Obama asks for questions

[Pangloss]

I'm guessing y'all like the gestapo tactics of the Bush administration? All of you want that patriot act to hang around? I sure don't! I think it is fascist!

 

Bush did indeed cross the line and ignore the judicial branch.

The idea of using a warrant to invade a person's privacy was thrown away.

 

Yes sir, THROWN AWAY. Those are the words, all right -- THROWN AWAY. Why, there hasn't be a warrant issued in this country in years! They were thoroughly discarded, never to be seen or heard from again. The stuff of television police procedurals and historical fiction. Absolutely.

 

Boy, it's a good thing we know the truth!

[DJBruce]

I'm guessing y'all like the gestapo tactics of the Bush administration? All of you want that patriot act to hang around? I sure don't! I think it is fascist!

 

Bush did indeed cross the line and ignore the judicial branch.

The idea of using a warrant to invade a person's privacy was thrown away.

 

Personally I have no problem with the PATRIOT Act. But I feel that your comparison of the Bush administration to the Gestapo gross hyperbole. The Gestapo was a Nazi Agency charged with keeping Hitler in power through secret police activities and was latter was in charge of the construction and operation of concentration camps designed to cleanse Germany of undesirables. I see no comparison between a democratically elected administration who's actions have been reviewed by a independent judiciary and an independent legislature and a dictorial police agency which commit mass genocide resulting in the death of millions of innocent people.

 

Also as Pangloss pointed out the idea of warrants was not discarded. The government simple provide an alternative method to collect evidence in order to protect the America.

 

On a side note I find it odd how people equate the PATRIOT Act to the Bush Administration when Congress was the ones who reviewed edited and passed the law.

[Phi for All]

On a side note I find it odd how people equate the PATRIOT Act to the Bush Administration when Congress was the ones who reviewed edited and passed the law.

I dislike the Patriot Act precisely because it was not reviewed by the majority of Congress. Most of them admit they had no time to do a proper review.

[DJBruce]

I dislike the Patriot Act precisely because it was not reviewed by the majority of Congress. Most of them admit they had no time to do a proper review.

 

I find this also some what funny because it is the rules committee, at least in the house, that sets the timeline for debates on bills. I agree that a majority of congress might have not fully reviewed the bill but this was because, at least in the house, there upper elected leadership pushed for such a quick time table for the bill.

[bascule]

Registrations that do not qualify for a .gov domain

 

* International organizations

* Commercial firms

* Privately owned organizations

* Military entities (except in special cases)

* Local (e.g., city, county, township, or parish) government programs or initiatives

* Cities, townships, counties, parishes, and other local entities that are not represented by an elected body of officials

 

Who's funding the transition team... Obama's campaign money? Wouldn't that qualify it for being privately owned?

 

Interestingly enough I saw this site used in conjunction with a privately owned, faith-based organization (Alcoholics Anonymous):

 

http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/

 

And furthermore, the web site promotes faith-based organizations:

 

http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/community.aspx

 

Are they in violation of the .gov rules? Is this a bit more egregious than what Obama is doing?

[D H]

Now that the Obama transition team has seen the obvious (the obvious always being seen as being such after the fact), every president-elect from this point on will ask for and be granted a waiver to the rules regarding .gov sites.

 

Heck, they probably won't need a waiver. By the time we have another new President, I suspect the GSA will have internal rules that require them to create a website for the incoming President. This is the 21^st century, after all.

 

I voted for McCain and I see absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with change.gov. Whether I voted for Obama or not is irrelevant. He is now my President and I want him to use every tool available to do the best job possible for our country.

[padren]

That is the sort of question you don't respond to in a public forum, it's tasteless.

 

I can understand where you are coming from, in that the question both asks Obama about his intended policies, while at the same time stating as fact that Bush "subverted" the Constitution.

 

I personally feel he did, but I would agree the question's wording is politically loaded. I am a bit curious as to the degree of censorship going on in the site: If a bunch of tasteless people "vote up" a question asking "Will you have free fried chicken and watermelon served at your inauguration?", I would understand it being censored, but it could be a slippery slope to pick through the questions with a fine tooth comb.

