6 ms·

Nonsensical sensationalism. The petition expired, and didn't get 25,000 signitures. Should it have gotten special preference because it got on the front page of

by cjoh 14y ago

Nonsensical sensationalism. The petition expired, and didn't get 25,000 signitures. Should it have gotten special preference because it got on the front page of Reddit and Hackernews? No. Should you have signed it 2 days ago instead of upvoting this article hoping that somebody else would? Yes. Here's where it says clearly what happened: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transportation-security-administration-follow-law/tffCTwDd https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transporta...

rhizome 14y ago
I'm sure a guy who worked on barackobama.com is going to be impartial on this issue.
- duaneb 14y ago
  Let's not resort to ad hominem now.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Ad hominem doesn't mean that it's not a factor. Check the guy's page, he's works in the mainstream Democratic machine.
runjake 14y ago
The article clearly claims the White House removed it BEFORE its expiration time. On the other hand, the White House page looks like a boilerplate 404 with no mentions of start and end times.
mapgrep 14y ago
From the article: "The White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition." This is distinct, by the way, from a separate outage for maintenance: "The site ALSO went down for 'maintenance' following a Wired article that sought support for the campaign." (Emphasis added.)
david_shaw 14y ago
Okay, here's my question: Regardless of whether "the Administration" cut this petition short or not, what is the benefit of keeping the TSA around? No, no, I don't mean because they're ineffective or violating our rights or anything like that (although those points are valid as well) -- my question is what is the political motivation for keeping the TSA intact? Sure, you could argue that some conservatives (that hate everything Obama does anyway) would get more riled up about "helping the terrorists," but those people will never vote democrat anyway. In fact, you could even argue that some die-hard conservatives would applaud Obama for ending the violation of citizens' rights. If the government knows how ineffective the TSA is (and always has been), and how much most people dislike the organization, does it make sense to hold out on the TSA until it gets closer an election, then dissolve it? Is the TSA still active as an ace-up-the-sleeve of political clout? If not, what is the political reason for keeping them around? I really can't figure it out.
- tchunin 14y ago
  It could be an economic reason, as in increasing the sense of flyer 'security' (despite being an utter failure). Consumer thinks, "I exposed myself so that I can feel safe thinking everyone else was also exposed." Consumer is invested. It could also be a political barometer to our collective response to an increasing police state.
- jey 14y ago
  Most people believe the TSA is effective and is keeping us safe from terrorists. You'd need a way to convince everyone that it's not true to avoid the backlash.
  - alextingle 14y ago
    Really?? I find that astonishing. Do you have a citation?
    - taligent 14y ago
      54% of people recently polled believe that the TSA is doing a Good or Excellent job. Only 12% of people believe they are doing a bad job. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positi...
joering2 14y ago
First and foremost, deliberately or not, you are good at manipulating words. Yes, the website clearly _says_ what happened, but it doesn't explain [clearly] _why_. A doctor can tell you "the patient has died" and his statement "clearly says what happened". But it doesn't answer as of why he is dead. Second, some other guys replied already that this petition expired prematurely and this is the purpose behind all the fuzz. As of me going bit conspiratorish way, keep in mind that we are talking about DHS here. Those are the people in government that are beyond and sort of control, regardless if it comes from "we the people", President of the USA, or Congress itself. I could imagine all it takes one phonecall from DHS for WhiteHouse petitions website to have a "down for maintenance" issue. They do not answer to anyone or anything. Just a reminder, as you know they ran Fast and Furious where at least one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. At the end, Eric Holder was indeed held in contempt of Congress, but who cares? He won't face any responsibility just like DOD said they are not interested in pursuing this matter. This should be a perfect example to put in a dictionary under the term "mob". Imagine situation where you witnessed someone killing your family member you call the cops and the oppressor turned out to be police commissioner's brother, and their answer is "we are not interested in pursuing this matter". So if DHS is capable of pulling stuns like the one with Holder, you really think they will let "we the people" to petition against them without ability to stop the show anytime they want to? edit: good read: http://townhall.com/columnists/edfeulner/2012/08/10/the_furor_over_fast_and_furious http://townhall.com/columnists/edfeulner/2012/08/10/the_furo... edit: actually Brian's birthday would be today... http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/11/remembering_brian_terry_on_his_42nd_birthday http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/11/remembe...
- slurgfest 14y ago
  > one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. What happened to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Are you saying that ATF shot the Border Patrol Agent? Oh. I see. The mistake was that some Mexicans got guns. Obviously, without the ATF there is no way that Mexicans would be able to get guns. Right. But under that logic, failing to enact gun control makes the US government responsible for almost everyone killed with a gun in the US, since the relative lack of gun control both directly and indirectly results in more guns in hands, and therefore more guns in use, and therefore more people being shot. (For the record: I am against gun control, I just think your logic sucks) You ARE allowed to petition, but that isn't the same thing as whatever your complaint is about whitehouse.gov ... petitions vastly pre-existed whitehouse.gov. You seem to have forgotten the good old days when Reagan set up the Enterprise (an unaccountable shadow government with its own funding sources) and sold arms to our enemies, violating a US arms embargo, in order to fund a dirty war in Central America (another action violating US law). What great democracy that was!
wkdown 14y ago
> Should you have signed it 2 days ago instead of upvoting this article hoping that somebody else would? Yes. Slacktivism at its finest

by cjoh 14y ago

rhizome 14y ago

I'm sure a guy who worked on barackobama.com is going to be impartial on this issue.

