There are, what, five drug questions in the additional issues category? And only one good one. Jesus Christ people he said no already.
And once a politician makes a pronouncement on a subject, we should all keep quiet. I'm pretty sure that the abolition of slavery was preceded by more than one question.
There are, what, five drug questions in the additional issues category? And only one good one. Jesus Christ people he said no already.
And once a politician makes a pronouncement on a subject, we should all keep quiet. I'm pretty sure that the abolition of slavery was preceded by more than one question.
Gorak, do you think marijuana should be kept illegal?
There are, what, five drug questions in the additional issues category? And only one good one. Jesus Christ people he said no already.
And once a politician makes a pronouncement on a subject, we should all keep quiet. I'm pretty sure that the abolition of slavery was preceded by more than one question.
Gorak, do you think marijuana should be kept illegal?
I refer you to the answer I gave to the house on a previous occasion.
There are, what, five drug questions in the additional issues category? And only one good one. Jesus Christ people he said no already.
And once a politician makes a pronouncement on a subject, we should all keep quiet. I'm pretty sure that the abolition of slavery was preceded by more than one question.
Gorak, do you think marijuana should be kept illegal?
I refer you to the answer I gave to the house on a previous occasion.
There are, what, five drug questions in the additional issues category? And only one good one. Jesus Christ people he said no already.
And once a politician makes a pronouncement on a subject, we should all keep quiet. I'm pretty sure that the abolition of slavery was preceded by more than one question.
Gorak, do you think marijuana should be kept illegal?
I refer you to the answer I gave to the house on a previous occasion.
But do you think it should be kept illegal?
I think that we should refrain from sending the message that abuse of drugs is acceptable.
You're saying, what, that the fact that the question has been bullshitted in the past means we should just drop it, we're only going to get more bullshit?
The obvious hope is that if enough people ask the question enough times, people will start to realize that this is an issue which actually is important to a lot of people, and maybe we'll see a little less bullshit.
I don't think there is any expectation of an honest answer at this stage, since the only such response is: "From any reasonable perspective, there is no justification for the marijuana prohibition." That's obviously not something that Obama, or any national politician, is going to come out and say. But I don't think we're going to get any closer to that by shutting up about it.
But do you think marijuana should be kept illegal?
Quid on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
A more practical question is, how much political capital do you want Obama to be forced to spend on this? Because it is going to cost a LOT of political capital, with no guarantee you're going to get anything out of it.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
A more practical question is, how much political capital do you want Obama to be forced to spend on this? Because it is going to cost a LOT of political capital, with no guarantee you're going to get anything out of it.
Hold on, Gosling.
By repeatedly asking the same question over and over I am getting them to eventually give a different answer.
I could spend that time asking them about DADT or infrastructure spending, or maybe writing my congress person, donating to NORML, participating in rallies, etc, but this is clearly the better method.
A more practical question is, how much political capital do you want Obama to be forced to spend on this? Because it is going to cost a LOT of political capital, with no guarantee you're going to get anything out of it.
In terms of tenuous political proposals... After health care, after abortion, after education, after gay marriage. But I couldn't really fault someone putting, say, gay marriage first, if that's what's most important to them. And telling them, "He already answered your question, go worry about something else" has gotta seem just a bit condescending.
Adrien on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
To be fair, he also did it on a question about Israel/Palestine, a question about prosecuting Bush, and a question about bank accountability, so it's not like he's singling out the marijuana people.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
A more practical question is, how much political capital do you want Obama to be forced to spend on this? Because it is going to cost a LOT of political capital, with no guarantee you're going to get anything out of it.
In terms of tenuous political proposals... After health care, after abortion, after education, after gay marriage. But I couldn't really fault someone putting, say, gay marriage first, if that's what's most important to them. And telling them, "He already answered your question, go worry about something else" has gotta seem just a bit condescending.
Questioner 1: Do you support the legalization of marijuana?
Obama: No
Questioner 2: Really?
Obama: Yes, really.
Questioner 3: Really really?
