Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

@Whitehouse Hosting Twitter Town Hall On Wednesday

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the for-the-birds dept.

Twitter 121

CWmike writes "In another milestone, the White House will hold its first Twitter town hall forum on Wednesday. President Barack Obama, known for using technology and Web 2.0 tools since his presidential campaign, will answer Twitter users' questions (submit them here) in a live webcast about the U.S. economy and jobs at 2 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Twitter co-founder and Executive Chairman Jack Dorsey will moderate a conversation between Obama and Twitterers across the country. Twitter users can submit questions using the hashtag #AskObama. Some questions will be taken up in advance and others will be grabbed real-time during the event, Twitter said. In a blog post, Twitter executives said a conversation about the U.S. economy will fit right in with regular Twitter activity."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You gonna end prohibition? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669332)

I don't see so well.. Will that fit into a twitter post?

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669398)

Because the first black president wants to be known as the guy who legalized pot?

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669476)

Because the first black president wants to be known as the guy who legalized pot?

If he wants any real respect, then yes. Politicians worthy of real respect can admit when something has failed and are willing to stop doing that failed thing and start doing something else.

I don't really see what his race has to do with it. It doesn't change the fact that marijuana prohibition was a bad idea.

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670120)

If he wants any real respect, then yes. Politicians worthy of real respect can admit when something has failed and are willing to stop doing that failed thing and start doing something else.

One may think that getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq and start using part of the defense budget at home would mean enough of a proof.

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671820)

One may think that getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq...

And Libya and Germany and Japan etc etc etc...

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671908)

If he wants any real respect, then yes. Politicians worthy of real respect can admit when something has failed and are willing to stop doing that failed thing and start doing something else.

One may think that getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq and start using part of the defense budget at home would mean enough of a proof.

Contrary to prevailing Slashdot wisdom, multiple unrelated items are rarely mutually exclusive. Mentioning one of them doesn't mean you're against the others. Yet that won't stop someone from chiming in to remind you that you have not mentioned every possible issue concerning each one of their personal pet subjects... Look, marijuana was the subject that had already been mentioned and I merely responded to that. Sorry if I didn't see that as an opportunity to evangelize about each nuance of federal domestic policy.

Having said that, for what it is worth, I'd like to see all of those things. Reducing the defense budget so we're "only" 2-5 times more powerful than the second-strongest military wouldn't be a bad thing. That and a more sensible approach to so-called entitlements might help us work on this deficit problem. Though if you *really* want to get rid of national debt, and if you're like me in the sense that you want to address the single root of a problem and not the hundreds of side-effects that spring from that root, then you need a currency system that isn't fundamentally based on debt...

The way I see it, one thing at a time. Ending an obviously idiotic Prohibition when most people can see it's not working is a relatively small, achievable step. It can help build a pro-freedom inertia. Shrinking the size, influence, and power of the military-industrial complex will be much more difficult. They have grown fat and wealthy by encouraging and profiting on useless wars and they won't cede control of the budget easily. Getting a real currency system would mean taking on international banking interests and that would be the most difficult task of all. You'd have more than enough propaganda and demagoguery to overcome just to legalize marijuana. The bankers might get downright nasty.

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (0)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671888)

Because the first black president wants to be known as the guy who legalized pot?

Well, if he wanted to do at least ONE thing in his presidency so far,that was positive and NOT hurt the country any...I'd say yes.

He's batting 0.00000 so far....If he did something like this at least I could give him one positive mark for his presidency so far.

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671186)

Because the first black president wants to be known as the guy who legalized pot?

You must be a Democrat. Its the only group that consistently finds a way to inject race into an issue that has fuck nothing to do with the subject.

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671312)

Because the first black president wants to be known as the guy who legalized pot?

Are you saying black people cant be rational? If that is the case, end the prohibition then blame it on his Caucasian half.

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (1)

michiko (2270072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669642)

Re:You gonna end prohibition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670136)

Phucking spam... lower than even goatse!

Amazing. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669334)

What an amazingly useless waste of time, money, and energy. The best way for any president at this point in time to get re-elected would be to get some real fucking work done in the final year of their term instead of campaigning with goofy publicity stunts, like this. I don't want my president spending time twittering or facebooking any more than I want to sit and have a beer with them.

Re:Amazing. (2)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669348)

If Will Smith were president, he'd get shit done. Just sayin'.

Re:Amazing. (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669464)

Unfortunately, when the entire opposition party has made their one and only goal your destruction, you can't really do anything about it. They're willing to push the country into default for the first time in history, destroying the lives of millions. You can't negotiate with that sort of hatred.

Obama's not a dictator. He can't "get some real fucking work done" all on his own. The only way this country can get on track is for the Republicans to come to their senses, or for every last one of them to be given the boot. If Obama get's re-elected, maybe the Republicans can finally set aside their hate and work with the guy.

