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.
And the first time around it was perfectly understandable to have a question on the topic. The particular question was pretty stupid, but that's neither here nor there.
And the first time around it was perfectly understandable to have a question on the topic. The particular question was pretty stupid, but that's neither here nor there.
It isn't the first time around anymore.
Depends on the purpose of the questioners. Beyond this thread and ones like it on similar sites, I've seen more mainstream media coverage of the issue - using the questions as a hook - in the last few weeks than I have seen in years. Reporters are writing stories about how the question keeps getting asked. Bloggers - and I mean the big ones whose posts tend to end up as questions by the White House press corps - have commented on it several times. We're not the only ones noticing the reappearance of the question and Obama's non-responses. I've even heard people at my work talking about it.
At the very least, it's become a minor embarrassment for the Obama people. It may also be getting people in the Washington circles of power to discuss the issue. Even if they are doing it in the context of Cheech and Chong jokes, the questions are getting a conversation started. Obama seems to love doing that.
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.
And where has that aggressive pursuit of agenda taken us?
And where has that aggressive pursuit of agenda taken us?
Depends on the president. Washington got us a lasting Republic. Jackson got us an expanded democracy. Lincoln got us a united nation. Roosevelt I got us progressive policies and a national park system. Roosevelt II got us the New Deal and victory in WWII. Truman got us a desegregated armed forces. Eisenhower got us desegregated schools and an interstate highway system. Kennedy and Johnson got us civil rights, expanded social programs and a moon shot. Nixon got us relations with China.
Lots of bad too, including all the sins of GWB. Doesn't change the fact that the good happened because the presidents fought tooth and nail for them against united and equally combative opponents. Passive and conciliatory presidents - look at a list of presidents and pick out the ones you've never heard of - have never gotten us anything - see Ford, Carter and arguably Clinton and Bush I for recent examples.
Looks like a website belonging to a politician who wants public support.
Still failing to see why the public have some special duty to treat it with respect and only ask questions that help the politician.
Who even remotely suggested that?
The point that Quid and I are making is that if you have 2 opportunities to ask 5 questions you shouldn't be asking the exact same question in both rounds.
The point that Quid and I are making is that if you have 2 opportunities to ask 5 questions you shouldn't be asking the exact same question in both rounds.
Lots of questions have been asked in each round, including questions about why Obama is ignoring the evidence for UFOs. The real question is why a huge percentage of visitors to the site think it is worth voting for the questions every time they appear. Maybe you should go ask that question on the site.
Looks like a website belonging to a politician who wants public support.
Still failing to see why the public have some special duty to treat it with respect and only ask questions that help the politician.
Who even remotely suggested that?
The point that Quid and I are making is that if you have 2 opportunities to ask 5 questions you shouldn't be asking the exact same question in both rounds.
The point that you are making is that you don't believe the questions to be "constructive". The point that I am am making is that "constructive" is a subjective judgment. If the public are repeatedly asking the same question, it is clear that the question has not been answered to the satisfaction of the public.
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
ITT: Gorak fails to see why people shouldn't act like dumb asses.
ITT: Quid fails to see why it's wrong to restrict dumb asses solely for being dumb asses.
Again, the comment you are directing this at, when I said they shouldn't be asking it again, was back when we didn't know if he'd be answering other questions.
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
But my point is that lots of people are asking questions over and over again and being ignored. It's not the asking that's making this an issue. It's the fact that thousands of people visiting the site seem to think voting for the question again and again has some value. That's a different observation, even in the context of an Internet poll.
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
But my point is that lots of people are asking questions over and over again and being ignored. It's not the asking that's making this an issue. It's the fact that thousands of people visiting the site seem to think voting for the question again and again has some value. That's a different observation, even in the context of an Internet poll.
They can think it has value all they want. A letter to their senator would have actual value.
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
If it's a bunch of retards with internet connections, why care about their opinions. Again we come back to the "You make us look bad" argument.
Repeatedly asking the same question can also show that you're not willing to put up with a bullshit answer.
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
But my point is that lots of people are asking questions over and over again and being ignored. It's not the asking that's making this an issue. It's the fact that thousands of people visiting the site seem to think voting for the question again and again has some value. That's a different observation, even in the context of an Internet poll.
They can think it has value all they want. A letter to their senator would have actual value.
Why not write a letter to Santa while you're at it?
They can think it has value all they want. A letter to their senator would have actual value.