Obama: ...yes.
[...]
Questioner 85: Really, really, totally, seriously, like, absolutely no takesies backsies cross your heart, stick a needle in your eye, hand to God, strike me down with lightning, as I live and breathe sure?
See, moniker gets this. You aren't going to change anything by just repeating a question. Not doing so also doesn't mean giving up. There's plenty of actually useful things you can do.
See, moniker gets this. You aren't going to change anything by just repeating a question. Not doing so also doesn't mean giving up. There's plenty of actually useful things you can do.
You aren't going to change anything solely by asking a question. But if 90% of the questions he gets asked are on the same subject, it tells him that a large number of voters are concerned about that subject.
Asking questions and doing "actually useful things" aren't mutually exclusive.
See, moniker gets this. You aren't going to change anything by just repeating a question. Not doing so also doesn't mean giving up. There's plenty of actually useful things you can do.
You aren't going to change anything solely by asking a question. But if 90% of the questions he gets asked are on the same subject, it tells him that a large number of voters are concerned about that subject.
Or that the internet is full of potheads. Well, potheads, 9/11 truthers, and Ron Paul supporters.
Asking questions and doing "actually useful things" aren't mutually exclusive.
A more practical question is, how much political capital do you want Obama to be forced to spend on this? Because it is going to cost a LOT of political capital, with no guarantee you're going to get anything out of it.
In terms of tenuous political proposals... After health care, after abortion, after education, after gay marriage. But I couldn't really fault someone putting, say, gay marriage first, if that's what's most important to them. And telling them, "He already answered your question, go worry about something else" has gotta seem just a bit condescending.
Questioner 1: Do you support the legalization of marijuana?
Obama: No
Questioner 2: Really?
Obama: Yes, really.
Questioner 3: Really really?
Obama: ...yes.
[...]
Questioner 85: Really, really, totally, seriously, like, absolutely no takesies backsies cross your heart, stick a needle in your eye, hand to God, strike me down with lightning, as I live and breathe sure?
Sounds constructive.
You're right— in a world in which politicians are totally unresponsive to the will of their electorate, thousands of people expressing their concern for a given issue would be wholly unconstructive.
Perhaps you can excuse my lack of cynicism in this area?
I mean, maybe these people are idealists. Whatever. I haven't come to the point where I'm going to make fun of them for that yet.
You're right— in a world in which politicians are totally unresponsive to the will of their electorate, thousands of people expressing their concern for a given issue would be wholly unconstructive.
Given the format they aren't expressing their concern, they are wasting a potentially useful gesture in a wholly nonconstructive manner.
Perhaps you can excuse my lack of cynicism in this area?
I mean, maybe these people are idealists. Whatever. I haven't come to the point where I'm going to make fun of them for that yet.
But you have come to the point where you believe that spamming the President is a means of enacting/advancing policy?
moniker on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
There's a fucking difference between actually doing something and spamming questions on the internet
Also, I find the idea that doing anything on the internet and terming it "internet grassroots" or a "movement" fucking laughable
In all honesty it's like those fucks who made a facebook protest group
If you really give a shit FUCKING PROTEST not spend five minutes bitching on the internet
See, moniker gets this. You aren't going to change anything by just repeating a question. Not doing so also doesn't mean giving up. There's plenty of actually useful things you can do.
You aren't going to change anything solely by asking a question. But if 90% of the questions he gets asked are on the same subject, it tells him that a large number of voters are concerned about that subject.
Or that the internet is full of potheads. Well, potheads, 9/11 truthers, and Ron Paul supporters.
So if every question comes from some conspiraloon, what does that say about someone who asks for their opinion? For that matter, have you looked at the electorate recently?
Asking questions and doing "actually useful things" aren't mutually exclusive.
In this format, they are.
No one's saying that "useful things" have to be in the format of questions on the internet.
You're right— in a world in which politicians are totally unresponsive to the will of their electorate, thousands of people expressing their concern for a given issue would be wholly unconstructive.