Re:Amazing. (3, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669652)

The Republicans, on their own, are pushing the country into a default? And failure of the Democrats to agree to cuts has nothing to do with it?

Re:Amazing. (1)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670108)

Democrats not agreeing to spending cuts has as much to do with the deadlock as Republican refusals to increase taxes, yes.

Re:Amazing. (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671940)

Democrats not agreeing to spending cuts has as much to do with the deadlock as Republican refusals to increase taxes, yes.

We're taxed enough already. I do NOT need to pay any more fucking taxes and they should not raise it a penny, until they learn to stop SPENDING us into oblivion.

The only way I'd lean towards ANY new taxation..is if it was first tied to some sort of balance budget law....and have a hard ceiling put on spending.

I'm convinced from past action...that if they raise taxes, it will ONLY go towards more spending on federal worthless programs and hand outs to backers (Unions, corportations, welfare recipients).

Re:Amazing. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672722)

Where have your taxes gone up in the last 10 years. Not Federal or State, your taxes have gone up at the local level or property taxes. These in some cases have doubled mainly because tax cuts have shifted the divided burden of all people and corps. to just the individual tax payer. Yes, there are handouts, which to you and me, is a lot of money but is small change depending on where the money is going. You want to reduce debt, then we can start with cutting 60% out of DOD (to 2000 levels) and getting us out of these wars. We will still need to rebuild this country and it will take taxes to pay for it.

Re:Amazing. (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671096)

Err, yes, they are. For instance, David Brooks, who's definitely on the Republican side of the aisle, wrote this just yesterday:

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

The Democrats have proposed several compromises that are most of what the Republicans wanted plus closing some tax loopholes. The Republicans, Eric Cantor in particular, walked out, and added to their list of demands. Safe to say they aren't interested in dealing.

Re:Amazing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671436)

Err, yes, they are. For instance, David Brooks, who's definitely on the Republican side of the aisle, wrote this just yesterday:

David Brooks has never been on the "Republican side". Everyone outside MSM perceives him as a Democrat assigned to cover the Republican side and historically trashes them.

The Democrats have proposed several compromises that are most of what the Republicans wanted plus closing some tax loopholes.

Now your just making shit up. And FYI... closing a tax "loophole" is just a fancy word for "NEW TAXES".

The fact that you bought into the propaganda, we can only conclude that you are a gullible, naive, weak minded little democrat and the reason you believe in Man Made Global Warming as well.

You pathetic tool.

Re:Amazing. (2)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671232)

Drastic cuts to medicare and social security? There are many people that depend on those programs who will be hurt badly. How about cuts to farmers that get paid for growing nothing. Or to prop up producing fuel from corn that only ends up increasing food prices without reducing the carbon footprint due to the energy (from oil!) required to produce it. Fact is there isn't enough we CAN cut to turn the debt cycle around we need to enhance revenue, which means higher taxes aimed at those that can afford to pay them. The GOP needs to face up to the fact that it's a two way street and that "W"'s war against Iraq to find imaginary WOMD plus his tax cuts got us into this hole (from a SURPLUS under Clinton). If the GOP puts this country into default the resulting kaos will be worse than the great depression of 80 years ago. The result will be a putting a bull'seye target on the back of every member of the GOP, literally! I can't guess who will be shot first.

Re:Amazing. (1)

sanzibar (2043920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672172)

Scenario: Your spouse rang up 50K in credit card debt and you only make 80K. What do you do?

1. Take away the credit card and cut spending to accelerate debt pay down.
2. Give spouse another credit card and seize a portion of your children's pay check to cover the interest.

These are the basic plans of each party. The debt ceiling has to be raised because the money is already spent. The debate is over how much more to spend and who pays for it. Somehow, they have done a great job convincing you to hand over even more of your paycheck

And by the way - That surplus under Clinton was the result of a Republican controlled congress. The debt under Bush was the result of a Democrat controlled congress and yes, they voted to spend the money on war. Further, Its debt that will drive us into a depression. Do you think people file for bankruptcy because they save money or spend? Wake up brother. I know your drunk on Obama but you need to get off the kool-aid just for a moment to realize what is going on. I hope this helped.

Re:Amazing. (1)

slinches (1540051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672826)

Drastic cuts to medicare and social security?

Absolutely. Why do these programs exist at the federal level at all? If you want the government to provide a retirement plan and health insurance for everyone, move to state that has it or try to get it passed in your state.

Fact is there isn't enough we CAN cut to turn the debt cycle around we need to enhance revenue, which means higher taxes aimed at those that can afford to pay them.