At this point, I'm not even sure what your ultimate point is. There's a site for open questions for Obama's staffers. Each round, thousands and thousands of questions are asked. Of those, questions about marijuana have repeatedly floated to the top, to the point where they were the number one question the first time and dominated the top 20 the second.
That's interesting and has spurred quite a bit of debate and press copy, even aside from the fact that Obama's people don't want to answer it. If I was an activist, I'd be cheering the fact that this had bought me more column inches in the mainstream media than a decade of protests and NORML organizing. If I was a good government type or social scientist, I'd note with interest that this tied into state-level initiatives and poll numbers suggesting a slow rethinking of the question among the general public. If I was a Washington pol, I might even note that there seems to be a growing constituency who dislikes this facet of government policy.
Just in the fact that these questions have gotten a good deal of ink means that they were far, far more effective than any letter to a Senator. It's served as an interesting ice-breaker for the conversation. At this point, that's as much as anyone could hope for.
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
If it's a bunch of retards with internet connections, why care about their opinions.
Because there are a few issues that I'd like to see some questions get answered and marijuana redux works against that.
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
But my point is that lots of people are asking questions over and over again and being ignored. It's not the asking that's making this an issue. It's the fact that thousands of people visiting the site seem to think voting for the question again and again has some value. That's a different observation, even in the context of an Internet poll.
They can think it has value all they want. A letter to their senator would have actual value.
Why not write a letter to Santa while you're at it?
O_o
So now you say it's all completely pointless? Do you even know what you're arguing?
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
If it's a bunch of retards with internet connections, why care about their opinions.
Because there are a few issues that I'd like to see some questions get answered and marijuana redux works against that.
Then why not write a letter to your senator about it instead of worrying about a load of people on the internet asking the government to stop making them criminals? Apparently, that would have actual value.
They can think it has value all they want. A letter to their senator would have actual value.
At this point, I'm not even sure what your ultimate point is. There's a site for open questions for Obama's staffers. Each round, thousands and thousands of questions are asked. Of those, questions about marijuana have repeatedly floated to the top, to the point where they were the number one question the first time and dominated the top 20 the second.
That's interesting and has spurred quite a bit of debate and press copy, even aside from the fact that Obama's people don't want to answer it. If I was an activist, I'd be cheering the fact that this had bought me more column inches in the mainstream media than a decade of protests and NORML organizing. If I was a good government type or social scientist, I'd note with interest that this tied into state-level initiatives and poll numbers suggesting a slow rethinking of the question among the general public. If I was a Washington pol, I might even note that there seems to be a growing constituency who dislikes this facet of government policy.
Just in the fact that these questions have gotten a good deal of ink means that they were far, far more effective than any letter to a Senator. It's served as an interesting ice-breaker for the conversation. At this point, that's as much as anyone could hope for.
What massive amount of ink? Where are these questions that are being asked repeatedly because people can't understand the word no getting tons of media?
Then why not write a letter to your senator about it instead of worrying about a load of people on the internet asking the government to stop making them criminals? Apparently, that would have actual value.
And now you're confusing asking questions with making a difference. The site is there to ask questions, not influence policy change.
It's not the public. It's the public that asks questions on the internet. Asking a question over and over does fuck all except make you look like someone incapable of reading the answers from last time.
If it's a bunch of retards with internet connections, why care about their opinions.
Because there are a few issues that I'd like to see some questions get answered and marijuana redux works against that.
Then why not write a letter to your senator about it instead of worrying about a load of people on the internet asking the government to stop making them criminals? Apparently, that would have actual value.
How would writing to my Senator lead to a question asked on the change.gov website getting answered by the transition team?
I should have realized that you had no idea what this thread/the format this thread is discussing was about when you admitted to never having been on the website. Silly me.
What massive amount of ink? Where are these questions that are being asked repeatedly because people can't understand the word no getting tons of media?
Some Google hits. I ignored the political blogs, where it's a bigger issue. A search of "change.gov + questions + marijuana" gets 2,790,000 hits. It's also apparently been a big item on talk radio, although that's not necessarily a net positive. Leads me to believe someone is talking about it.
Then why not write a letter to your senator about it instead of worrying about a load of people on the internet asking the government to stop making them criminals? Apparently, that would have actual value.
And now you're confusing asking questions with making a difference. The site is there to ask questions, not influence policy change.
Then there's no real reason to complain about the questions being asked.
Then why not write a letter to your senator about it instead of worrying about a load of people on the internet asking the government to stop making them criminals? Apparently, that would have actual value.
