood they didn't actually build the DeathStar, just wrote an intelligent letter telling kids to learn science at school.

  5. well played white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    at 9 days for 25,000 (if that rate is sustainable) were looking at 36 days to hit 100,000 on a 30 day petition... well played white house

    1. Re:well played white house by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the average petition currently wouldn't make the cut at 100,000 signatures in the allotted time-frame. They're trying to cut back the number they are required to address; isn't eliminating the current average ones sort of the point?

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  6. Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petition by mellon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This petition, asking the White House to censure the prosecutor responsible for Aaron Swartz' felony case, will need a lot more signatures if they apply this standard to it. So now would be a good time to go sign it.

  7. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by mellon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Crap, broken link. This one should work.

  8. Good for them by jd.schmidt · · Score: 2

    I can get 25,000 people to sign a petition that the world is flat and that everyone should be required to wear their underwear on the outside of their clothes. Yes, that is one petition that says both of those.

    A milion people willing to click to support an idea is still less than 1% of the U.S. population. For an online poll 100,000 is very reasonable.

    1. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100,000 has always been the requirement for the UK's equivalent

    2. Re:Good for them by gnoshi · · Score: 1

      A proportion of voting-age people, sampled at the beginning of each year, could be a good way to go.
      The downside being that as population increases, the ability to effectively organise doesn't necessarily scale identically.

  9. It's a practical development by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    I'd rather them raise the cap and actually look at petitions than leave it low and just give lip service to them.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:It's a practical development by Marcion · · Score: 1

      I'd rather them raise the cap and ... just give lip service to them.

      Well you will get half of what you want. I doubt you will get the other half.

    2. Re:It's a practical development by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 0

      Shame they're not going to look at anything.

    3. Re:It's a practical development by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I'd rather them raise the cap and actually look at petitions than leave it low and just give lip service to them.

      This isnt the dichotomy we are presented with.

      What they are doing is raising the cap while continuing to not look at any petitions seriously.

      My challenge to slashdot is to cite a single We The People petition that was actually taken seriously by the administration.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  10. How about a petition to lower the requirement? by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 5, Funny

    Getting 100,000 signatures on a petition to lower the requirement to 50,000 might have just the right touch of irony ...

    --
    Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    1. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like a petition to have the government take the petitions seriously.

    2. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone tried that a few years ago - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/04/petition-asks-white-house-to-take-petitions-seriously/

      It got taken down.

    3. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the petitions were weren't either silly or batshit crazy, maybe it would.

      But "We the People" had that opportunity, and pissed it away on things like "Build a Deathstar".

    4. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by brkello · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it would most likely get changed to 250k if that actually passed.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    5. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then a petition to raise the limit to 5 trillion votes should be introduced.

    6. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by penguinbrat · · Score: 1

      Then we get 250k to sign a petition lowering it to 12.5k (1/2 of what it was) - point being everyone "now" knows this is one big crock, we just as as well have fun with it... It's always better to make fun of the bully, and make him/them look stupid than it is to pick a fight - having petitions "playing" with the petitions just shows that "we the people" know that they are full of shit, so we just as well have some fun with them... Could very well be the last chance we have :-/

    7. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by segfault_0 · · Score: 1

      Or 100000 signatures requesting them to investigate whether or not they are actually doing anything with the petitions besides providing pat responses you could have gotten by sending them a direct email.

      --

      I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
    8. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 1

      Your response makes me think ... How about a FOIA request against a given petition? They _would_ be required [by law] to respond to that. Ups the ante a bit. They could only not provide such info if they declared it as a matter of national security [or some such]. That would be hard to do given that the petitions are public domain.

      --
      Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    9. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by segfault_0 · · Score: 1

      Im just saying, you write to most politicians and eventually a staffer or intern will write you back a pat response -- just like the ones they give you on that site.

      The site is an illusion -- you can only judge it by its results and as far as Im aware, it hasnt resulted in any measure results/change.

      --

      I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
    10. Re:How about a petition to lower the requirement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vaguely remember seeing a response to at least one of those "take these things seriously" petitions; IIRC it was a mix of "we thought we already were" and "we're trying our best"...