That's not true at all. It can be done purely through cuts, but that would necessitate shrinking the size of the federal government. Federal tax revenue has increased by 9% while expenditures have grown 85% since 2001 (chosen since it was the last year receipts covered outlays). I think reform of the tax code is necessary, but more to simplify it and reduce overhead costs than to increase revenues.

As far as your rant about the Iraq war and republican spending goes, I think both sides of the aisle are to blame. Neither has made even the slightest attempt to curb deficit spending. It wasn't until the tea party movement started that there was any willingness to talk about cuts of any kind.

If the GOP puts this country into default the resulting kaos will be worse than the great depression of 80 years ago. The result will be a putting a bull'seye target on the back of every member of the GOP, literally! I can't guess who will be shot first.

A fan of hyperbole, I see. There will be repercussions if the US defaults, but I don't believe either side will let that happen. Either way we will still be facing a mountain of debt that will require some fairly significant changes to surmount. It isn't impossible and the doomsday scenarios aren't necessary at this point, but it will take some very significant cuts and at least maintaining revenues to start chipping away at the debt we've allowed our government to accrue.

On a lighter note, your post does sound a lot like a KAOS [wikipedia.org] plot. Hopefully Agent 86 and the others at CONTROL will be able to thwart it.

Re:Amazing. (2, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669764)

Bull, the President and the Democratic Party held the Executive Branch and both houses of the Legislative Branch for two years and pushed only two things, more debt and the worst, most convoluted, ill conceived health care proposal ever attempted.

In the 2010 mid-term the Democrats hemmed and hawed without getting a budget passed which made the House and Senate leadership look like idiots, that all in turn gave the Republicans the House and nearly gave them the Senate.

Don't blame the Republicans for the Democratic Party's incompetence. The real problem in Washington isn't the Teabaggers or the base GOP, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi failing for four years straight.

Re:Amazing. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670408)

Nobody ever held the Senate, the Senate is completely dysfunctional. They've decided they need a 60-vote supermajority to pass anything that isn't the budget, so almost nothing gets passed, because neither party has held 60 seats in decades. (If you're about to post that the Democrats did for like six months between when Franken finally got seated and when Ted Kennedy died, you're wrong, because you're counting Joe Lieberman. He isn't a Democrat, he's an independent and he campaigned for John McCain in 2008.)

This is aside from the point that it isn't proportionally representative, so a citizen in Bumfuck, Montana gets a thousand times more representation, proportionally, than one from California or Texas or New York. (State legislatures are not even legally allowed to do this, so why the fuck is our federal government still working this way?)

The House version of the health care bill was simple and effective and went to a vote after a couple months of debate. By the time it got through the Senate it took fourteen months and was two thousand pages long, and almost all of the good parts were taken out, leaving little more than some half-assed bullshit and a bailout to the health care middlemen (sorry, I mean "insurance providers").

Re:Amazing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671570)

This is aside from the point that it isn't proportionally representative, so a citizen in Bumfuck, Montana gets a thousand times more representation, proportionally, than one from California or Texas or New York. (State legislatures are not even legally allowed to do this, so why the fuck is our federal government still working this way

Why do you have to hate on MT? You're obvioulsy from Assfuck California, Skullfuck Texas, or Walletfuck New York.

The answer to your question is simple, and it's something that seems foreign in today's politics... It's called compromise. Less populated states would not join the union if the Legislative Branch wasn't set up this way. The House (who most will state is more dysfunctional) is set up the way you like it, and the Senate is setup so each state is equal. Why else would Delaware have joined the 12 other colonies if they weren't going to get equal reprsentation? DE was over 7 times less populated than PA in 1790. In order to get the high populated states in, the Founding Fathers created the House the way it is. In order to make sure the smaller states feel like they had an equal voice, they created the Senate the way it is.... compromise.

Re:Amazing. (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671058)

The health care bill was ill conceived because the Dems thought that compromising with Reps was going to give them something. It was good in it's "promise stage" but then the compromising started and now it's a toothless piece of toilet paper with the remains of all the benefits going only to the insurance companies.

It's not that Dems would've done it any better if they were alone, they just as well are inside the pockets of the insurance companies but to blame it on either party is just wrong. The blame is on the electorate being able to be bought.

Re:Amazing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671754)

The health care bill was ill conceived because the Dems thought that compromising with Reps was going to give them something.

This is complete bullshit. The republicans were completely shut out of the entire bill - the dems even locked the doors to keep them out. There was no negotiating. There was no compromise. The failed health care bill is a 100% democrat party led bill. Even the new DNC leader acknowledges this.

Your ignorance should disqualify you from voting.

Re:Amazing. (2, Interesting)

MikeD83 (529104) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670026)

Unfortunately, when the entire opposition party has made their one and only goal your destruction, you can't really do anything about it. They're willing to push the country into default for the first time in history, destroying the lives of millions.