Given the format they aren't expressing their concern, they are wasting a potentially useful gesture in a wholly nonconstructive manner.
Perhaps you can excuse my lack of cynicism in this area?
I mean, maybe these people are idealists. Whatever. I haven't come to the point where I'm going to make fun of them for that yet.
But you have come to the point where you believe that spamming the President is a means of enacting/advancing policy?
Well, how do you mean "spamming"?
Of the top-ranked questions about marijuana, one is a verbatim repeat of the question that was "answered". That, I would agree, is clearly pointless, and doesn't help anything. The rest, though?
One addresses decriminalization, which was conveniently left out of the aforementioned "response". One asks for some kind of justification for that same response. One highlights the financial cost of the War on Drugs. One focuses on medical marijuana.
I think these are important questions which have been deliberately ignored for political reasons. I think it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to press their representatives for details when they have been deliberately ignored. And I can't help but feel that if this were any other issue — DADT, abortion, election reform — there wouldn't be nearly the same sort of backlash towards the questioners.
See, moniker gets this. You aren't going to change anything by just repeating a question. Not doing so also doesn't mean giving up. There's plenty of actually useful things you can do.
You aren't going to change anything solely by asking a question. But if 90% of the questions he gets asked are on the same subject, it tells him that a large number of voters are concerned about that subject.
Or that the internet is full of potheads. Well, potheads, 9/11 truthers, and Ron Paul supporters.
So if every question comes from some conspiraloon, what does that say about someone who asks for their opinion? For that matter, have you looked at the electorate recently?
That they have a lot of unfortunate interns screening out the stupid. Also, here, they're asking for questions that people feel weren't adequately addressed during the campaign or which events may have reshaped; not for policy suggestions.
And I have looked at the electorate. During the campaign, actually. They are, as a rule, a lot wiser than internet comment sections.
You're right— in a world in which politicians are totally unresponsive to the will of their electorate, thousands of people expressing their concern for a given issue would be wholly unconstructive.
Given the format they aren't expressing their concern, they are wasting a potentially useful gesture in a wholly nonconstructive manner.
Perhaps you can excuse my lack of cynicism in this area?
I mean, maybe these people are idealists. Whatever. I haven't come to the point where I'm going to make fun of them for that yet.
But you have come to the point where you believe that spamming the President is a means of enacting/advancing policy?
Well, how do you mean "spamming"?
Of the top-ranked questions about marijuana, one is a verbatim repeat of the question that was "answered". That, I would agree, is clearly pointless, and doesn't help anything. The rest, though?
One addresses decriminalization, which was conveniently left out of the aforementioned "response". One asks for some kind of justification for that same response. One highlights the financial cost of the War on Drugs. One focuses on medical marijuana.
And they all boil down to the same thing: explain your stance further than you already have because I don't like it.
I think these are important questions which have been deliberately ignored for political reasons. I think it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to press their representatives for details when they have been deliberately ignored. And I can't help but feel that if this were any other issue — DADT, abortion, election reform — there wouldn't be nearly the same sort of backlash towards the questioners.
Here? I doubt it.
Does that answer your question?
Perhaps. Maybe I should re-ask it a few more times highlighting different aspects just to be sure.
See, moniker gets this. You aren't going to change anything by just repeating a question. Not doing so also doesn't mean giving up. There's plenty of actually useful things you can do.
You aren't going to change anything solely by asking a question. But if 90% of the questions he gets asked are on the same subject, it tells him that a large number of voters are concerned about that subject.
Or that the internet is full of potheads. Well, potheads, 9/11 truthers, and Ron Paul supporters.
So if every question comes from some conspiraloon, what does that say about someone who asks for their opinion? For that matter, have you looked at the electorate recently?
That they have a lot of unfortunate interns screening out the stupid. Also, here, they're asking for questions that people feel weren't adequately addressed during the campaign or which events may have reshaped; not for policy suggestions.
And I have looked at the electorate. During the campaign, actually. They are, as a rule, a lot wiser than internet comment sections.
