UPDATE: Petition Demands White House Investigate SOPA Supporter

[Baresark]

Update: Whoa, now everyone is going to get the professional run around from the people who are the absolute best at it. Does anyone think anything will actually come of this? Let me tell you, it won't. He will not be investigated. He will not suffer legal consequences for what he has done. He will not lose his nice shiny new job. The more guilty he appears to be, the less likely he is to actually suffer any consequences that come from this. AND, it has the eyes of some folks on the internet. So far, they have not reached the eyes and ears of any major constituency group. The number of people is something of a joke at this point. When politicians think of numbers, they think in the hundreds of thousands at the least.

I hope I'm wrong, but having watched the US government in action.... The system is gamed for this guy and no one seems to see it. This is what a lot of politicians do when they retire. They slip into an even better paying job at some corporate office somewhere. It's a reward for representing the interests of the people who helped get them elected (just so we are clear, it's not the people who got them elected, it's special interest groups).

 

[ShaneGunWolf]

I also demand an investigation of those eyebrows.

LMFAO. Win, dude. I second this.

 

[RatRace123]

Well good. We need this kind of investigation. Not that anything will come of it, but it's a nice thought nevertheless.
I wouldn't think that he'd be the only one payed off to support SOPA though, I'm sure many of its supporters were bought by lobbyists.

Of course, if we were to do investigations on all of the corrupt SOPA supporters, I expect Washington would be rather empty afterwards.

 

[gphjr14]

Damn, Escapist. You're off by about two or three days. I saw this shit on Facepunch Thursday. Signed it too.

If I haven't seen it, it's new to me.



Also no surprise, most politicians don't give two shits about such issues unless they have some financial gain at stake.
Surprised the Escapist isn't covering the mass shutdown of several file sharing sites.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Why no link to petition?

Or at least tell us where we can find it in case we happen to feel it's a good cause to sign in on.

Not only is it linked, mentioned earlier, but also the article says that it appeared on whitehouse.gov.

Now, can we get one for the other suspect folks? Senator Leahy over PIPA, perhaps?

Yeah, while we're at it, let's get Lamar Smith for SOPA and PCIPA impeached too. Actually, why not, let's crackdown on the whole House of Representatives to see which one's taking bribes to support those bills. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the assholes that pushed those bills were taking RIAA and MPAA money. The House could do with a good pruning of stupid old-fags who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but are given the ability to vote on things they simply don't understand. (Foreign Thieves. You shitting me?)

 

[Sovvolf]

Wow, guy even looks like your typical strawman corrupt politician, with those eyebrows and that smug look on his face.

Though sadly I'm English (and thus better than the majority of you) so I can't sign the petition or else I would. Not sure the point of it all, I really doubt anything will come of it (though got a feeling I'll eat those words) but me'h he looks and sounds a smug dick so why not.

 

[Elurindel]

Wow, he seriously threatened the President like that? Who the hell does he think he is?

 

[AquaAscension]

Speech isn't really considered to be all that important anymore, I think. And it's absurd. The truth is that the man, Dodd, said some really stupid things. However, his quote is a hodgepodge of stupid under a layer of intelligibility. To the common person, yes, this is a threat. It's a quid pro quo statement, a casting couch of sorts. If this kind of a phrase were uttered under the context of gender relations in the workplace, it'd probably warrant a Title 9 search. Unfortunately, that's not the context. In politics, speech somehow means less (even though it ought to mean so, so much more). They'll find a way to weasel out of it. I guess this might be the one upside to Fox news: it makes people feel really comfortable. It makes them feel comfortable enough to be themselves. In this case, a douchebag troll who, if he had a small cat to pet, might be considered to be a fitting Bond villain.

Off topic but still really important: please don't confuse "who" with "whom" anymore.

The Obama Administration will now respond to it, but exactly whom responds has yet to be determined.

Spoiler: Some Grammar Nitpicking

There are 2 independent clauses separated by a coordinating conjunction (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So) in addition to one dependent clause. Subject of the first clause is "Administration" with "The Obama" being used as adjectives (which administration? The Obama), and the verb is "will respond" with "now" being used as an adverb (as it answers when/where/how).
The second independent clause is weird. "Who/m responds" is a nominative dependent clause (it's a dependent clause which is used as a noun, in this case, it's used as the subject of the independent clause. I.e.: "Whom responds(Dependent clause as subject) has (as verb) to be determined (an infinitive used as the object of the verb)." Yet is an adverb, I think.

If you're still following: every clause needs a subject and a verb.
Who is subjective case (you use it where you'd use "I" or "he" or "she")
Whom is objective case (used in place of "Me" or "him" or "her")
Since "Whom responds" is the entire clause, and "responds" is the verb, "whom" MUST be the subject of that clause. Because it is the subject, it MUST BE in subjective case. Therefore, it MUST BE "who" not "whom".

Okay, sorry for that. It bugs me when people misuse "whom" far more than when they misuse "who". Simple rule in case you ever want to check: replace "Who" with "I" or "He" or "She". If it's grammatically correct still, profit. If not, change it. (Opposite goes for "Whom": replace with "Me" or "Him" or "Her".)

Spoiler: More Grammar Nitpicking

Okay, English grammar can make this rule weird. For example, "With whom are you going?" is essentially the same as "Are you going with her?" The difference is that the preposition has moved. However, the preposition still forces an objective case because that word is the object of the preposition.

And sometimes you will have a nominative clause used as the object of the preposition. A nominative clause is simply a dependent clause used as a noun. All objects are nouns; therefore, a preposition may have a nominative clause as its object. Additionally, "Whoever" is subjective case (must be used as the subject of a clause) while "Whomever" is objective case (must be used in an object's place: object of the preposition, direct/indirect object, etc.)

So the sentence "I will go with whoever wants to go" is correct. Why? It is correct because "whoever wants to go" in its entirety is used as the object for the preposition "with". Additionally, "whoever wants to go" is a dependent clause. Every clause (both dependent and independent) needs a subject. Since no other words fit as the subject, "whoever" must be the subject; therefore, it needs to be subjective case.

If anyone reads this, I applaud you.

 

[Epona]

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?

 

[Epona]

Damn, Escapist. You're off by about two or three days. I saw this shit on Facepunch Thursday. Signed it too.

If I haven't seen it, it's new to me.



Also no surprise, most politicians don't give two shits about such issues unless they have some financial gain at stake.
Surprised the Escapist isn't covering the mass shutdown of several file sharing sites.

Well, why don't YOU fill us in instead of teasing us.

 

[Spaec]

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

 

[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.

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

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

 

[newwiseman]

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

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

 

[Char-Nobyl]

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

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

 

[Epona]

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?

 

[rofltehcat]

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

And boy, does that scumbag politician deserve it.

 

[Dango]

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

 

[Epona]

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

I don't get it.

 

[Moosejaw]

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

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