The only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened [spectator.org] before. The reality [creditwritedowns.com] is that the United States would not default; the government would use the money it brings in to service the debt and there would be a partial government shutdown.

Re:Amazing. (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670456)

he only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened [spectator.org] before.

Nice article. There's also the Nixon Shock [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Amazing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670622)

You know what's 'funny'? While in part saying that the United States would be 'ok' in a default, you likely have the ego to call yourself a 'fiscal conservative'. Ha!

Re:Amazing. (1)

bennett000 (2028460) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671170)

The only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened [spectator.org] before. The reality [creditwritedowns.com] is that the United States would not default; the government would use the money it brings in to service the debt and there would be a partial government shutdown.

The spectator goes on to point out that at the time the dollar was backed by gold. Presently the US dollar is backed by the US dollar, which makes a potential default impossible as the Fed can just print more money.... unless the rest of the world stops using the US dollar as its reserve currency. I'm not an economist or an accountant, but it seems to me that the resulting inflation would make it impossible for the government to service the debt. Again, this hinges on the rest of the world changing reserve currencies, but really what incentive to non-US nations have to stick with the US dollar?

Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it? (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670164)

You can't negotiate with that sort of hatred.... If Obama get's re-elected, maybe the Republicans can finally set aside their hate and work with the guy.

As this video [youtube.com] repeatedly references - the "extreme" Republican right have been publicly heaping praise on Obama's policies for some time now. Hardly "hate", and hardly a sign that they do not wish to work with Obama. You Sir are so far off the mark it is not funny - or a political shill - which is it? Follow the references given [firedoglake.com] everything is on the public record. Convince yourself on un-debatable fact that hardline Republicans have indeed been praising Obama's continuation (and escalation!) of Bush/Cheney's assault on civil liberties ... and get back to us (unless your a shill, of course).

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it? (2)

tbannist (230135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670662)

Actually, I think you're proving the point you are trying to disagree with, even though Obama has continued many Republican policies, the Republican right still hates him. What this has shown is that every time the Democrats move a little to the right, the Republicans also move further to the right. Obama implements a Republican health care act, and suddenly it's the worst thing ever. Obama continues Bush's policies on the war on terror and suddenly that's "weak on defence". It goes on and on, as soon as Obama or the Democrats publicly like something, the Republicans publicly hate it.

The Republican should love Obama, but they don't because it's more important to score political points than to do something good for the country. That, right there, is what is wrong with America.

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671578)

Republican's love illustrating reality checks in life. Unfortunately, they come too hard with damaging results. Obama is that reality check. If Republicans love him, it's for that reason alone. Just as it took a Carter to get a Reagan, it will take an Obama to get a...wait a sec. What do the Republicans have now? Oh damnit, we're so screwed *facepalm*

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it? (1)

bjk002 (757977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672594)

Yes... and that they are (excuse the tinfoil) in it together to move this country further and further right should concern every citizen of this land, including those on the right. Facism is but the end result of a continual spiral away from center.

WOW, you mean they are operating like the other (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670394)

side of the aisle did when their guy was not in the top position? It seems to me that if you go back years and years all you see is that the opposition party does their best to undermine the guy at the top when he is not theirs. Hell, even when he is theirs they do it. Obama had two years of Democrat majorities and he got what? Oh, that's right, used as a puppet by his own party.

He also won't get work done unless he decides to lead. Trouble is, sometime earlier this year he went back into campaign mode. In other words, he gave up being President Obama and became candidate Obama. Those two job titles have conflicting objectives.

Sorry, but I blame Obama first. He should be more focused on fixing things but instead is more focused on how any decision he makes effects his reelection. He doesn't give a rats ass about anything other than that.

Re:Amazing. (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672314)

...opposition party...

You misspelled 'tag team partner'.. I could have believed there was an 'opposition party' if the democratic faction had taken any initiative to actually oppose the other sects in 2009... But what happened was that they only expanded their powers.. This has been standard operating procedure for a very long time.. That you believe these people oppose each other only plays into their scheme.. Despite all the feigned anger, they enjoy a 95% approval rating in every election.. Read up on "rotating villain" to see how they do it

Re:Amazing. (1)

bjk002 (757977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672608)

^Mod this guy up^, then wake the hell up.

Re:Amazing. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672948)

Opposing raising the debt limit is destroying millions of lives? Here is what Obama said when he was senator (emphasis mine):

The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

When Bush was in office, Democrats strongly opposed raising the debt limit, because it's something not many people like (do you like the debt? Really?) Now Republicans feel the country is on their side in this issue, which is why they feel they can avoid compromise and not lose votes (and they are correct to a degree: most Americans don't want to raise the debt limit, and most American don't want higher taxes. They also don't want cuts in services, so who knows what will happen).

