UPDATE: Petition Demands White House Investigate SOPA Supporter

[neverarine]

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

 

[Bobic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bobic]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[boag]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JohnTomorrow]

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

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

 

[Ukomba]

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

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

Actually, if you look at the numbers. The top industry giving to members of congress is Lawyers/Law Firms, and they mostly give to Democrats 73% to 27%. The next largest is Retired people whom mostly give to Republicans. Oil & Gas is down at at the #9 spot and TV/Movies/Music (aka hollywood) is #14.

So it would be more accurate to say the republicans get money from Retires, Investors, and Health Professionals (The top 3 that mostly contribute to Republicans) and Democrats are funded by Lawyers, Lobbyists, and Hollywood (The top 3 that mostly contribute to Democrats).

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2012

 

[Bobic]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

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

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

Actually, if you look at the numbers. The top industry giving to members of congress is Lawyers/Law Firms, and they mostly give to Democrats 73% to 27%. The next largest is Retired people whom mostly give to Republicans. Oil & Gas is down at at the #9 spot and TV/Movies/Music (aka hollywood) is #14.

So it would be more accurate to say the republicans get money from Retires, Investors, and Health Professionals (The top 3 that mostly contribute to Republicans) and Democrats are funded by Lawyers, Lobbyists, and Hollywood (The top 3 that mostly contribute to Democrats).

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2012

Huh, thanks for the education pal. And I mean that sincerely.

 

[boag]

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

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

Actually, if you look at the numbers. The top industry giving to members of congress is Lawyers/Law Firms, and they mostly give to Democrats 73% to 27%. The next largest is Retired people whom mostly give to Republicans. Oil & Gas is down at at the #9 spot and TV/Movies/Music (aka hollywood) is #14.

So it would be more accurate to say the republicans get money from Retires, Investors, and Health Professionals (The top 3 that mostly contribute to Republicans) and Democrats are funded by Lawyers, Lobbyists, and Hollywood (The top 3 that mostly contribute to Democrats).

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2012

That is certainly and eye Opener, thank you very much sharing.

 

[144_v1legacy]

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

It's probably true that this involving SOPA is a big part of the complaint of bribery, but that's completely legitimate. Bribery on issues of great consequence have greater risks, and to take a bribe for such an important bill requires a greater deal of corruption. Bribery is always bad, but like any misdemeanor, the severity varies.

 

[boag]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

Like I said, its more about setting a precedence, I dont really expect this person to get indicted, but when people are faced with this grim reality, that being in a position of power has allowed for some to rig the system to feed them and the few people that support them, it just seems unreal.

Some time ago I was adamant about people in this position being disconnected from their common man, but in recent years ive been privy to talk to some people that do have power and pull in certain Entertainment Industries, and most of their world views are completely skewed and screwed up.

In a really heated chat about Roman Ponlanski, the issue came up, and the answer I received completely demoralized me and made me question the friendship I had with these people.

You can either take the following statements or dismiss them, the choice is yours.

They dont care about destroying someones life, as long as they can make an example they can use to fear monger the rest.

They dont care about laws if someone of their core group is involved, and will use all methods they can to protect their privileged supporters.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

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

Depends. Is it still illegal if he refuses to do the favor the bribe was meant to be for? Because as far as we've seen, he is refusing.

 

[Bobic]

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

It's probably true that this involving SOPA is a big part of the complaint of bribery, but that's completely legitimate. Bribery on issues of great consequence have greater risks, and to take a bribe for such an important bill requires a greater deal of corruption. Bribery is always bad, but like any misdemeanor, the severity varies.

Well, if he was bribing people for support of this bill then fair enough. But that's not what's instigated the investigation. He essentially said he'd stop funding Obama for shooting it down. Support from investors is what both the democrats and republicans rely on and, if you follow the wonderful link provided by Ukomba, you'd see that it's done by an awful lot of people. It is wrong to punish this man for funding a political party when it is done by so many. Laws don't only apply to those you don't like, if this guy is punished then the whole system needs to be overhauled, which I would actively encourage. I just think picking on one guy, for a crime (?) committed by many, due to his position on something else, is unfair.

Imagine if you and four friends were caught smoking dope. Then the police only reprimand you because they disagree with your views on public health care. That's what the petitioners are doing here.

 

[Bobic]

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

Depends. Is it still illegal if he refuses to do the favor the bribe was meant to be for? Because as far as we've seen, he is refusing.

