See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:39 pm, John Deaux said:

   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:36 pm, chapoutier said:

   Do you think that bill of 1600 pages came came from scratch out of thin air? You don’t think that many many drafts of the bill have already been circulated and scrutinized? What comes out of final form in committee is usually 95% the same as what had been previously circulated.

   Granted. However, we already know that 300 of those pages were only available at 3:00 a.m.

2. #102
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, Ragspierre said:

   What comes out of final form in committee is usually 95% the same as what had been previously circulated.

   Support, please.

   A lot of these bills are ONLY seen by the Demoncrat caucus before they hit the floor.

3. #103
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, corkie said:

   On July 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm, chapoutier said:

   If you had term limits, you’d necessarily have lame ducks. And I thought, according to Palin, lame ducks were bad for their state.

   Why are you comparing representative members of the legislature with executives? How can a rep (someone that votes) be a lame duck? You must be joking.

4. #104
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, chapoutier said:

   Let them say so.

   Huh?

   Every member of Congress and the President, of any party, should be required to read ANY bill they vote on IN ITS ENTIRETY, and then sign a notarized statement attesting to the fact they read each and every word!!!!!!!!!!!

   We’re talking about trillions of dollars. The least they could do is read the blasted thing.

   I would expect my congress critters representing me to at least read a bill that will funtimentaly change the entire US economy.

   AT LEAST read the damn thing.

   To name a few. What the heck do you think everyone is arguing with me about?

5. #105
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:46 pm, spaceycakes said:

   ‘…it’s the devil/they always wanna dance…’

6. #106
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:46 pm, chapoutier said:

   Why are you comparing representative members of the legislature with executives? How can a rep (someone that votes) be a lame duck? You must be joking.

   Since when does the term lame duck apply only to executive? Try googling “Lame Duck Congress” and tell me what you find.

7. #107
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pm, corkie said:

   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:36 pm, chapoutier said:

   Do you think that bill of 1600 pages came came from scratch out of thin air?

   Let’s be honest here, chapoutier.

   The content of the bill isn’t important to Congress. The only thing that’s important to them is the public’s perception about the content.

   Since reading a bill in private will never change the public’s perception of a bill, they think it’s a waste of time.

   BTW, in case you didn’t notice, I’m casting stones at both Republicans and Democrats on this issue.

8. #108
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, chapoutier said:

   The content of the bill isn’t important to Congress. The only thing that’s important to them is the public’s perception about the content.

   Since reading a bill in private will never change the public’s perception of a bill, they think it’s a waste of time.

   BTW, in case you didn’t notice, I’m casting stones at both Republicans and Democrats on this issue.

   Perhaps.

9. #109
   On July 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, Misscheryl said:

   corkie, chap is the google master. It’s his way of insulting someone. Chalk it up.

10. #110
    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, chapoutier said:

    meant to finish…

    in which case some requirement that they actually read every word before voting won’t change anything.

11. #111
    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    Every member of Congress and the President, of any party, should be required to read ANY bill they vote on IN ITS ENTIRETY, and then sign a notarized statement attesting to the fact they read each and every word!!!!!!!!!!!

    and then just to ensure they have actual read it and not lied…test their knowledge of what they read…yea they wouldn’t get much work done but then again that could be the best thing for the country anyway….

12. #112
    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, jjmurphy said:

    let us adopt the convention that we mean somebody…on the member’s staff, say…has read the bill, understands what it says, and has made a digest of the section that is their responsibility, that that member then reads and understands.

    No. I am well aware that staffers are the ones that write the bills and do all the real work. The congress thingies just sign them. I want that to stop! They should read EVERY DAMN WORD. You are right, they probably don’t understand 99% of what they pass. But they will now be on the hook.

    This may mean bills are written at the level of a preschooler, with all due apologies to preschoolers.

    These people are entrusted with passing laws that will impact the entire country. What is so difficult about this? No one with power over others should put their name to anything they cannot understand and explain to the ones who will be impacted by signing a bill into law.