It's a dangerous game. Remember when the government shut down in the 90s because of the debt limit? The Republicans in congress took the full blame. That may happen again, who knows?

Strangely, default is unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment [wikipedia.org] . The government will shut down, not default.

Re:Amazing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669490)

I don't want my president spending time twittering or facebooking any more than I want to sit and have a beer with them.

Yeah, I want my President killing high ranking terrorists! Not saying our mission is accomplished in a publicity stunt!

Re:Amazing. (2)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669500)

A leader who cannot face the questions of his constituents and provide them with answers that they accept is an authoritarian, not a democrat.

And yes, I realize that the questions are filtered so that this will end up being more of a public relations exercise. But that is still a heck of a lot better than the leaders of some nations who refuses to be questioned at all. Here's to you Mr. Harper (Prime Minister of Canada, for ye foreigners.)

Not only... (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669576)

Not only will the questions be filtered but I am willing to bet he won't give a straight answer to a single serious question.

Re:Amazing. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669598)

And by "filtered", I think you mean "planted" as they usually/always are at this type of function.

Re:Amazing. (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671430)

I don't think a question filter is a bad idea. Otherwise, President Obama would be faced with questions like:

"Why have you lied about your birth certificate? Tell us the truth that you were born in Kenya."

"What is the real story behind the UFO's from Area 51?"

"My neighbor's dog barks so loud that it keeps me up all night. What're you gonna do 'bout it?"

"Do you prefer Disney World or Disneyland?"

"I don't really have a question but I just wanted to say 'Hi mom!' Ok, I'm done."

Hope and change (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669340)

If every slashdotter ask him about guantanamo, wars, and "hope and change"' wonder what will happen?

Medical Marijuana (1)

xanadu113 (657977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669346)

What I'd like to know, is why he keeps dodging the question of medical marijuana when it's THE most requested question...

Re:Medical Marijuana (2)

Keruo (771880) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669394)

Really?
The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?

Re:Medical Marijuana (3, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669438)

Really? The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?

Think of all the money that could be saved by stopping the war on drugs (law enforcement, prisons). Think of the potential productivity of all those people in jail convicted of victimless "crimes". Think of all the tax income from the legal sale of drugs.

All in all, legalization is a simple step that helps address the problems you bring up.

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670030)

Simple? It would take half a decade to have any economic effect, meanwhile there'd be chaos across the nation wrt police departments and prisons, and the media would be in uproar for years.

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672218)

... and the media would be in uproar for years.

The media is always in an uproar.

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

kronosopher (1531873) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669524)

It's very common [xkcd.com] for people to dream of veering [slashdot.org] off the road [wikipedia.org] or href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime">driving from the backseat [google.com]

Re:Medical Marijuana (2)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671410)

Really? The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?

This seems to be a popular rationalization/argument among Obama defenders: he really wants to legalize marijuana, it's just that all those more serious issues keep getting in the way. But there is no reason why he can't try to legalize marijuana at the same time as he works on all those other issues. Most progressives would be perfectly happy just to hear him say that he is in favor of legalization, he doesn't even need to put any effort into it. But if he really wanted to work at it (i.e. write a bill and push it through congress), then it could have positive effects on the "very serious issues". We could reduce the budget deficit by cutting spending on the war on drugs and creating a new tax on marijuana. Create jobs and improve the economy by spending some of the marijuana tax on job creating infrastructure projects. And there would be new local business opportunities forr things like marijuana bars/depots in various cities.

In addition, Obama has stated more than once that he is against legalization. I've never heard him even make the argument that he's for legalization but it's not possible due to other priorities.

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

wikileaks (2247850) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669426)

I'm *sure* it's the most requested question...
Or not.

Americans in general should have much better things to ask their president.

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

kronosopher (1531873) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669546)

It's very common [xkcd.com] for people to dream [slashdot.org] of veering off the road [wikipedia.org] or driving [wikipedia.org] from the backseat [google.com] .

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

wikileaks (2247850) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669692)

While I don't agree with the way people are treated for minor drug offenses in America, I think there are more important things to handle than dealing with that particular issue. Further, drug violence and organized crime wouldn't suddenly disappear if you legalized pot, you'd have to legalize all illicit substances across the board. Good luck with that.

Also, why did you link to slavery?

Re:Medical Marijuana (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669446)

Because he is a politician. That's not a bad thing. You can't get elected without being one, so if you have good ideas and want to help your country, you better learn how to be political. Announcing support for medical marijuana would just give the right-wing hate mongers more ammunition, without actually accomplishing anything. Without super-majority control of Congress, it's impossible to pass anything. That's not how the system is supposed to work, but there it is.