But it wasn't a direct bribe to support SOPA, it was just funding for his party. A more general bribe if you will. And even if he hasn't done this, he will have done what some other contributors asked. If we're defining these donations as bribery (which they basically are), then Obama (and any other president for however long this has been going on for) has accepted a bribe.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

Like I said, its more about setting a precedence, I dont really expect this person to get indicted, but when people are faced with this grim reality, that being in a position of power has allowed for some to rig the system to feed them and the few people that support them, it just seems unreal.

Some time ago I was adamant about people in this position being disconnected from their common man, but in recent years ive been privy to talk to some people that do have power and pull in certain Entertainment Industries, and most of their world views are completely skewed and screwed up.

In a really heated chat about Roman Ponlanski, the issue came up, and the answer I received completely demoralized me and made me question the friendship I had with these people.

You can either take the following statements or dismiss them, the choice is yours.

They dont care about destroying someones life, as long as they can make an example they can use to fear monger the rest.

They dont care about laws if someone of their core group is involved, and will use all methods they can to protect their privileged supporters.

I think we're basically on the same side for the big picture, I just find it a bit more than coincidental that the internet is making its stand on a SOPA supporter.

 

[boag]

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

Depends. Is it still illegal if he refuses to do the favor the bribe was meant to be for? Because as far as we've seen, he is refusing.

But it wasn't a direct bribe to support SOPA, it was just funding for his party. A more general bribe if you will. And even if he hasn't done this, he will have done what some other contributors asked. If we're defining these donations as bribery (which they basically are), then Obama (and any other president for however long this has been going on for) has accepted a bribe.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

Like I said, its more about setting a precedence, I dont really expect this person to get indicted, but when people are faced with this grim reality, that being in a position of power has allowed for some to rig the system to feed them and the few people that support them, it just seems unreal.

Some time ago I was adamant about people in this position being disconnected from their common man, but in recent years ive been privy to talk to some people that do have power and pull in certain Entertainment Industries, and most of their world views are completely skewed and screwed up.

In a really heated chat about Roman Ponlanski, the issue came up, and the answer I received completely demoralized me and made me question the friendship I had with these people.

You can either take the following statements or dismiss them, the choice is yours.

They dont care about destroying someones life, as long as they can make an example they can use to fear monger the rest.

They dont care about laws if someone of their core group is involved, and will use all methods they can to protect their privileged supporters.

I think we're basically on the same side for the big picture, I just find it a bit more than coincidental that the internet is making its stand on a SOPA supporter.

Its not a coincidence at all, a topic that is fresh in peoples minds, will always draw more attention. And besides he was in a Fox News Interview, discussing SOPA when he uttered those words, its entirely relevant to the SOPA issue.

Furthermore, the Petition is asking not only for the investigation of Chris Dodd, its asking for in depth investigation on the whole MPAA and those who have had dealings with them.

Dodd Uttering the words just make him the central point of it.

 

[theultimateend]

I'm not in politics, and my understanding of American politics is not the best... but I am pretty sure threatening one of the most powerful people on the planet is like cockslapping a bear while your dick is covered in honey, and you're standing on a pile of broken bees nests, while holding one of the bear's cubs.

Uh....... Replace bear with shark, and honey with whale blood. Bear's are scavengers and have been known to be ludicrously docile in the face of insanity. A cock slap might scare them away.

Yeah I was gonna say "Been there, done that. Went better than expected."

If dodd is investigated he will be prosecuted. This isn't a matter of "IF" he was bribed or involved in bribery.

He will be caught, and if anyone ends up surprised I'll be sad.

 

[Bobic]

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

Depends. Is it still illegal if he refuses to do the favor the bribe was meant to be for? Because as far as we've seen, he is refusing.

But it wasn't a direct bribe to support SOPA, it was just funding for his party. A more general bribe if you will. And even if he hasn't done this, he will have done what some other contributors asked. If we're defining these donations as bribery (which they basically are), then Obama (and any other president for however long this has been going on for) has accepted a bribe.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

Like I said, its more about setting a precedence, I dont really expect this person to get indicted, but when people are faced with this grim reality, that being in a position of power has allowed for some to rig the system to feed them and the few people that support them, it just seems unreal.