13. #113
    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, Salt said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, chapoutier said:

    meant to finish…

    in which case some requirement that they actually read every word before voting won’t change anything.

    Perhaps. That’s why I liked the part of the pledge that makes the bill available to the public for 72 hours prior to voting.

14. #114
    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, chapoutier said:

    corkie, chap is the google master. It’s his way of insulting someone.

    Corkie is one of the posters here I would never presume to insult.

    I just don’t get his claim that “lame duck” applies only to executive figures, when the term “lame duck congress” is used all the time, as evidenced by a quick google.

15. #115
    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, Misscheryl said:

    Corkie is one of the posters here I would never presume to insult.

    well, he should feel special.

16. #116
    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:56 pm, corkie said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:46 pm, chapoutier said:

    Try googling “Lame Duck Congress”

    1. Lame Duck Congress isn’t the same as Lame Duck Congressman!

    2. If term limits are used, then the power of all congressman are truncated equally and since the concept of power is relative, the lame duck principle can’t apply.

17. #117
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:00 pm, corkie said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, chapoutier said:

    Perhaps in which case some requirement that they actually read every word before voting won’t change anything.

    Concur. And why they think the notion is silly.

    However, a pledge might send a signal that the public is paying extra close attention to the content of this bill. But I’m not holding my breath.

    I think we have a better chance of changing the perception that Cap-and-Trade is a crappy bill regardless of the content.

18. #118
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, chapoutier said:

    Corkie,

    Every definition of lame duck I have read says it is an elected official who is approaching the end of their term, for whatever reason. I have seen none limiting it to executive figures.

    If you claim that lame duck status has different consequences for an executive as it does for a legislator, that is another thing. But first, please elaborate on this “lame duck principle”. Maybe that will help me understand what exactly you are getting at. But just as an aside, I would dispute thatthe power of all congressmen would be truncated equally, since presumably they would be allowwed to run for reelection at least a few times and any sort of term limits would kick in in a staggered fashion across the whole of the Congress. So only 1/3 or 1/4 of the body would be facing an approaching term limit at any one time.

19. #119
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pm, corkie said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, Misscheryl said:

    well, he should feel special.

    I do feel special. I think chapoutier is smart, often right, and helps the overall credibility of the comment sections of Michelle’s website.

    I just wish he wouldn’t use his powers for evil by putting a very clever spin on the occasional issue.

20. #120
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    If these idiotic Congress-critters keep at it it will be America that is lame before long. They just can’t stop doing moronic things to cripple the economy, the Constitution and our fundamental freedoms as American citizens.

21. #121
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, Misscheryl said:

    I do feel special. I think chapoutier is smart, often right, and helps the overall credibility of the comment sections of Michelle’s website.

    I just wish he wouldn’t use his powers for evil by putting a very clever spin on the occasional issue.

    agreed.

22. #122
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, Regulus said:

    I couldn’t care less if Congress wants to “fast track” crap like the Michael Jackson Beatification Bill without bothering to read it; who does?

    But when it comes to major legislation, the effects of which will resonate on years from now, the lame offering of, “We didn’t have time” is total BS.

    The devil’s in the details, as they say in the lawyer biz.

    We’ve already got trade wars brewing with Canada and Mexico over provisions that were sneaked into the Porkulus bill; now we’re finding out that Congress wants the feds to have a de facto veto over your ability to remodel or sell your home.

    I’ll say it again: If the American Revolution was about “taxation without representation,” and we’ve got a Congress that’s railroading legislation through without even knowing what’s in it, who are they representing?

    It’s time for the Second American Revolution, based on the same grounds as the first.

23. #123
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, chapoutier said:

    But when it comes to major legislation, the effects of which will resonate on years from now, the lame offering of, “We didn’t have time” is total BS.

    Agreed generally. However, I would submit that there is a lot of behind the scenes discussions and deliberations that go on before the issue really catches with the public. I mean its not like we haven’t known a cap and trade bill hasn’t been coming since say…November 4th.