  11. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by Minwee · · Score: 1

    This petition, asking the White House to censure the prosecutor responsible for Aaron Swartz' felony case, will need a lot more signatures if they apply this standard to it. So now would be a good time to go sign it.

    Tomorrow would be a good time too, since the limit only applies to _new_ petitions, not existing ones.

    If you look at the link you provided, it clearly states that the goal was 25,000, not 100,000.

  12. What happens when it gets to 70 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't this mean that if the majority of Americans wanted a Death Star...then a Death Star they shall have? If no action is taken then impeachment!!! Maybe the government is just compiling a list of people who's votes should be filtered out if they sign a petition that the government is not to keen on? Maybe they are compiling a list of people who aren't following suit and should be dealt with? I say tacos for all...

    1. Re:What happens when it gets to 70 million? by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the government is just compiling a list of people who's votes should be filtered out if they sign a petition that the government is not to keen on?

      That is one reason, among several good reasons, why we have a secret ballot.

      Be assured that anyone wishing to change that has malicious intentions, no matter what excuse they provide.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  13. Still to low... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bump it to 250,000 signatures. If we're going to take this whole idea seriously, talking to the White House here, bump it to a significant amount already. That would be roughly, 1 out of every 1250 supporting official comment on a matter.

  14. They're making the source code available too by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

    The link is near the end of the article. This is great, because now other entities can solicit opinions similarly.

    1. Re:They're making the source code available too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link is near the end of the article. This is great, because now other entities can solicit opinions similarly.

      Yes, that is really, really great. Now "other entities" can solicit opinions similarly in order to make their constituents or customers think they give a damn. Thanks The White House!

  15. I'm reminded of a Mel Brooks movie... by Mindragon · · Score: 0

    Dark Helmet: 25,000 people is too low.
    Colonel Sandurz: 25,000 is too low?
    Dark Helmet: Yes, we'll have to go right to... 100,000 people!
    Colonel Sandurz: 100,000? Sir, we've never gone that far before! I don't know if the people can take it!
    Dark Helmet: What's the matter Colonel Sandurz? Chicken?
    Colonel Sandurz: Prepare the people -- Prepare the people for 100,000! Fasten all seat belts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall! Cancel the three ring circuis! Secure all animals in the zoo!

    --
    Just add {In Space!} to anything.
  16. Waste of time by Tenek · · Score: 1

    You can't raise the threshold high enough to weed out the stupid ideas because a lot of them are popular - the Texas succession petition got 125k. That said, the petition system was never going to be useful in the first place, so at least we're not using anything valuable.

    1. Re:Waste of time by maharvey · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of people who'll sign something as a joke, but I'm guessing that the 125,000 people who signed the Texas secession petition took it very seriously. Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it's stupid.

      No I'm not from Texas, and yes I'd hate to lose them too.

  17. Whats the point of a petition without negative by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it'd be easy to get a couple million signatures on something controversial. Why not enable negative signatures?

  18. Mandatory Hearing in Congress by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

    What about higher thresholds with bigger results?
    Spitballing the specifics:
    Get 10 million and news networks need to devote time to its discussion.
    Get 50 million and it needs to go before congress as a bill.

    1. Re:Mandatory Hearing in Congress by Hentes · · Score: 1

      We have that here, but it only requires one million signatures.

  19. We the People... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Ensuring only the squeakiest of hinges get the oil.

    1. Re:We the People... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      The hinge that squeaks twice as loud squeaks for half as long - and you have squeaked so very, very loudly, citizen. Look at you: you're the Prodigal Son; you're quite a prize!

  20. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by mellon · · Score: 2

    Doesn't mean they won't increase the limit for existing petitions. And in any case, it would be really great if this petition made it to 100k, because it would be taken more seriously. If not by the White House, then by the press, which has started paying attention to these petitions.

  21. Ironic and sad by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    Even tools that are only supposed to make us FEEL like we have a voice in government are being lifted out of the average Joe's reach and placed only in the hands of those with resources (i.e. money, and/or people).

    It's even more ironic that this is (by chance) being done during Obama's presidency. The voice of the people was gonna be heard under this president. It was gonna be different. Riiiiiight...

