Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care B

Yurt said:
you claimed i made a pledge, either back it up or admit you lied, real simple....

what pledge are you referring to? you have made the fact of the pledge public record, you brought this up, not me....either state the pledge or admit you're lying about any so called pledge....

be honest for once
Click to expand...

You've made several pledges and promises to me via PM... I do not save them. That is not a lie. real simple.

As I said before, I will not publicly divulge the contents of any PM from anyone. also real simple.

now....post #37 or you go on ignore.

your choice.
 
maineman said:
and as I said, I believe that the process by which committee chairs and members and staffs sit down with caucus members and provide them with detailed synopses of the contents of all bills passed out of their committees is an effect way for legislators to represent us.

Did you complain about this practice when Newt was Speaker?
Click to expand...


and if I did or didn'l, what's that have to do with the appropriateness of now?
 
Yurt said:
true, but if i recall there was plenty of complaints about earmarks in the bill...or are you saying there wasn't that many earmarks in both bush's and obama's bills....
Click to expand...


I can't speak for the Bush bill, but from what I recall there were no earmarks on the Obama stimulus bill. If there were, there weren't many. My recollection was that all of the spending was contained in the text of the legislation. Those aren't earmarks and used to not be called pork.
 
Annie said:
and if I did or didn'l, what's that have to do with the appropriateness of now?
Click to expand...

do you disagree with me that the process by which committee chairs and members and staffs sit down with caucus members and provide them with detailed synopses of the contents of all bills passed out of their committees is an effective way for legislators to represent us?
 
maineman said:
I think nothing of the sort... I just do not expect any mortal man or woman to be able to read tens of thousands of pages of legislation each year... and I think the system whereby committee members and staffs brief non committee members on the legislation passed out of committee is a reasonable way to deal with getting our mortal legislators enough information to intelligently cast their votes.
Click to expand...

then that makes you too much of a naive, trusting, fool.
 
maineman said:
You've made several pledges and promises to me via PM... I do not save them. That is not a lie. real simple.

As I said before, I will not publicly divulge the contents of any PM from anyone. also real simple.

now....post #37 or you go on ignore.

your choice.
Click to expand...

bet you are very sorry you ever brought it up.....LMAO

good, you learned your lesson and are now desperately trying to get off the subject you brought up becuase you know what you admitted to me and that you've flat out lied about it numerous times.

glad you learned your lesson about bringing PM stuff up...as you so love to say....you reap what you sow....it is a shame you haven't learned to be honest yet
 
Yikes - can't believe this went on so long.

A bill can be over 1,000 pages. If legislators read them in their entirety, that's all they would do; and there would be no reason for them to have a staff. This would be a tremendous waste of their time; they are NOT EXPECTED TO READ THESE BILLS.

Moreover, it is a ridiculous strawman to try to ask, "Well, how much of it should they read?" As though it would make a difference form them to read a few pages here, skip a few pages there, etc. Legislators get detailed summaries of bills like this, and they ARE expected to understand exactly what is in the bill. However, to distill that down to "they should read x # of pages" is child-like in its simplicity & in its understanding of the legislative process.
 
Onceler said:
Yikes - can't believe this went on so long.

A bill can be over 1,000 pages. If legislators read them in their entirety, that's all they would do; and there would be no reason for them to have a staff. This would be a tremendous waste of their time; they are NOT EXPECTED TO READ THESE BILLS.

Moreover, it is a ridiculous strawman to try to ask, "Well, how much of it should they read?" As though it would make a difference form them to read a few pages here, skip a few pages there, etc. Legislators get detailed summaries of bills like this, and they ARE expected to understand exactly what is in the bill. However, to distill that down to "they should read x # of pages" is child-like in its simplicity & in its understanding of the legislative process.
Click to expand...

precisely.
 
Onceler said:
Yikes - can't believe this went on so long.

A bill can be over 1,000 pages. If legislators read them in their entirety, that's all they would do; and there would be no reason for them to have a staff. This would be a tremendous waste of their time; they are NOT EXPECTED TO READ THESE BILLS.