There are only two ways for sane policies to be passed: either the GOP regains its sanity, or the Democrats gain a super-majority. And I mean a real one, not one where they need to count on Independents like Lieberman.

Re:Medical Marijuana (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671654)

There are only two ways for sane policies to be passed: either the GOP regains its sanity, or the Democrats gain a super-majority. And I mean a real one, not one where they need to count on Independents like Lieberman.

How about one in which the voting pool is enlarged by targeting 20- and 30-somethings who would otherwise be disinclined to vote, because nobody on the Hill is representing their interests? We have turnouts of less than 50% for Presidential elections. There's no inclination for the 50% of the disaffected "both parties suck, why bother voting?" demographic to get in the game.

What if the 50% of the nonvoting population were forced to deal with a world in which both parties were the same, except that one of them was no longer in favor of Prohibition?

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671320)

What I'd like to know, is why he keeps dodging the question of medical marijuana when it's THE most requested question...

From what I've seen he hasn't been dodging the question at all, he's just not giving you the answer you want. He has flat out stated [cbsnews.com] more than once that he is against legalizing marijuana.

A politcians dream... (1)

RL78 (1968236) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669388)

I town hall where being saved by the bell is the format.

I thought he was dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669400)

wasnt it reported on twitter that he was dead???????????

Re:I thought he was dead (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669488)

I will give him props if the opening tweet is "The tweets of my death were greatly exaggerated".

That would be pretty funny.

call me when he shows up on efnet (1)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669418)

barackoba .. oh so that's why.

stupid 9 character limit. You'd think they'd up that to something sensible. Visa cards can go to 21 characters

That's why Greece hates Efnet and their economy collapsed as a result.

the free internet is gradually being replaced by the proprietary internet.

Re:call me when he shows up on efnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669460)

you mean the proprietary internets.
which is a good thing. think about it.

Distraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669506)

Mr. President, what do you intend to do to curb rampant government spend- oooh, shiny red ball! It's so neat that the president wants to use Twitter so he can hear everyone's input! Wait, what? Oh, yeah, the question... I forgot what I was going to ask.

Captcha: despite. As in, despite all this, he still won't get anything done.

Why? (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669512)

I fail to see the significance of this. It's just another town hall meeting, except the questions are being submitted via Twitter. That's newsworthy? There are plenty of more efficient methods of gathering questions. It's like that whole push-to-talk craze 10 years ago. "Hey, I got a great idea, full-duplex communication is nice, but half-duplex is even better!"

Sometimes an idea is stupid, even if it's novel.

The advantage is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669562)

...is that Obama doesn't even have to be there. This will be handled by aides, using carefully crafted answers to carefully preselected questions. Zero real information, lots of feel-good, all crafted towards the 2012 elections. To prevent embarrassing lapses later, Obama will be given a short summary, so that he can pretend he was there.

Re:Why? (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670670)

It is better than Bill Clinton's "write your questions on the back of a box of kleenex" town hall, or Reagan's "chalkboard" town hall. We have to keep trying, until we get it right.

Good luck with that (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669538)

The BBC uses Twitter during its Question Time programme that gets a few million viewers. There are usually several tweets per second, far too fast for anyone to read or respond to. People resort to re-tweeting the same thing over and over again just to be heard.

In a room full of journalists they have to pick one to ask questions and have everyone else shut up. Try doing that on Twitter.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671142)

Yes, it's even easier for the dominant voices to define the dominant narrative. Perfect for political scum.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671202)

And that is, of course, why they are doing this. They will be able to answer any questions they want, because all the possible questions they might want to answer will be asked (and they can always stuff the box if they aren't) and yet they can't possibly have time to answer all the questions. That way, when the change.org debacle is repeated, they will have an excuse for not addressing the #1 question. Perhaps they will also "accidentally" drop some of THOSE questions by keyword.

Bread and Circuses (4, Interesting)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669568)

They knew this trick back in the time of the Roman Empire.

Bread and Circuses: bribe the population with free bread and distract them with circuses whilst the ruling classes do whatever they want.

In this case Obama is seeking to distract the US from the fact he's renaged on all of his campaign promises, Gitmo is still open for business, the PATRIOT act was renewed (dishonestly snuck through Congress by a Democrat) and the US will be defaulting on it's debts any time now (whilst members of congress invest in funds that will make money when the US goes bust).

But never mind all of that: Obama is a Twit now!

Re:Bread and Circuses (1)

travbrad (622986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669638)

You are spot on with that. Also a big part of the reason he won in 2008 was from the "youth vote", so I think this whole Twitter thing is trying to appeal to them (and hopefully make them forget that he is basically just George W. Obama)

As Moe on the Simpsons would say "Wha!" (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669694)

Really? Since when does the 'population' use Twitter? I've been in IT since 2001 and even I stay clear of that medium. Take a step back outside your web 2.0 bubble and look around you at your family, when you're riding the train or the bus, or at the museum. The majority of people don't know what Twitter is, let alone what a hashtag is.