    1. Re:Ironic and sad by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Anyone that thinks an ultra rich man will work "for the people" is a complete and utter moron.

      There is one way to fix washington. Eliminate Voting. All senate, judge, and executive offices are filled by random lottery at gun point. If you are chosen to serve, you can not say no. we will come to your home on Nov2 and forcibly take you to washington where you will work in the government for 4 years. then you get to go home.

      Random = fair and it will eliminate all politics. I also suggest marines to shoot on sight any lobbiest, any person in the lottery found to be taking bribes will be hung from the gallows on the steps of the capitol and their body left there for 30 days.

      On Jan 1 of the next year a random assignment of all offices is handed out and they MUST put in a 40 hour work week every week without breaks for 4 years.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Ironic and sad by Bremic · · Score: 1

      As a non-US citizen, the situation there seems to be.
      Democrat: We need 100,000 signatures to care about what you are saying.
      Republican: We need 100,000 dollars to care about what you are saying.

      It doesn't make you all look good when the serious petitions get ignored and the stupid fatuous distractions get so mach attention. Still, I am glad you have a system where you can raise a petition AND get promised an answer if you can get enough support - and it doesn't have to be political or financial support. I wish more countries had that.

    3. Re:Ironic and sad by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Well, if that's what it looks like then the propaganda machine has done its work well. Because all either party cares about is money and power.

    4. Re:Ironic and sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy in Athens was based on a lottery, not voting. Those in power found ways to rig he lottery.

  22. actually, a waste of money! by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Maybe the White House is coming to their senses. Giving it away for free is more work, while small, one-on-one meetings with a fat check are more productive.

  23. Why We Won't by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    They should change the name from "We The People" to "Why We Won't Listen".

    I mean, seriously - has any petition on that site been acted upon? Does the number of petitioners even matter?

    The site was only a stop-gap measure to give people hope in the credibility of the federal government. It's run its course as people have realized how pointless it is.

    It was total PR, it's purpose was to address growing anger at the federal government and defuse some of the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations.

  24. Change the method, not the volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about don't raise the amount of signatures required, but require them to be, ya know, actual signatures on actual pieces of paper. Yeah, petitions by mail can be gamed too, but at least this way they might reduce the number of frivolous '1-click' petitioners while also not looking like they are reducing access to the government.

  25. And Note: by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    If your idea goes against the Party, it will not be considered. Thanks!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:And Note: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the wrong party.

      But just because something is considered, doesn't mean they won't say no.

  26. It was a waste of time from the start by mrjimorg · · Score: 2

    If the president likes the idea, he will do it. If he doesn't, he will dismiss it out of hand. It doesn't matter what the petition says of how many signatures it gets. It only serves to act as propaganda to bolster any idea that he likes. The colonists had an equal chance to petition their king over 200 years ago - and the result would have been the same.

  27. Has any petition resulted in actual action? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Or has the response to each one on this website typically been something along the lines of "No, and here's why not"?

    1. Re:Has any petition resulted in actual action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even something as simple as "No, and here's why not" would be a far cry better the the PR bullshit that has been spewing out in "response" to any of these petitions.

    2. Re:Has any petition resulted in actual action? by snadrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      even worse:
      Disban the TSA? here's a response from the head of the TSA
      Legalize a drug? Here's a response from the director of drug law enforcement
      They don't even have a disinterested person (or someone capable of fulfilling the request) respond.

      What we need is a petition system for congressional bill consideration.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    3. Re:Has any petition resulted in actual action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need is a petition system for congressional bill consideration.

      I think it's called an election.

    4. Re:Has any petition resulted in actual action? by adri · · Score: 1

      Know what you should do?

      Submit a new petition, demanding a more balanced and thorough response, from someone who isn't in the reporting chain for the TSA.

      Just keep submitting petitions; engage online and offline groups to participate. Get your 100,000 signatures.

      That's how you get noticed. Sheesh, stopping after one bad response.

    5. Re:Has any petition resulted in actual action? by celle · · Score: 1

      "What we need is a petition system for congressional bill consideration."

              But then it'd be a direct democracy and we could kill those motherfuckers screwing around on the public dough.