 

 

Regarding the domain name issue, maybe turning your campaign slogan into a .gov is a bit much, but it didn't bother me at the time. Perhaps a domain name simply called president-elect.gov would be better going forward in future elections that any president elect would get to use.

[ecoli]

Interestingly enough I saw this site used in conjunction with a privately owned, faith-based organization (Alcoholics Anonymous):

 

http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/

 

And furthermore, the web site promotes faith-based organizations:

 

http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/community.aspx

 

Are they in violation of the .gov rules? Is this a bit more egregious than what Obama is doing?

absolutely... I had no idea these sites existed. Thanks for sharing, bascule.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Regarding the domain name issue, maybe turning your campaign slogan into a .gov is a bit much, but it didn't bother me at the time. Perhaps a domain name simply called president-elect.gov would be better going forward in future elections that any president elect would get to use.

 

that would have been better precedence, IMO.

[Sisyphus]

Perhaps a domain name simply called president-elect.gov would be better going forward in future elections that any president elect would get to use.

 

I agree, this would have been better.

[DJBruce]

Interestingly enough I saw this site used in conjunction with a privately owned, faith-based organization (Alcoholics Anonymous):

 

http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/

 

Are they in violation of the .gov rules? Is this a bit more egregious than what Obama is doing?

 

"StopAlcoholAbuse.Gov is a comprehensive portal of Federal resources for information on underage drinking...On behalf of ICCPUD, SAMHSA maintains this Web site"

 

So I guess that it is part of a program The Health and Human Services runs which gives it the right to be listed under the .gov domain.

 

As for the faith based part it appears that they are not promoting any specific denomination and so I am fine with them promoting a support structure containing a faith-based organization.

[Mr Skeptic]

Now that the Obama transition team has seen the obvious (the obvious always being seen as being such after the fact), every president-elect from this point on will ask for and be granted a waiver to the rules regarding .gov sites.

 

Heck, they probably won't need a waiver. By the time we have another new President, I suspect the GSA will have internal rules that require them to create a website for the incoming President. This is the 21^st century, after all.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

---

Now, back to the topic of questions and answers. Was anyone else disappointed at the response to the marijuana question? Considering that all the other responses were longer than the question, and the way it is worded, makes it sound like he didn't give it a thought. Then again, it is brief and to the point, which is something I'd like to see politicians do all the time.

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/open_for_questions_response/

Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, Denton

 

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

 

In fact, all the answers seem to me like they would be more appropriate for a campaign than for a president-elect. It just seems wrong to me.

[DJBruce]

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

---

Now, back to the topic of questions and answers. Was anyone else disappointed at the response to the marijuana question? Considering that all the other responses were longer than the question, and the way it is worded, makes it sound like he didn't give it a thought. Then again, it is brief and to the point, which is something I'd like to see politicians do all the time.

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/open_for_questions_response/

Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, Denton

 

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

 

In fact, all the answers seem to me like they would be more appropriate for a campaign than for a president-elect. It just seems wrong to me.

 

I never thought that he would even consider legalizing marijuana at least not publicly. The answers seem very general and non-specific. I am disappointed that he would not give specifics on how he would achieve his goals.

[padren]

Now, back to the topic of questions and answers. Was anyone else disappointed at the response to the marijuana question?

 

I would have preferred to see a more complex answer, that gets into the grit of the topic, but I really can't blame him as the last thing he needs is to open that can of political worms before he is even sworn in.

 

 

As for the possible legalization under his watch, it's sort of a "only Nixon could go to China" thing, and he's no Nixon on that issue. It would have to be an issue that received national attention, raised debate in the Legislative branch, where he could take the stance of "I'll sign a bill either way if that's what the Senate feels the American People want" and ultimately sign a bill decriminalizing the substance.

 

So in short, I agree with you about the brevity of the answer, but I can't blame him politically for it.

[npts2020]

Actually, I am a little surprised they even answered it.

[ydoaPs]

Adding/voting on questions has been closed. The responses have been closed.