I agree with most of your points but you're simply using this as a thin veil to turn this into a partisan disagreement, just like every other political argument online. Thanks for polluting the Internet!

You're projecting. (4, Informative)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670578)

I'm not a Republican, I'm not even an American.

In Europe our main stream political parties are all more left-leaning than either of the US parties. In essence the US has two right-wing parties who are, in all the important ways, indistinguishable to anyone outside of the US.

As far as I can tell the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the latter includes witches. ;)

Re:You're projecting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671050)

Republicans are religiously annoying, but can be trusted as much as any reasonable politician (giving a lot of slack here).

Democrats on the other hand. They're trying to break down America and rebuild it in their own way under their fascist control. They see China's CCP and oh so desperately want to emulate that. It's a system of pure authoritarianism that's self-reinforced to never fail. It provides ultimate power and bribery to those living inside the beltway while fucking the rest of us with grand promises of a European socialist system.

Re:You're projecting. (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672408)

Agreed. It's like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd [wikipedia.org] . However, my point was that your post really had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Re:Bread and Circuses (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669698)

I'm not an American nor do I live in the US. I consider myself a liberal. From my perspective, Obama must be the worst president you ever had, based on the expectations he had to live up to. This is arguable in many ways by his supporters, but can you argue that there is not much "change"?

Could someone from the US enlighten us on exactly where is the change? And I mean change for the better obviously. From across the pond we see more wars being fought, more radicalization and more drug wars, whilst fewer people get an education, fewer jobs are available and there is an overall reduction in the quality of life of the average American.

Re:Bread and Circuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669858)

Why do you hate America? Obama is one of the greatest presidents in 30 years. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, didn't he? Did you win a Nobel Peace Prize? No? I didn't think so.

Re:Bread and Circuses (2)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670490)

@AC

Having lived in the US I can tell you that the problems you mentioned aren't actually that of the President's, but of the general populous. The entire economy and country is going to shit and it's a foundational problem with our core beliefs here in the US. It starts in school born out of initial social groups and anti-intellectualism. One could argue that we could change the schools to focus more on intellectual ability, but when you have extroverted people running the schools this is the sort of thing you get.

This starts in High School, but continues well into University. All across the US universities are trying hardest to get NCAA basketball teams and college football teams. They are building arenas, stadiums; while their science education programs fall by the wayside. Invest in more computers!? HA! No! We need that money to repaint the football team's field!

There are all sorts of arguments one can make about "oh well, you wouldn't HAVE a computer lab if the university couldn't generate money from the sports to build them!"--meanwhile, tuition costs continue to rise with no drops in sight. And ultimately, regardless of how you spin the numbers it still all boils down to the fact that we are VERY anti-intellectual here.

It's not an easy problem to fix. A President didn't cause it, and a President can't fix it. It's a fundamental problem that digs down deep into our society. It permiates VERY deeply. I'll put it another way. Our job interview process has become so insignificant about whether or not you can do the job and so much more about how you can "impress" someone during the interview. We have very specific do's and don'ts of interviews that are laid out very meticulously that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you can do the job. The ability to potentially MAYBE do the job (i.e. you have a university degree) merely gets you through the HR trash pile. The interview itself involves a lot of things like "speak assertively, be confident." "Make direct eye contact." "Smile, shake hands." "Dress appropriately." and lovely interview questions such as "What are your strengths and weaknesses?"

In fact, this process has boiled down to even the lowliest of retail jobs: Best Buy and others make you take a personality test before you're invited in for a job interview. They are looking for extroverted, bubbly, happy people.

And this doesn't even get into the extremely polarized issues such as healthcare and "gay marriage". But we do have an enterprising group of people that are keenly aware of this and take massive advantage of it.

Until the country as a whole can overcome these issues, it doesn't ultimately matter who is in office--we're still fucked.

Re:Bread and Circuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670574)

I'm not an American nor do I live in the US. I consider myself a liberal. From my perspective, Obama must be the worst president you ever had, based on the expectations he had to live up to. This is arguable in many ways by his supporters, but can you argue that there is not much "change"?

Could someone from the US enlighten us on exactly where is the change? And I mean change for the better obviously. From across the pond we see more wars being fought, more radicalization and more drug wars, whilst fewer people get an education, fewer jobs are available and there is an overall reduction in the quality of life of the average American.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

Yeah, but there's been no change. Everyone seems to forget how terrible this country was under W.

Re:Bread and Circuses (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669790)

Big difference between now and the late Republic and Empire eras.