    6. Re:Has any petition resulted in actual action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have one. You contact your state rep and senator.

      You can do so via their website, phone, letter, or in person.

      Unfortunately, you'll get much the same sort of response.

  28. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all joke petitions, I haven't seen an actual response to a legitimate one.

  29. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather sign a petition to remove the prosecutor who keeps shutting down my favorite weed shops.

  30. And the WH isn't BS'ing? by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because responding to a petition to eliminate (or reform -- I can't remember) the TSA by having the HEAD OF THE F***ING TSA tell us about the awesomeness of his department, and completely ignoring the issues raised by the petitioners isn't making a joke of the process?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:And the WH isn't BS'ing? by Kindgott · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's basically the one which made me only sign petitions for the troll factor from then on.

      --
      If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
    2. Re:And the WH isn't BS'ing? by celle · · Score: 1

      "TSA by having the HEAD OF THE F***ING TSA tell us about the awesomeness of his department, and completely ignoring the issues raised by the petitioners isn't making a joke of the process?"

                  It didn't make a joke of the process it just proved the process itself was a joke.

  31. Why did they bother? by Len · · Score: 1

    They haven't been replying to all the petitions that met the requirements, so why do they need to raise the requirements?

  32. Seems appropriate by davesque · · Score: 1

    If we waste their time with death star petitions, this seems like a totally natural move on their part.

  33. a joke since it started. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is just a forum for the prez to pick and choose what he wants to respond to. maybe we should petition to just shut down the website.

    1. Re:a joke since it started. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually even better:

      We the people petition for the closure of this website and for the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to personally apologize for the unprofessional manner in which legitimate petitions were responded to.

  34. Joke petitions are more popular than real ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the problem. Actual participation in the political process isn't very popular. Joke petitions are.

    By raising the limit, they've guaranteed a higher percentage of Death Star/birther/secession petitions, and culled out petitions with actual merit. Sorry, the only real solution is to say that if your petition doesn't pass the laugh test, we won't answer it no matter how many signatures you have. And that's gonna really piss off the birthers...

  35. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their official response to the death star petition was *hilarious*, which of course encourages similar shenanigans. Responses to absurd petitions should be concise and boring. "This idea is not financially or technologically possible at this time."

  36. Death Star petitions are easy: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    It's not the bogus ones that are the problem.

    The oddball crazy ones you can just have some low level staffer dismiss as not serious. The ones that are funny and you get points for answering in a humorous way like the Death Star one are great PR.

    It's the ones that present more thorny issues, and or are being asked by people who are serious but you disagree with that are the problem.

    You can't ignore them completely if they get the required number.

    You also can't just have them brushed off with a "thank you please come again" reply. It's an official response, and can be quoted against you if it's thoughtlessly or flippantly written. And just writing "no comment" could be even worse.

    So, it's better for them to have a higher bar for having to answer.

  37. Have any of the petitions done anything? by quantaman · · Score: 1

    A few might have a non-trivial PR factor (ie the Aaron Schwartz petition), and a few others have made good jokes, but does anyone know of a petition that has actually made a political difference?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  38. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by mellon · · Score: 1

    You should do that too. I think they are part of the same problem: a complete lack of sensible prioritization on the part of the DoJ, and a complete failure on the part of Congress to help the DoJ by eliminating bad priorities like pot prohibition and suppression of dissent.

  39. "shocked at the response" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yyyyeah, I imagine a lot of people were.

    The governent is supposed to be FOR the people, not act as a dictatorship.

    If there's thousands upon thousands of people from all over the country, from all walks of life and all economic situations are all screaming for the EXACT SAME THING, and have been for DECADES, the proper response would moreso be "ok, we'll get on that, because we represent the people", not "AAAHAHAHA! Seriously go fuck yourselves, all of you."

  40. This is what Democracy is all about by paltemalte · · Score: 1

    What this does show is that Democracy is a totally flawed and broken way to select leaders for a nation. The same people who signed the death star petition are also allowed to vote in general elections. Is it a wonder we then end up with such destructive governments as those headed by Obama, Bush and Clinton? No, its not.