24. #124
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, sonofdy said:

    You will never guess who I got a return email from.

    Cindy freaking Sheehan.

    Its a laugh riot.

25. #125
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, sonofdy said:

    I mean its not like we haven’t known a cap and trade bill hasn’t been coming since say…November 4th.

    Incorrect, the version voted on was notpublished till 14 hours before the vote.

26. #126
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm, chapoutier said:

    Incorrect, the version voted on was notpublished till 14 hours before the vote.

    Not what I said.

27. #127
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, sonofdy said:

    Well chap, yes the issue had been debated for quite a while, however the final text was not given to the rank and file members until just before the vote. ANYTHING could have been in the amendment and most of the reps either didn’t have a chance to read it or didn’t care to.

    You trust congress too much.

28. #128
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, Salt said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, chapoutier said:

    Agreed generally. However, I would submit that there is a lot of behind the scenes discussions and deliberations that go on before the issue really catches with the public.

    Which I would offer is really part of the problem.

    I mean its not like we haven’t known a cap and trade bill hasn’t been coming since say…November 4th.

    Suspecting something might come and knowing the content details are vastly different. I know this isn’t your point exactly, but you have to admit that the late night amendment drop followed by the rush to vote is not the hallmark of a “transparent” and deliberative congress.

29. #129
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, TypicalWhite said:

    Regulus, my thoughts exactly. The call of revolutionists was “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”
    IMO, the current leaders of our executive and legislative branches are exercising the same arrogant, damn-the-citizens tyranny that George III and his ministers used.

30. #130
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, chapoutier said:

    Well chap, yes the issue had been debated for quite a while, however the final text was not given to the rank and file members until just before the vote. ANYTHING could have been in the amendment and most of the reps either didn’t have a chance to read it or didn’t care to.

    Do you think that the actual text of the bill has changed one single Congressperson’s mind? I mean if you were philosophically for cap and trade back in November, chances are you are going to support the bill regardless of the particular text. And if you were against it back then, doubtful that anything contained in those 1600 pages is going to change your mind. That’s my point. Its a little disingenuous for a Congressman to claim that they didn’t have enough time to consider the bill when it is glaringly obvious they were never going to vote for it in the first place.

31. #131
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, UglyBagOfMostlyWater said:

    I am baffled as to what yo think this has to do with Obama. Is he supposed to stand over each Congressperson and Senator like a school marm and slap them on the wrist with a ruler if they look up from the bill?

    If only there were a provision in the Constitution that required the President to sign a bill from the legislature before it became law. Since there’s not, you’re right, Obama is powerless to rein in a rogue and lazy Congress.

    And you can hardly believe that not actually reading the bill is some new development, do you? How many members of Congress admitted they did not read the Patriot Act?

    Sigh. Is this what we’ve sunk to? Are failures of the past now justification for doing things even worse in the future?

32. #132
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:28 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    Before any congresspeople are allowed to sign a bill, they should be able to pass a pop quiz about the details. Or is that too much to ask?

33. #133
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:30 pm, corkie said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, chapoutier said:

    You’re right. My problem was that I unsuccessfully tried to be overly sly.

    My point was that, on a whole (nationally) we really shouldn’t want our congressional representatives to be concerned with building their power base. We really want them focused on casting their votes based on what’s best for our country.

    However, too many Americans value the potential of gaining competitive advantage over other Americans via their elected representatives to Congress. This creates the incentive for the representatives to pursue political power because they get rewarded more by their constituents for their share of congressional power, then their voting record.

    So, while I very much understand the potential value to America of having executive power, I don’t see the value to America of having congressional representatives pursue political power. In fact, I see this issue as being the biggest problem we have – much bigger than the conservative versus liberal issue. Therefore, I’m very much in favor of reducing individual congressional political power to the greatest extent possible. So, if we eliminate (or severely reduce) the potential political power of congressional reps, then the concept of a lame duck representative won’t apply.

    Anyway, I hope that clears up my puzzling (and technically incorrect) comments.