And now you're confusing asking questions with making a difference. The site is there to ask questions, not influence policy change.
Then there's no real reason to complain about the questions being asked.
Again, the comment you are directing this at, when I said they shouldn't be asking it again, was back when we didn't know if he'd be answering other questions.
Did anyone catch how long it tends to be between rounds of questions and answers the last time around?
Since we seemed to communally want to try and get in as early as possible with a question about Net Neutrality after Tom Perrelli was appointed to #3 at DOJ, we might want to work out the wording we all think makes sense now and just have whoever the first person that sees the next round of questions is open get it.
H'uh. I need to remember to check my youtube feeds more often.
Ignore me (though I do think the idea is sound in principle)
werehippy on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
Yeah, what we may want to do is set up a communal pool of questions and whoever notices the next round first fires them in as fast as humanly possible.
I mean, we know the trick (and it seems to be happening a third time with this Citizen's Briefing Book they're touting- really, don't even bother putting in anything on there, it's way too late to make a dent in the leaders). Now it's a matter of acting on that trick.
Personally, I'd like to start with "In the event that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, for whatever reason, would have to leave their leadership positions in Congress, who would you favor as their replacements?" But as far as Perrelli, I'd word it "How, if at all, did Tom Perrelli's stance on Net Neutrality affect your decision to appoint him to associate Attorney General, and do you expect his stance to affect related cases?"
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 2009
Perhaps you should update your OP with questions as we come up with them. I like the Perrelli one, for starters.
Also, please give me a thousand dollars.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
Done and done.
I don't know why the second 'done' is in there.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 2009
I edited my post so yours would make more sense.
I am so very thoughtful.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 2009
Do we know when, approximately, they'll begin accepting the next batch of questions? And by "as fast as humanly possible" are we talking "get the questions in the day it opens" or "get them in like it's a Black Friday Amazon special"?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
Black Friday Amazon special.
Seeing as this Citizen's Briefing Book is going on currently and they've said they plan to compile the best stuff from there and put it on Obama's desk when he takes office... I would think Round 3 will come after the inauguration. Past that, couldn't tell you.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 2009
It pains me to know that we're battling for wonk supremacy with people asking things like "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" and "Yeah, we asked this twelve times before, but where are our tax cuts?"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It pains me to know that we're battling for wonk supremacy with people asking things like "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" and "Yeah, we asked this twelve times before, but where are our tax cuts?"
Posts
And the first time around it was perfectly understandable to have a question on the topic. The particular question was pretty stupid, but that's neither here nor there.
It isn't the first time around anymore.
Depends on the purpose of the questioners. Beyond this thread and ones like it on similar sites, I've seen more mainstream media coverage of the issue - using the questions as a hook - in the last few weeks than I have seen in years. Reporters are writing stories about how the question keeps getting asked. Bloggers - and I mean the big ones whose posts tend to end up as questions by the White House press corps - have commented on it several times. We're not the only ones noticing the reappearance of the question and Obama's non-responses. I've even heard people at my work talking about it.
At the very least, it's become a minor embarrassment for the Obama people. It may also be getting people in the Washington circles of power to discuss the issue. Even if they are doing it in the context of Cheech and Chong jokes, the questions are getting a conversation started. Obama seems to love doing that.
Just did.
Looks like a website belonging to a politician who wants public support.
Still failing to see why the public have some special duty to treat it with respect and only ask questions that help the politician.
And where has that aggressive pursuit of agenda taken us?
Depends on the president. Washington got us a lasting Republic. Jackson got us an expanded democracy. Lincoln got us a united nation. Roosevelt I got us progressive policies and a national park system. Roosevelt II got us the New Deal and victory in WWII. Truman got us a desegregated armed forces. Eisenhower got us desegregated schools and an interstate highway system. Kennedy and Johnson got us civil rights, expanded social programs and a moon shot. Nixon got us relations with China.
Lots of bad too, including all the sins of GWB. Doesn't change the fact that the good happened because the presidents fought tooth and nail for them against united and equally combative opponents. Passive and conciliatory presidents - look at a list of presidents and pick out the ones you've never heard of - have never gotten us anything - see Ford, Carter and arguably Clinton and Bush I for recent examples.
ITT: Quid fails to see why it's wrong to restrict dumb asses solely for being dumb asses.
And also takes a politicians website to be far more important than it is. You sound like you're admonishing someone for making the internet look bad.
Who even remotely suggested that?