    --
    Sam has one liberty, which he sacrifices for one security. Can you tell me what Sam has now?
  41. No need to raise the requirement! by d1g1t4l · · Score: 1

    Just allow people to vote against a stupid petition. The requirement = Support - Against >= 25000 signatures.

  42. The only thing those online petitions is good for, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is for getting you on some government watch list. Your best bet is to lay low, stay off the net and ride it out until this whole thing comes to a head and we are in full blown civil war. Give it time...

  43. Charade for Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last vestiges of democracy died when intelligence gathering on the Internet allowed those in charge to monitor, in real-time, the consequences of various forms of political propaganda. 'First past the post' systems are inherently vulnerable to rigging, when you can both control the propaganda influencing voters, and analyse the response to that propaganda immediately after it goes out.

    First-past-the-post is the tyranny of the most easily influenced majority. In our modern age, only a true proportional representation voting scheme with national tallies, and no 'cut-offs' for less popular parties, would maintain a democratic process. Most so-called 'political correctness' education has been designed to ensure the sheep NEVER ask for this system, on the excuse that 'extremist' parties would achieve very minor representation, and that is a BAD thing.

    America is almost unique in using so-called 'freedom of speech' as a tool to stop people demanding changes to the voting system. You see, any minority in the USA, no matter how reviled, can protest or speak out. Americans are conned into thinking this is just as good as these minorities having (minor) political representation, but of course it is not the same thing at all.

    Worse, the sheep are brainwashed into bleating how terrible it would be to have massive plurality (and party fragmentation) in the political chambers. They are told to love the two-party system, and never to question the (lack) of choice it offers. Indeed, worse, they are instructed never to notice it is actually two faces of the same beast- simply swapping heads depending on whether the controlling elites need to do so-called 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' things in the current period- like one person controlling the hot and cold taps to run a bath of the desired temperature.

    So, with votes no longer having any importance at all, the sheep need to be confused and bedazzled with garbage like official governmental online petitions. The owners of sites like Slashdot will play their part, and give maximum publicity to these distractions. You see, the owners of Slashdot KNOW that if you are dribbling about petitions to build a deathstar, you aren't thinking about Obama's terrorists (the US recruited, trained, armed and transported them) mass murdering students at university in Aleppo, Syria.

    After you finish dribbling about 'deathstars' you can go watch the zionist extremists behind 'Robot Chicken' hilariously depict the nuclear destruction of the entire population of Iran (latest episode), creating a false link between Iran and Al Qaeda as they do so (the zionists never miss a trick) . You Yanks should be ashamed of yourselves for being manipulated by such low grade devices.

  44. It should be 750,000 signatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why you ask?

    1- In this day and age everyone has access to the internet. Hell I can sit on a toilet at a truck stop in the middle of nowhere and get on the internet on my phone. So with millions more people being online in the US than there used to be say 5 or 10 years ago it makes sense to adjust the required amount accordingly. Its like having a school vote with 100 kids and you need between 51 and 100 votes for your side to win, then suddenly the next year 2,000 kids transfer to the school and you still are using the system meant for 100 kids when voting.

    2-People are constantly, always making stupid petitions for the dumbest shit imagineable and for no reason at all. Atleast making it 500,000 would cut down maybe and stop wasting everyones time. People think that every little thing should be petitioned and that every little thing is a catastrophe that needs to be petitioned before mankind is destroyed.

    If they would cut back the amount of bullshit petitions like that incredibly idiotic death star one then maybe some real ones might get noticed but as it is now they wont get noticed because of the flood of immature and dumb ones.

  45. Reasons for 100k by arekin · · Score: 1

    Lets look at some of these gems... 1. officially recognize the Sasquatch as an indigenous species and have them lawfully protected by laws banning any hunting. 2. Teach public school children the truth: ANTI-RACIST IS A CODE WORD FOR ANTI-WHITE! 3. ban hammers and baseball bats. 4. Save the Lewpty-Lew! 5. Direct the United States Mint to make a single platinum trillion dollar coin! Among others. Why wouldn't they choose to increase the number of signatures required?