34. #134
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:30 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sigh. Is this what we’ve sunk to? Are failures of the past now justification for doing things even worse in the future?

    No justification. Just surprise that there is any sort of implication this is a new problem, brought on by the Obama admin.

35. #135
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pm, jjmurphy said:

    Before any congresspeople are allowed to sign a bill, they should be able to pass a pop quiz about the details. Or is that too much to ask?

    Sounds good to me!

36. #136
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:37 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    chapoutier said:

    My answer is the same as for a Congressperson. Ideally? Yes. Realistically, I don’t think any President has the time to read all of the minutiae of multiple thousands of pages of excruciating legislative language. That does not excuse him from having a full understanding of the bill. Someone needs to be reading every word and summarizing in a comprehensive way. And THAT the President (and everyone voting for it) is responsible for.

    That’s pretty much how I see it. “Responsible for” as in reading and understanding the bill as described in some comprehensive summary. At least for bills that are more than a few hundred pages long. Isn’t that what these people have staffers for?

    But it would be useful if there were a joint committee in charge of the task of summarizing the bills. The staff of that committee would see to it and make sure no partisan issues from either side are glossed over.

    If the Rep has concerns about a particular part of the bill, he or she could refer to the full text.

    The summary could be posted along with the full text for anyone in the public so inclined to read it.

37. #137
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:37 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:28 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    Before any congresspeople are allowed to sign a bill, they should be able to pass a pop quiz about the details. Or is that too much to ask?

    in addition they should sign and have notarized a statement they have actually read the bill….

38. #138
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:42 pm, corkie said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, sonofdy said:

    Well chap, yes the issue had been debated for quite a while, however the final text was not given to the rank and file members until just before the vote. ANYTHING could have been in the amendment and most of the reps either didn’t have a chance to read it or didn’t care to.

    sonofdy, I gotta agree with chapoutier on this one.

    Opponents of this bill would be better served by breaking the perception that this bill will somehow help reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Two Republican members of the House touted this as one of their reasons for voting in favor of the bill.

    Besides, what good does it do for us to have a RINO pledge to read the bill, only to sign it for the wrong reason?

    We need to let the signers know that THEY will be held accountable for soaring energy costs on DOMESTIC energy.

    However, I think the point of Michelle’s post was that Steny Hoyer thoughtlessly dismissed the concept of reading a bill. Sadly, I don’t think this is a Republican/Democrat issue.

39. #139
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm, Ragspierre said:

    No justification. Just surprise that there is any sort of implication this is a new problem, brought on by the Obama admin.

    I think is certainly is a new problem, and it is being exploited by THE ONE.

    Show me that is wrong with some history.

40. #140
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:48 pm, chapoutier said:

    Show me that is wrong with some history.

    I already cited one prominent example, the Patriot Act.

    And that was only 132 pages or so.

41. #141
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:49 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    I think it’s in the public’s interest to not have these pieces of legislation rushed through before they are vetted by the public, and dare I say… the media.

    So to avoid being disingenuous, I do think these congress(people) should understand what they are voting on. Sure. But allowing time for them to read it and making the bill available to the public for some period of time allows the public for to put some heat on their reps to either vote for or against a given bill. So yeah, it’s in part a stalling tactic.

    Whether or not it matters….In the case of some of these bills, there are fence sitters. And while some are either for or against things like cap and trade, ObamaCare, the specifics of those bills won’t do squat to change their vote. But there are those fence sitters. And it may not be the text of the bill that sways them. It may be heat from their constituents or from their colleagues that pushes them in one direction or the other.

42. #142
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:51 pm, chapoutier said:

    But there are those fence sitters. And it may not be the text of the bill that sways them. It may be heat from their constituents or from their colleagues that pushes them in one direction or the other.

    More likely, a pork project amendment attached to it.

43. #143
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:55 pm, WarTip said:

    What a state of affairs when the entire foundation of our Country can be written in well under twenty pages but we have to use 1300, 1400, 1600 or even more just to create a frigging law?