duaneb 14y ago
Let's not resort to ad hominem now.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Ad hominem doesn't mean that it's not a factor. Check the guy's page, he's works in the mainstream Democratic machine.

runjake 14y ago

The article clearly claims the White House removed it BEFORE its expiration time. On the other hand, the White House page looks like a boilerplate 404 with no mentions of start and end times.

mapgrep 14y ago

From the article: "The White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition." This is distinct, by the way, from a separate outage for maintenance: "The site ALSO went down for 'maintenance' following a Wired article that sought support for the campaign." (Emphasis added.)

david_shaw 14y ago

Okay, here's my question: Regardless of whether "the Administration" cut this petition short or not, what is the benefit of keeping the TSA around? No, no, I don't mean because they're ineffective or violating our rights or anything like that (although those points are valid as well) -- my question is what is the political motivation for keeping the TSA intact? Sure, you could argue that some conservatives (that hate everything Obama does anyway) would get more riled up about "helping the terrorists," but those people will never vote democrat anyway. In fact, you could even argue that some die-hard conservatives would applaud Obama for ending the violation of citizens' rights. If the government knows how ineffective the TSA is (and always has been), and how much most people dislike the organization, does it make sense to hold out on the TSA until it gets closer an election, then dissolve it? Is the TSA still active as an ace-up-the-sleeve of political clout? If not, what is the political reason for keeping them around? I really can't figure it out.

tchunin 14y ago
It could be an economic reason, as in increasing the sense of flyer 'security' (despite being an utter failure). Consumer thinks, "I exposed myself so that I can feel safe thinking everyone else was also exposed." Consumer is invested. It could also be a political barometer to our collective response to an increasing police state.
jey 14y ago
Most people believe the TSA is effective and is keeping us safe from terrorists. You'd need a way to convince everyone that it's not true to avoid the backlash.
- alextingle 14y ago
  Really?? I find that astonishing. Do you have a citation?
  - taligent 14y ago
    54% of people recently polled believe that the TSA is doing a Good or Excellent job. Only 12% of people believe they are doing a bad job. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positi...

joering2 14y ago

First and foremost, deliberately or not, you are good at manipulating words. Yes, the website clearly _says_ what happened, but it doesn't explain [clearly] _why_. A doctor can tell you "the patient has died" and his statement "clearly says what happened". But it doesn't answer as of why he is dead. Second, some other guys replied already that this petition expired prematurely and this is the purpose behind all the fuzz. As of me going bit conspiratorish way, keep in mind that we are talking about DHS here. Those are the people in government that are beyond and sort of control, regardless if it comes from "we the people", President of the USA, or Congress itself. I could imagine all it takes one phonecall from DHS for WhiteHouse petitions website to have a "down for maintenance" issue. They do not answer to anyone or anything. Just a reminder, as you know they ran Fast and Furious where at least one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. At the end, Eric Holder was indeed held in contempt of Congress, but who cares? He won't face any responsibility just like DOD said they are not interested in pursuing this matter. This should be a perfect example to put in a dictionary under the term "mob". Imagine situation where you witnessed someone killing your family member you call the cops and the oppressor turned out to be police commissioner's brother, and their answer is "we are not interested in pursuing this matter". So if DHS is capable of pulling stuns like the one with Holder, you really think they will let "we the people" to petition against them without ability to stop the show anytime they want to? edit: good read: http://townhall.com/columnists/edfeulner/2012/08/10/the_furor_over_fast_and_furious http://townhall.com/columnists/edfeulner/2012/08/10/the_furo... edit: actually Brian's birthday would be today... http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/11/remembering_brian_terry_on_his_42nd_birthday http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/11/remembe...

slurgfest 14y ago
> one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. What happened to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Are you saying that ATF shot the Border Patrol Agent? Oh. I see. The mistake was that some Mexicans got guns. Obviously, without the ATF there is no way that Mexicans would be able to get guns. Right. But under that logic, failing to enact gun control makes the US government responsible for almost everyone killed with a gun in the US, since the relative lack of gun control both directly and indirectly results in more guns in hands, and therefore more guns in use, and therefore more people being shot. (For the record: I am against gun control, I just think your logic sucks) You ARE allowed to petition, but that isn't the same thing as whatever your complaint is about whitehouse.gov ... petitions vastly pre-existed whitehouse.gov. You seem to have forgotten the good old days when Reagan set up the Enterprise (an unaccountable shadow government with its own funding sources) and sold arms to our enemies, violating a US arms embargo, in order to fund a dirty war in Central America (another action violating US law). What great democracy that was!

wkdown 14y ago

> Should you have signed it 2 days ago instead of upvoting this article hoping that somebody else would? Yes. Slacktivism at its finest