The middle and noble classes feared the Mob. The Plebeians outnumbered everyone else, they would vote in a bloc and they'd disrupt the commercial and infrastructure of the city. That doesn't happen in the modern United States and really hasn't happened since the Civil Rights/Vietnam War era.

The Congress and President doesn't fear the people, so they don't have to fix what's broken.

Re:Bread and Circuses (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670162)

But never mind all of that: Obama is a Twit now!

Better than a twat, don't you think?

You're assuming... (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670592)

You're assuming I think the two are mutually exclusive.

I've always thought he was a twat for renaging on his campaign promises.

Now he's a twit as well. ;)

Re:Bread and Circuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670268)

I disagree with you sir/ma'am but that was freaking funny.

Re:Bread and Circuses (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670552)

In this case Obama is seeking to distract the US from the fact he's renaged on all of his campaign promises, Gitmo is still open for business, the PATRIOT act was renewed (dishonestly snuck through Congress by a Democrat) and the US will be defaulting on it's debts any time now (whilst members of congress invest in funds that will make money when the US goes bust).

All of his promises [politifact.com] , eh? Here's the breakdown from politifact.com:

* Promise Kept 137
* Compromise 40
* Promise Broken 43
* Stalled 69
* In the Works 217
* Not yet rated 2

"Renaged [sic] on all of his campaign promises", indeed.

Also, as someone else pointed out above, the guy's not a dictator. Like it or not, he has to work with others to get things done.

Re:Bread and Circuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670654)

Rome failed.

What I'd like to know is why it takes $3000/year ($250/mo) for every man, woman and child to have a defense program. For that kind of money, we could just arm *everybody* and call it done.

Re:Bread and Circuses (2)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36670796)

How this got modded interesting is beyond me. Are we just up modding any historical reference whether it makes a lick of sense or not? I'm not an Obama fan but this comparison is so wrong it's embarrassing. You're actually claiming that the president is hosting a discussion about jobs, the deficit and the economy in order to pull a "bread and circus" act to distract people from important issues like jobs, the deficit, and the economy? The cognitive dissonance that must be required to either claim or up mod such an inherently self-defeating argument is absolutely staggering. This is not a bread and circus act, this is a discussion about issues by someone you don't like using a technology you don't like.

Re:Bread and Circuses (2)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672198)

This is in no way a discussion. It's pure and simple media manipulation. They'll screen the questions, or have specific ones they've set up with canned answers. To believe otherwise is simply naive. And this isn't a slam against Obama...it's political posturing.

Free advertising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669630)

Isn't it great how private companies Twitter and Facebook keep getting free advertising from the govt and members of the published/broadcast media?

wholesale products (-1, Offtopic)

towholesaler (2346428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36669910)

shop cheapest designer products from Towholesaler.com

Selective filtering of questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36669916)

Doesn't make for a real debate. What a pile of sh1t. No wonder your country is a mess.

Obama on Twi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670046)

I think Obama is dead. I saw the news on twitter.

Milestone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670194)

In another milestone

You say "milestone" but I think you really mean "publicity stunt".

This political discourse sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670238)

Really slashdot, I expect this crap from the comment sections of MSNBC and FOX news. Not from here. I've been reading since 1998. It's only 50 comments right now, I expect that to balloon to 700 or so with flame wars abound. Rather than having a pissing contest, how about we discuss the use of technology by the president (an office that still deserves some respect)? I think it's a fine use of this new fangled Web 2.0 BS that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Drug War (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670496)

Perhaps he'll just conveniently ignore all those questions he gets on the Drug War like he has done the last few times he wanted an "open" and "transparent" Q&A. Or maybe he'll laugh it off like he did when it was brought to his attention once that he didn't address any of those questions.

No Obama second term (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670724)

I voted for Obama the first time.

And then I watched in dismay as all the important promises he
made pre-election were ignored.

Fool me once, shame on me.

You will NOT fool me again, Obama. This time I vote third party to
make sure the vote doesn't go to a Mormon or a liar.

My predictions... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36670750)

1. It'll all be the republican's fault.

2. No question will be answered which stands a chance of violating the desired image.

The president tweeting? Get real. It's just a magic act, "Watch this hand right here, don't pay any attention to the other hand..."

I wish people would wake up and realize that both republicans and democrats are responsible for the problems facing the country. I find it hard to believe people still think there is a difference.

Illegitimate (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671028)

Until "long form" Tweets are available, I refuse to take part in this illegitimate government farce.

His golf game is off limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672130)

I really want to hear about the tragic loss of a golfing afternoon:

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/04/heartache-obama%E2%80%99s-golf-game-cancelled-due-to-rain/

After all, this is the POTUS who set the record for rounds of golf AND White House parties AND vacation time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>