So the people screening out the "stupid" have allowed these questions to go through. If it's acceptable for people to feel that their questions weren't answered fully during the campaign, why are they not allowed to feel the same way about Obama's answers to questions online?
One addresses decriminalization, which was conveniently left out of the aforementioned "response". One asks for some kind of justification for that same response. One highlights the financial cost of the War on Drugs. One focuses on medical marijuana.
And they all boil down to the same thing: explain your stance further than you already have because I don't like it.
And you think that's unfair, somehow? It hasn't been explained at all.
I think these are important questions which have been deliberately ignored for political reasons. I think it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to press their representatives for details when they have been deliberately ignored. And I can't help but feel that if this were any other issue — DADT, abortion, election reform — there wouldn't be nearly the same sort of backlash towards the questioners.
Here? I doubt it.
Does that answer your question?
Perhaps. Maybe I should re-ask it a few more times highlighting different aspects just to be sure.
If you feel I've been deliberately evasive, that's the only thing I can recommend. I want you to know my position as completely as possible. What are you still confused about?
So the people screening out the "stupid" have allowed these questions to go through.
...no, that's...what?
If it's acceptable for people to feel that their questions weren't answered fully during the campaign, why are they not allowed to feel the same way about Obama's answers to questions online?
They are free to feel whatever the hell they want. I'm also free to call them morons for flooding a limited resource with repetitive questions that were already answered rather than doing something constructive.
One addresses decriminalization, which was conveniently left out of the aforementioned "response". One asks for some kind of justification for that same response. One highlights the financial cost of the War on Drugs. One focuses on medical marijuana.
And they all boil down to the same thing: explain your stance further than you already have because I don't like it.
And you think that's unfair, somehow? It hasn't been explained at all.
I think these are important questions which have been deliberately ignored for political reasons. I think it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to press their representatives for details when they have been deliberately ignored. And I can't help but feel that if this were any other issue — DADT, abortion, election reform — there wouldn't be nearly the same sort of backlash towards the questioners.
Here? I doubt it.
Does that answer your question?
Perhaps. Maybe I should re-ask it a few more times highlighting different aspects just to be sure.
If you feel I've been deliberately evasive, that's the only thing I can recommend. I want you to know my position as completely as possible. What are you still confused about?
I would, but my PM box only has room for 5 messages.
So if every question comes from some conspiraloon, what does that say about someone who asks for their opinion?
That they have a lot of unfortunate interns screening out the stupid.
I took that to mean that there was a group of people who were employed to filter out the stupid questions. Can't think where I got that idea from.
If it's acceptable for people to feel that their questions weren't answered fully during the campaign, why are they not allowed to feel the same way about Obama's answers to questions online?
They are free to feel whatever the hell they want. I'm also free to call them morons for flooding a limited resource with repetitive questions that were already answered rather than doing something constructive.
Just as long as we're clear that "something constructive" is a subjective and not an objective classification. The ability to "ask a question" is not important because it can obtain a yes/no policy stance. It is important because it gives the populace the opportunity to push a politician on a subject they would much rather weasel out of by saying, "I've already answered that question".
As soon as you impose even a hypothetical limit on the number of times a question can be asked, you give politicians the ability to avoid answering a question altogether as long as they can waffle and prevaricate for long enough.
If you feel I've been deliberately evasive, that's the only thing I can recommend. I want you to know my position as completely as possible. What are you still confused about?
I would, but my PM box only has room for 5 messages.
Alrighty. If it's not that important to you, we can talk about something else.
See, moniker gets this. You aren't going to change anything by just repeating a question. Not doing so also doesn't mean giving up. There's plenty of actually useful things you can do.
You aren't going to change anything solely by asking a question. But if 90% of the questions he gets asked are on the same subject, it tells him that a large number of voters are concerned about that subject.
Asking questions and doing "actually useful things" aren't mutually exclusive.
If Obama considered these questions useful as a poll I'd be the first to call him a moron.
Internet polls are not indicative of America's views.
So if every question comes from some conspiraloon, what does that say about someone who asks for their opinion?