Some time ago I was adamant about people in this position being disconnected from their common man, but in recent years ive been privy to talk to some people that do have power and pull in certain Entertainment Industries, and most of their world views are completely skewed and screwed up.

In a really heated chat about Roman Ponlanski, the issue came up, and the answer I received completely demoralized me and made me question the friendship I had with these people.

You can either take the following statements or dismiss them, the choice is yours.

They dont care about destroying someones life, as long as they can make an example they can use to fear monger the rest.

They dont care about laws if someone of their core group is involved, and will use all methods they can to protect their privileged supporters.

I think we're basically on the same side for the big picture, I just find it a bit more than coincidental that the internet is making its stand on a SOPA supporter.

Its not a coincidence at all, a topic that is fresh in peoples minds, will always draw more attention. And besides he was in a Fox News Interview, discussing SOPA when he uttered those words, its entirely relevant to the SOPA issue.

Furthermore, the Petition is asking not only for the investigation of Chris Dodd, its asking for in depth investigation on the whole MPAA and those who have had dealings with them.

Dodd Uttering the words just make him the central point of it.

But what is there to investigate? It's common and accepted knowledge that people donate money to political parties to get their way. And it seems to be common sense for him to not continue giving money to someone whom he doesn't support. I just don't see anything that separates him from every other lobbyist.

 

[boag]

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

Depends. Is it still illegal if he refuses to do the favor the bribe was meant to be for? Because as far as we've seen, he is refusing.

But it wasn't a direct bribe to support SOPA, it was just funding for his party. A more general bribe if you will. And even if he hasn't done this, he will have done what some other contributors asked. If we're defining these donations as bribery (which they basically are), then Obama (and any other president for however long this has been going on for) has accepted a bribe.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

Like I said, its more about setting a precedence, I dont really expect this person to get indicted, but when people are faced with this grim reality, that being in a position of power has allowed for some to rig the system to feed them and the few people that support them, it just seems unreal.

Some time ago I was adamant about people in this position being disconnected from their common man, but in recent years ive been privy to talk to some people that do have power and pull in certain Entertainment Industries, and most of their world views are completely skewed and screwed up.

In a really heated chat about Roman Ponlanski, the issue came up, and the answer I received completely demoralized me and made me question the friendship I had with these people.

You can either take the following statements or dismiss them, the choice is yours.

They dont care about destroying someones life, as long as they can make an example they can use to fear monger the rest.

They dont care about laws if someone of their core group is involved, and will use all methods they can to protect their privileged supporters.

I think we're basically on the same side for the big picture, I just find it a bit more than coincidental that the internet is making its stand on a SOPA supporter.

Its not a coincidence at all, a topic that is fresh in peoples minds, will always draw more attention. And besides he was in a Fox News Interview, discussing SOPA when he uttered those words, its entirely relevant to the SOPA issue.

Furthermore, the Petition is asking not only for the investigation of Chris Dodd, its asking for in depth investigation on the whole MPAA and those who have had dealings with them.

Dodd Uttering the words just make him the central point of it.

But what is there to investigate? It's common and accepted knowledge that people donate money to political parties to get their way. And it seems to be common sense for him to not continue giving money to someone whom he doesn't support. I just don't see anything that separates him from every other lobbyist.

That is a very good point of contention, its been stated previously in this thread.

The fact is, there is never any monetary compensation from lobbying, lobbyists are supposedly people that have connections to congressmen, that allow them to bring issues from groups of people towards government.

implying that there is a direct correlation between asking for a certain law to pass and monetary support is bribing.

 

[Chaos1228]

Oh that's right, it's the websites that are abusing their power to further their own interests, my bad!

Seriously though, it's great that they will be investigating this guy, plus that picture gives me the creeps.

 

[CounterReproductive]

UPDATE: Petition Demands White House Investigate SOPA Supporter

"Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

Is it just me or has this guy openly threatened a man who in order to 'capture' one of the most wanted criminals in their history sent a strike team into a foreign country without telling their government, killed the guy and then left.

yeah Mr Dodd your a smart man...

Oh and Mr Dodd , could i also point out that yeah what wikipedia, reddit et al did wasn't abuse of power it was a protest, and it didn't further their corporate interests, it just didn't further YOUR corporate interests, so away with you back to Hollywood and shut up.

 

[ckam]

Well, I don't particularly like government/states in general, but I suppose we can play by their rules. Let's show them exactly who they're facing.