    --
    Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
  46. Silly proles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly proles, do you really think these petitions are going to do any good? Ingsoc has too many resources tied up in the war with Eastasia and Eurasia and no time for your nonsense.

  47. Move the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical federal government operation: Keep moving the bar to squeeze out the citizens.

  48. Percentage? by yotto · · Score: 1

    Why not just say they'll answer the top X% of petitions? Or even better, handle the single highest petition one at a time? Just take whatever's on top, address it, and then move to the next highest petition?

    Or if they have a group doing it, each takes one of the top 10 petitions.

  49. Not a Democracy by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of...

    A) The USA wasn't designed as a "Democracy", the design is for a Constitutional Republic, where "the people" are strictly limited to selecting the representatives.

    B) The USA hasn't been a Constitutional Republic for some time, but instead is a de facto corporate oligarchy, where corporate interests are the determining factor in politics.

    (A) would have been a good thing, but we were unable to keep it, just as we were warned. A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner -- hence the need for (A) in the first place.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Not a Democracy by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      You are right about A. However B is not the whole story. While corporates in the US have very strong sway (we agree there) they are only "influencers" and not "decision makers". The shambles that is likely to be the Obama Administration's next term is likely to be counter to the wishes of very many corporates and much of the populace (despite his suppression attempts, the documentation has been found that he was a card-carrying Marxist, and his ideology is definitely Big State at the expense of individual liberties - as shown by his policies and appointments).

  50. KP by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    You will be issued on

    Your opinion has been returned for misspelling. Report to the canteen for KP at 0400.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:KP by meglon · · Score: 1

      Did you file the BR-K-7.200 in triplicate to have it returned? As for KP, been there, done that a couple times. With the outsourcing of pretty much everything, i'm surprised the still have it.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  51. Issues, tackling, department closed by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    What does it say when it's far FAR easier to find 25,000 people willing to support a joke cause than to find 25,000 people willing to tackle actual issues?

    Doesn't matter as long as it remains impossible to find anyone in government to tackle actual issues.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  52. Idiotic and sad by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    The death penalty is inhumane and should be banned; however, applying it to lawyers and ex-politicians is just, as they are not human.

    When they serve, in their "great patriotism" ... they should know that their life is forfeit afterwards - then maybe we can regard them higher than soldiers (as they themselves already do.)

    Wake up to the other aspect of politics, watch the classic: Yes, Prime Minister.

  53. Consider this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build a death star.
    Enlist the idiots that voted for a death star as storm troopers.
    Blow up death star.
    Problem solved.

  54. #yourtheonlyonethattalkstome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone who isn't so lazy should petition that our petition be responded to after signatures. Wait... are they Facebooking us out?

  55. THey're just trying to head off the gunnies. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    The death star petition failed with the old threshold.

    IMHO they're just trying to head off a slew of petitions as fallout from the recent gun restriction proposals.

    The NRA, starting from 4 million members, added another quarter million new recruits in less than a month and is still expanding rapidly. Watch for the white house staffers to raise the threshold again. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  56. Oops. It did pass. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    The death star petition failed with the old threshold.

    Oops. I heard it had failed, but just checked and found out I'd heard wrong. Mea Culpa.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  57. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

    The petition to fire her assistant, Steve Heymann, who "wanted a high-profile computer crime conviction," [1] needs help as well.

    --
    Howdy howdy howdy
  58. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by celle · · Score: 1

    "If you look at the link you provided, it clearly states that the goal was 25,000, not 100,000."

                39,573 at 11:38pm, 1/16/13. 40,000 in 4 days, at that rate only 6 days to 100,000 anyway. I guess they better think of a worthy response as many of these people keep things working and most likely voted for the man. Better pucker up.

  59. Exactly by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I don't think this is about the joke petitions but about the speed of getting 25000 signatories for the removal of publicity hound Carmen Ortiz because of her part in Aaron Swartz's suicide. She's part of The Establishment, they want to keep her so it is far better to raise the bar than address a perceived problem.

    This is EXACTLY the reason they raised the threshold. Murderous copyrat bastards.

  60. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No thanks, the prosecutor did nothing wrong. http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

    Oh but that doesn't work with you're mob justice.