That they have a lot of unfortunate interns screening out the stupid.
I took that to mean that there was a group of people who were employed to filter out the stupid questions. Can't think where I got that idea from.
Neither can I, unless you've never been to the website. It has multiple sections; one of which is to proffer ideas. It's a wholly different part than the 'open questions' area and I'm pretty sure it has a filter at some point before arriving on the desk of anyone with a salary. There is no filter on the 'questions' part.
If it's acceptable for people to feel that their questions weren't answered fully during the campaign, why are they not allowed to feel the same way about Obama's answers to questions online?
They are free to feel whatever the hell they want. I'm also free to call them morons for flooding a limited resource with repetitive questions that were already answered rather than doing something constructive.
Just as long as we're clear that "something constructive" is a subjective and not an objective classification. The ability to "ask a question" is not important because it can obtain a yes/no policy stance. It is important because it gives the populace the opportunity to push a politician on a subject they would much rather weasel out of by saying, "I've already answered that question".
As soon as you impose even a hypothetical limit on the number of times a question can be asked, you give politicians the ability to avoid answering a question altogether as long as they can waffle and prevaricate for long enough.
...have you been to the website? Because I get the feeling we are talking about wholly different formats.
See, moniker gets this. You aren't going to change anything by just repeating a question. Not doing so also doesn't mean giving up. There's plenty of actually useful things you can do.
You aren't going to change anything solely by asking a question. But if 90% of the questions he gets asked are on the same subject, it tells him that a large number of voters are concerned about that subject.
Asking questions and doing "actually useful things" aren't mutually exclusive.
If Obama considered these questions useful as a poll I'd be the first to call him a moron.
Internet polls are not indicative of America's views.
Then why bitch about the fact that a lot of people are asking him about pot if those people are such a small, irrelevant section of the populace?
In fact, why ask these nutters to ask "constructive" questions in the first place? They'll just end up getting associated with causes that you actually care about.
Then why bitch about the fact that a lot of people are asking him about pot if those people are such a small, irrelevant section of the populace?
In fact, why ask these nutters to ask "constructive" questions in the first place? They'll just end up getting associated with causes that you actually care about.
The fact that the internet isn't an indicative poll doesn't mean that there aren't people on it able to ask good questions. And the comment you're talking about was made when it wasn't certain if he'd ignore those questions or if he'd just say no to them again in a longer fashion.
I can understand why Obama wouldn't want to waste political capital on it, but that doesn't make the questions invalid. Considering that several states have voted for various forms of decriminalization and legalized marijuana usage and that these state-level initiatives have been a major source of friction between state and federal law enforcement agencies - especially in California - I think the question has a bit more weight than LOL potheads and Paulites. That and the fact that we put millions of people in jail for this stuff, although Americans have always been cool about killing and imprisoning people that they don't like.
As a tangent, I'm becoming increasingly worried about exactly what Obama wants to waste political capital on. I know he hasn't even taken office yet and on a very real level it is premature to start worrying, but his initial political statements and policy proposals seem extremely timid and cautious. Considering the state of the nation and the fact that the most successful American presidents have ALL been aggressive in pursuing their agendas, I'm a little concerned about Obama's direction.
So if every question comes from some conspiraloon, what does that say about someone who asks for their opinion?
That they have a lot of unfortunate interns screening out the stupid.
I took that to mean that there was a group of people who were employed to filter out the stupid questions. Can't think where I got that idea from.
Neither can I, unless you've never been to the website.
No, I've not actually seen the website, but the reason I thought they had people "screening out the stupid" was because you said they had people "screening out the stupid".
If it's acceptable for people to feel that their questions weren't answered fully during the campaign, why are they not allowed to feel the same way about Obama's answers to questions online?
They are free to feel whatever the hell they want. I'm also free to call them morons for flooding a limited resource with repetitive questions that were already answered rather than doing something constructive.