    Progress?

44. #144
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:56 pm, swede said:

    chap, I don’t think anyone is arguing that this stuff is new…in fact that’s the point. Hope & change = same ol’. Where’s the promised transparency? Pork busting? Bi-partisanship?

    Never mind. Bushes fault.

45. #145
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm, spaceycakes said:
    So, Miss Steny thinks it’s funny? For all she knows, the bill could read…
    “and every first born of the citizens of Bugtussel, Arkansas must be killed”

    You spelled it wrong and got the wrong state: Bugtussle, OK.

    ECS

46. #146
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm, Misscheryl said:

    5:55 pm, WarTip said:
    What a state of affairs when the entire foundation of our Country can be written in well under twenty pages but we have to use 1300, 1400, 1600 or even more just to create a frigging law?

    Progress?

    Good point. We don’t enforce the laws we have now, we make new ones.

47. #147
    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:59 pm, chapoutier said:

    chap, I don’t think anyone is arguing that this stuff is new…

    Obama lied, transparency died.

    Doesn’t that imply it was alive prior to Obama?

    And Rags at least thinks it is a new problem. But I guess “new” is a relative term.

48. #148
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:00 pm, zorro said:

    I’ll repeat the same section of our Declaration of Independence that I quoted in the previous post.

    … But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….

    The “despots” in Congress are really pushing the envelope.

49. #149
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:01 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    chapoutier said:

    But there are those fence sitters. And it may not be the text of the bill that sways them. It may be heat from their constituents or from their colleagues that pushes them in one direction or the other.

    More likely, a pork project amendment attached to it.

    Yeah, that was one of my thoughts as well.

    But the pork, I would hope, would need to be made known as well… in a perfect world anyway. Which this is not.

50. #150
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:01 pm, Romeo13 said:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

    Obama promising to post Bills online for FIVE days prior to votes…

    Gee… wonder what happened to that?

51. #151
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:04 pm, Salt said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:30 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sigh. Is this what we’ve sunk to? Are failures of the past now justification for doing things even worse in the future?

    No justification. Just surprise that there is any sort of implication this is a new problem, brought on by the Obama admin.

    It’s an old problem, sure. However, Pelosi made a big deal about having a more ethical, more transparent congress when the Democrats took over the House in 2006. It seems as though things have only gotten worse when it comes to transparency issues.

    The tempo for voting on large bills seems to be increasing. Omnibuses have become a new norm. Pork has moved from earmarks to being the content of the bills themselves.

    Posting the bill 72 hours prior to a vote is reasonable and would show a dedication to representing the people. There’s far too much “we know what’s best for you” attitude in Congress today. This is what is irritating about Hoyer’s comments. He cannot seriously be suggesting that GOP congressmen (or their staff) had sufficient time to go through the Waxman amendment. That Waxman, himself, had the audacity to complain about the amount of time the minority leader took up discussing an amendment that was submitted at 3am (what is it with that time?) the night before is a joke. It’s a shame to the government body responsible for writing the laws of our nation.

    I understand the thoughts regarding those that made up their minds before the bills even come out, but that doesn’t justify not examining the actual content of the bills. They certainly pay attention to the details when it comes to the inclusion of their pet projects.

52. #152
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:06 pm, swede said:

    chap, perhaps what’s new is the monumental impact of these titanic endeavors and the feigned urgency that they have to go through NOW, or the world as we know it will end.

    The urgency is because the honeymoon

53. #153
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:06 pm, chapoutier said:

    It’s an old problem, sure. However, Pelosi made a big deal about having a more ethical, more transparent congress when the Democrats took over the House in 2006. It seems as though things have only gotten worse when it comes to transparency issues.

    I won’t disagree with this.

    Note to all:

    I think Pelosi sucks too.

54. #154
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:08 pm, Salt said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:01 pm, Romeo13 said:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

    Obama promising to post Bills online for FIVE days prior to votes…

    Gee… wonder what happened to that?