Moreover, it is a ridiculous strawman to try to ask, "Well, how much of it should they read?" As though it would make a difference form them to read a few pages here, skip a few pages there, etc. Legislators get detailed summaries of bills like this, and they ARE expected to understand exactly what is in the bill. However, to distill that down to "they should read x # of pages" is child-like in its simplicity & in its understanding of the legislative process.
Click to expand...

asking a question is not a strawman.....sheeesh

you don't even know how much you expect them to read, yet you criticize those who want them to actually read it.....talk about nonsensical
 
as bills have become so verbose....isn't it time this changes? what is the matter with this country that our bills are so extensive to the point where you guys laugh at people who think those voting on the bills should read them....

whatever is in there obviously doesn't need to be in there....if it is boilerplate, then have common legal boilerplate that is expected...silly to outright defend it as necessary, it is not necessary, it is unfortunately the way it is
 
Yurt said:
asking a question is not a strawman.....sheeesh

you don't even know how much you expect them to read, yet you criticize those who want them to actually read it.....talk about nonsensical
Click to expand...

Asking a question can DEFINITELY be a strawman.

You are mischaracterizing what I'm saying. For the last time - I expect them to understand 100% of any bill they sign.

I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

As for whether or not bills should be so long, that's another debate to be had. But once again, it is naive to think that it is the job of our elected representatives to read every bit of text.
 
Onceler said:
Asking a question can DEFINITELY be a strawman.

You are mischaracterizing what I'm saying. For the last time - I expect them to understand 100% of any bill they sign.

I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

As for whether or not bills should be so long, that's another debate to be had. But once again, it is naive to think that it is the job of our elected representatives to read every bit of text.
Click to expand...

good lord, asking you a question is not mischaracterizing....i asked for clarification and you clarified....why you have to make stuff up is beyond me... i gave zero strawman, you don't even know what the term means...

how can they understand 100% of it if they don't know everything that is in it? and please don't call this question a strawman!
 
Yurt said:
bet you are very sorry you ever brought it up.....LMAO

good, you learned your lesson and are now desperately trying to get off the subject you brought up becuase you know what you admitted to me and that you've flat out lied about it numerous times.

glad you learned your lesson about bringing PM stuff up...as you so love to say....you reap what you sow....it is a shame you haven't learned to be honest yet
Click to expand...

:cof1:
 
Saying "you don't even know how much you want them to read" is mischaracterizing. It implies that I haven't even made my own mind up. I have; I don't care how much they read, as long as the UNDERSTAND 100% of the bill.

There's your strawman, there's your mischaracterization. I don't expect you to admit you're wrong; you never do. You get more stubborn, and mischaracterize even more, as you try to continue to shift the argument.

You are a complete waste of time.
 
Onceler said:
Saying "you don't even know how much you want them to read" is mischaracterizing. It implies that I haven't even made my own mind up. I have; I don't care how much they read, as long as the UNDERSTAND 100% of the bill.

There's your strawman, there's your mischaracterization. I don't expect you to admit you're wrong; you never do. You get more stubborn, and mischaracterize even more, as you try to continue to shift the argument.

You are a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...

i wonder why you ignored the last....and why do you constantly whine about what a waste of time i am....you don't like discussing things people that have a different opinion than you, admit it, you can't handle it

i thought you were talking about the question as mischaracterization, you did not specify the comment and you were just talking about the question....why don't you stop your incessant whining and logically debate.

as to my statement, i stand by it, you have no idea how much you want them to read....all you want is that they understand it 100%....yet how can they if they don't know 100% of what is contained in the bill?
 
Yurt said:
i didn't ask the way it is....i asked if YOU would LIKE it....

apparently waterbong and ibnothing don't know the difference....in fact, i'm sure waterbong is embarrassed by ib1's pwnage comment and wishes ib1 would shut up

further....at least one justice in your example read the case, vs just law clerks

see the difference? you guys claim NO legislature reads the bill
Click to expand...

No, his own law clerks read him the case. In the cert pool, everyone hears from a collective law clerk. That's the only difference. No one grants cert by reading the case files of every case. It would take decades just to get through with a years worth of work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top