Just as long as we're clear that "something constructive" is a subjective and not an objective classification. The ability to "ask a question" is not important because it can obtain a yes/no policy stance. It is important because it gives the populace the opportunity to push a politician on a subject they would much rather weasel out of by saying, "I've already answered that question".
As soon as you impose even a hypothetical limit on the number of times a question can be asked, you give politicians the ability to avoid answering a question altogether as long as they can waffle and prevaricate for long enough.
...have you been to the website? Because I get the feeling we are talking about wholly different formats.
Not been to the site, but I don't think the general principle changes. You put yourself up for election, you're telling people that you think you should be in charge and you should be open to answer every question that comes your way - not necessarily personally, but through your staff - regardless of how "unconstructive" an individual voter may believe it to be.
Then why bitch about the fact that a lot of people are asking him about pot if those people are such a small, irrelevant section of the populace?
In fact, why ask these nutters to ask "constructive" questions in the first place? They'll just end up getting associated with causes that you actually care about.
The fact that the internet isn't an indicative poll doesn't mean that there aren't people on it able to ask good questions.
For the record, who is the arbiter of good/bad questions?
For me, that is the crux of the argument.
edit: the arguments against these questioners seem to centre around "You make us look bad."
Posts
You could set your watch by them, but the station clocks would be way off.
And once a politician makes a pronouncement on a subject, we should all keep quiet. I'm pretty sure that the abolition of slavery was preceded by more than one question.
I refer you to the answer I gave to the house on a previous occasion.
I think that we should refrain from sending the message that abuse of drugs is acceptable.
The obvious hope is that if enough people ask the question enough times, people will start to realize that this is an issue which actually is important to a lot of people, and maybe we'll see a little less bullshit.
I don't think there is any expectation of an honest answer at this stage, since the only such response is: "From any reasonable perspective, there is no justification for the marijuana prohibition." That's obviously not something that Obama, or any national politician, is going to come out and say. But I don't think we're going to get any closer to that by shutting up about it.
By repeatedly asking the same question over and over I am getting them to eventually give a different answer.
I could spend that time asking them about DADT or infrastructure spending, or maybe writing my congress person, donating to NORML, participating in rallies, etc, but this is clearly the better method.
It is imperative that we do all we can to stop illegal drugs being given to our children - won't somebody please think of the children?
In terms of tenuous political proposals... After health care, after abortion, after education, after gay marriage. But I couldn't really fault someone putting, say, gay marriage first, if that's what's most important to them. And telling them, "He already answered your question, go worry about something else" has gotta seem just a bit condescending.
Questioner 1: Do you support the legalization of marijuana?
Obama: No
Questioner 2: Really?
Obama: Yes, really.
Questioner 3: Really really?
Obama: ...yes.
[...]
Questioner 85: Really, really, totally, seriously, like, absolutely no takesies backsies cross your heart, stick a needle in your eye, hand to God, strike me down with lightning, as I live and breathe sure?
Sounds constructive.
You aren't going to change anything solely by asking a question. But if 90% of the questions he gets asked are on the same subject, it tells him that a large number of voters are concerned about that subject.
Asking questions and doing "actually useful things" aren't mutually exclusive.
Or that the internet is full of potheads. Well, potheads, 9/11 truthers, and Ron Paul supporters.
In this format, they are.
You're right— in a world in which politicians are totally unresponsive to the will of their electorate, thousands of people expressing their concern for a given issue would be wholly unconstructive.
Perhaps you can excuse my lack of cynicism in this area?
I mean, maybe these people are idealists. Whatever. I haven't come to the point where I'm going to make fun of them for that yet.
Given the format they aren't expressing their concern, they are wasting a potentially useful gesture in a wholly nonconstructive manner.
But you have come to the point where you believe that spamming the President is a means of enacting/advancing policy?
Also, I find the idea that doing anything on the internet and terming it "internet grassroots" or a "movement" fucking laughable
In all honesty it's like those fucks who made a facebook protest group
If you really give a shit FUCKING PROTEST not spend five minutes bitching on the internet
So if every question comes from some conspiraloon, what does that say about someone who asks for their opinion? For that matter, have you looked at the electorate recently?