  61. 640k by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    640K should be enough for anybody.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  62. Dear Government, by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    We value your opinion about our Petition, but we cannot respond to it because it does not meet our threshold for action;
    1) Petitions in the past that didn't involve emotional please like "save puppies from beatings" have been largely ignored.
    2) Unless the petition is attached to a check from a major corporation, it is ignored.
    3) You lack credibility. Everyone but the media and your press agent know you are owned.
    4) We've already conducted a useless exercise in our civic obligations, responding to your empty response would be redundant.
    5) The only point of this petition in the first place was more as a manifesto, to explain our actions when one of us goes on a killing spree one day.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  63. Ooops, we have to raise it again. by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    From now on, at least 100,000,000 signatures will be required for us to bat an eye.
    -The Administration

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  64. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't mean they won't increase the limit for existing petitions.

    Obtuse idiot.

    Tomorrow would be a good time too, since the limit only applies to _new_ petitions, not existing ones.

    This new threshold applies only to petitions created from this point forward and is not retroactively applied to ones that already exist.

  65. Wishing for more wishes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not make a petition to lower the threshold to 25,000?

  66. So do something about it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an old problem with group behavior, and it is completely solvable.

    To fix the process, the Whitehouse just needs to define what it wants that site to accomplish, and then determine the optimum signature threshold that will generate petitions and responses it wants to deal with. I don't think those Whitehouse bureaucrats have any idea of what they could accomplish with their site -- or even how to go about thinking about it. This is a great opportunity for them, and they are blowing it.

    If I were running that site, I'd also run polls on issues that are important to the President. I'd post brief summaries of important Bills or policy alternatives and post links to more information. I'd post links to every single Comment page on a Federal Government website -- and if you don't know what a comment page is; I don't blame you. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of them, and our government hasn't exactly publicized their existence.

    I'd also use the site to post my own brief, informal news items and policy updates for visitors. I'd encourage well-placed government officials the chance to blog on this site. I'd make sure to keep the guys who run whitehouse Communications off the site, to minimize the bureaucratic hot air that sneaks onto most government websites. I might even appoint a well-informed community director, to give the site a personal voice and to drum up visitors. I'd add some forums for visitor discussion, and I'd reach out to social media.

    If I were an activist interested in all this; I'd publicize the petitions and I'd make fun of the more foolish Government responses. I'd regularly criticize the whole effort in order to encourage these foolish bureaucrats to improve their effort. I might start my own website that acted as a hub page to publicize current petitions, and to offer visitors a chance to post critical reviews of the Administration's general effort. I'll bet you can think of another dozen approaches and issues even better than these I've listed here -- my point is, that there are interesting things we could do about the Government's petition website besides striking cynical holier-than-thou poses about it. That's so 1990s.

    sc

  67. What does it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the threshold? The Constitution doesn't specify a threshold. And what happens when it's met? Will it be automatically carried out? Will it be sent to the President? Will it get a response? Who cares? There's nothing in the law or the Constitution that says anything has to happen.They could set the limit to one and then fail to do anything at all.

    Oh, and how do we know everyone who signed is a citizen? Maybe Al Qaeda is behind the Death Star petition, and they are just trying to see if we'll go for it.

  68. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by mellon · · Score: 1

    What that article says is that the prosecutor's interpretation of the law was within the law. That may be so, but is not the point being disputed. The point being disputed is whether the prosecutor's reading of the law, and the vigorousness with which the case was pursued even after JSTOR asked that it be dropped, represents malfeasance, misfeasance, or what we actually would like prosecutors to do.

    The point of the petition is that the signatories to it believe that the prosecutor acted so overzealously that her behavior can be described as misfeasance. It is not that there was no legal basis whatsoever for bringing the charges she brought.

  69. terrorist by NewYork · · Score: 1

    A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.

  70. Then get them to sign my petition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote this petition the other day, only to find out that before it even becomes visible on the web site, it has to gain 150 signatures. However, I never use Facebook & Twitter, so I can't do as they suggest and use those sites to get people to sign it. I only post on Slashdot, and even here I refuse to register an account, and so no one sees my posts. Perhaps you can help.