The point that Quid and I are making is that if you have 2 opportunities to ask 5 questions you shouldn't be asking the exact same question in both rounds.
Lots of questions have been asked in each round, including questions about why Obama is ignoring the evidence for UFOs. The real question is why a huge percentage of visitors to the site think it is worth voting for the questions every time they appear. Maybe you should go ask that question on the site.
The point that you are making is that you don't believe the questions to be "constructive". The point that I am am making is that "constructive" is a subjective judgment. If the public are repeatedly asking the same question, it is clear that the question has not been answered to the satisfaction of the public.
So it wasn't solely for being dumb asses.
But my point is that lots of people are asking questions over and over again and being ignored. It's not the asking that's making this an issue. It's the fact that thousands of people visiting the site seem to think voting for the question again and again has some value. That's a different observation, even in the context of an Internet poll.
If it's a bunch of retards with internet connections, why care about their opinions. Again we come back to the "You make us look bad" argument.
Repeatedly asking the same question can also show that you're not willing to put up with a bullshit answer.
At this point, I'm not even sure what your ultimate point is. There's a site for open questions for Obama's staffers. Each round, thousands and thousands of questions are asked. Of those, questions about marijuana have repeatedly floated to the top, to the point where they were the number one question the first time and dominated the top 20 the second.
That's interesting and has spurred quite a bit of debate and press copy, even aside from the fact that Obama's people don't want to answer it. If I was an activist, I'd be cheering the fact that this had bought me more column inches in the mainstream media than a decade of protests and NORML organizing. If I was a good government type or social scientist, I'd note with interest that this tied into state-level initiatives and poll numbers suggesting a slow rethinking of the question among the general public. If I was a Washington pol, I might even note that there seems to be a growing constituency who dislikes this facet of government policy.
Just in the fact that these questions have gotten a good deal of ink means that they were far, far more effective than any letter to a Senator. It's served as an interesting ice-breaker for the conversation. At this point, that's as much as anyone could hope for.
Because there are a few issues that I'd like to see some questions get answered and marijuana redux works against that.
So now you say it's all completely pointless? Do you even know what you're arguing?
Or you're too stoned to understand the word no.
Then why not write a letter to your senator about it instead of worrying about a load of people on the internet asking the government to stop making them criminals? Apparently, that would have actual value.
How would writing to my Senator lead to a question asked on the change.gov website getting answered by the transition team?
I should have realized that you had no idea what this thread/the format this thread is discussing was about when you admitted to never having been on the website. Silly me.
That took longer than I thought it would.
Some Google hits. I ignored the political blogs, where it's a bigger issue. A search of "change.gov + questions + marijuana" gets 2,790,000 hits. It's also apparently been a big item on talk radio, although that's not necessarily a net positive. Leads me to believe someone is talking about it.
http://www.examiner.com/r-4626369~Calls_for_Drug_Law_Reform_Top_Obama_Transition_Website_at_change_gov.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/395205?rel=hp_picks
http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/15/legalizing-marijuana-tops-obama-online-poll/
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-marijuana-legalization-122308
http://www.news42day.com/2008/12/top-question-on-obama-website-when-will-you-legalize-pot/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473119,00.html
It is a bit of a tell, isn't it?
Then there's no real reason to complain about the questions being asked.
Did anyone catch how long it tends to be between rounds of questions and answers the last time around?
Since we seemed to communally want to try and get in as early as possible with a question about Net Neutrality after Tom Perrelli was appointed to #3 at DOJ, we might want to work out the wording we all think makes sense now and just have whoever the first person that sees the next round of questions is open get it.
Ignore me (though I do think the idea is sound in principle)
I mean, we know the trick (and it seems to be happening a third time with this Citizen's Briefing Book they're touting- really, don't even bother putting in anything on there, it's way too late to make a dent in the leaders). Now it's a matter of acting on that trick.
Personally, I'd like to start with "In the event that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, for whatever reason, would have to leave their leadership positions in Congress, who would you favor as their replacements?" But as far as Perrelli, I'd word it "How, if at all, did Tom Perrelli's stance on Net Neutrality affect your decision to appoint him to associate Attorney General, and do you expect his stance to affect related cases?"
Also, please give me a thousand dollars.
I don't know why the second 'done' is in there.
I am so very thoughtful.
Seeing as this Citizen's Briefing Book is going on currently and they've said they plan to compile the best stuff from there and put it on Obama's desk when he takes office... I would think Round 3 will come after the inauguration. Past that, couldn't tell you.
True democracy is not all that great.