No one's saying that "useful things" have to be in the format of questions on the internet.
Well, how do you mean "spamming"?
Of the top-ranked questions about marijuana, one is a verbatim repeat of the question that was "answered". That, I would agree, is clearly pointless, and doesn't help anything. The rest, though?
One addresses decriminalization, which was conveniently left out of the aforementioned "response". One asks for some kind of justification for that same response. One highlights the financial cost of the War on Drugs. One focuses on medical marijuana.
I think these are important questions which have been deliberately ignored for political reasons. I think it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to press their representatives for details when they have been deliberately ignored. And I can't help but feel that if this were any other issue — DADT, abortion, election reform — there wouldn't be nearly the same sort of backlash towards the questioners.
Does that answer your question?
That they have a lot of unfortunate interns screening out the stupid. Also, here, they're asking for questions that people feel weren't adequately addressed during the campaign or which events may have reshaped; not for policy suggestions.
And I have looked at the electorate. During the campaign, actually. They are, as a rule, a lot wiser than internet comment sections.
And they all boil down to the same thing: explain your stance further than you already have because I don't like it.
Here? I doubt it.
Perhaps. Maybe I should re-ask it a few more times highlighting different aspects just to be sure.
So the people screening out the "stupid" have allowed these questions to go through. If it's acceptable for people to feel that their questions weren't answered fully during the campaign, why are they not allowed to feel the same way about Obama's answers to questions online?
And you think that's unfair, somehow? It hasn't been explained at all.
If you feel I've been deliberately evasive, that's the only thing I can recommend. I want you to know my position as completely as possible. What are you still confused about?
...no, that's...what?
They are free to feel whatever the hell they want. I'm also free to call them morons for flooding a limited resource with repetitive questions that were already answered rather than doing something constructive.
I would, but my PM box only has room for 5 messages.
I took that to mean that there was a group of people who were employed to filter out the stupid questions. Can't think where I got that idea from.
Just as long as we're clear that "something constructive" is a subjective and not an objective classification. The ability to "ask a question" is not important because it can obtain a yes/no policy stance. It is important because it gives the populace the opportunity to push a politician on a subject they would much rather weasel out of by saying, "I've already answered that question".
As soon as you impose even a hypothetical limit on the number of times a question can be asked, you give politicians the ability to avoid answering a question altogether as long as they can waffle and prevaricate for long enough.
Alrighty. If it's not that important to you, we can talk about something else.
Internet polls are not indicative of America's views.
Neither can I, unless you've never been to the website. It has multiple sections; one of which is to proffer ideas. It's a wholly different part than the 'open questions' area and I'm pretty sure it has a filter at some point before arriving on the desk of anyone with a salary. There is no filter on the 'questions' part.
...have you been to the website? Because I get the feeling we are talking about wholly different formats.
Then why bitch about the fact that a lot of people are asking him about pot if those people are such a small, irrelevant section of the populace?
In fact, why ask these nutters to ask "constructive" questions in the first place? They'll just end up getting associated with causes that you actually care about.
As a tangent, I'm becoming increasingly worried about exactly what Obama wants to waste political capital on. I know he hasn't even taken office yet and on a very real level it is premature to start worrying, but his initial political statements and policy proposals seem extremely timid and cautious. Considering the state of the nation and the fact that the most successful American presidents have ALL been aggressive in pursuing their agendas, I'm a little concerned about Obama's direction.
No, I've not actually seen the website, but the reason I thought they had people "screening out the stupid" was because you said they had people "screening out the stupid".
Not been to the site, but I don't think the general principle changes. You put yourself up for election, you're telling people that you think you should be in charge and you should be open to answer every question that comes your way - not necessarily personally, but through your staff - regardless of how "unconstructive" an individual voter may believe it to be.
For the record, who is the arbiter of good/bad questions?
For me, that is the crux of the argument.
edit: the arguments against these questioners seem to centre around "You make us look bad."