    This is not a defense of Pres. Obama as he has broken this promise, but he is talking about his signing the bills not the congressional votes.

    Pelosi and Reid are the culprits when we’re talking about congressional rush jobs. That’s not to say that the White House isn’t in their ear, though. There were several reports that the chief of staff was a driving force behind getting Cap and Trade through quickly.

55. #155
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:08 pm, swede said:

    sorry. new laptop mouse.

    Honeymoon is ending and popular support for the agenda is eroding fast.

56. #156
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:09 pm, jjmurphy said:

    Doesn’t that imply it was alive prior to Obama?

    Ha! Good one! I don’t care who you vote for, THAT was a good one.

57. #157
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:11 pm, jjmurphy said:

    Posting the bill 72 hours prior to a vote is reasonable and would show a dedication to representing the people

    A good start, but not long enough. If these bills take weeks,or months to write, a week is not too long for a good look at it by the public that will have to live under it.

58. #158
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm, Ragspierre said:

    I already cited one prominent example, the Patriot Act.

    And that was only 132 pages or so.

    So, less then 10 pages per hour, something along those lines?

    This is in NO WAY comparable to the practices of this Congress.

    BTW, the Patriot Act, for all the concerns many had about it (including me), has turned out to be a pretty workable set of laws.

    How’s Porkulous looking to you, Chaps?

59. #159
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:15 pm, chapoutier said:

    This is in NO WAY comparable to the practices of this Congress.

    My point is that if they could not be bothered to read something less than 1/10 of the length back then, what makes you think it is a new problem?

    How’s Porkulous looking to you, Chaps?

    It has saved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs. I know. They told me so.

60. #160
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm, Salt said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:11 pm, jjmurphy said:

    Posting the bill 72 hours prior to a vote is reasonable and would show a dedication to representing the people

    A good start, but not long enough. If these bills take weeks,or months to write, a week is not too long for a good look at it by the public that will have to live under it.

    Fine.

    I took the 72 hours from the Delaware group’s proposal. I have no issues with increasing the time.

61. #161
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:17 pm, Salt said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:15 pm, chapoutier said:

    It has saved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs. I know. They told me so.

    You haven’t been talking to Joe “No One Messes with Me” Biden then.

62. #162
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:18 pm, Ragspierre said:

    To everybody suggesting that actual members should have to personally read a bill, attest, take a test,…whatever….

    There is a big impediment to those. (Not that I disagree in principle).

    You would have to change the Constitution.

    Otherwise, a district who voted for a functional illiterate, otherwise qualified, would be denied their chosen representative (or the member would be denied the right to vote). That would not pass Constitutional muster.

63. #163
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:20 pm, swede said:

    It has saved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs. I know. They told me so.

    Nanny said it would save or create 500 million jobs. 40% more than the total popolation! Awesome.

64. #164
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, jjmurphy said:

    Otherwise, a district who voted for a functional illiterate, otherwise qualified, would be denied their chosen representative (or the member would be denied the right to vote). That would not pass Constitutional muster.

    Then put the bill on a CD. The nitwit can listen to it, unless he is deaf, too.

65. #165
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, Ragspierre said:

    My point is that if they could not be bothered to read something less than 1/10 of the length back then, what makes you think it is a new problem?

    I think the calculated “CRAM DOWN IN A NEW YORK EMERGENCY SECOND” tactic is new.

    I also think it part and parcel of THE ONE’s “crisis” agenda.

66. #166
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Then put the bill on a CD. The nitwit can listen to it, unless he is deaf, too.

    Ewww… Shades of ADA…

    I LIKE it…

    Slow this crap down. Let people get to word on the street what is wrong here.

67. #167
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:24 pm, Salt said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, jjmurphy said:

    Otherwise, a district who voted for a functional illiterate…

    Then put the bill on a CD. The nitwit can listen to it, unless he is deaf, too.

    I think he’s kidding.

    Surely he’s not suggesting there aren’t already functional illiterates in this Congress.

68. #168
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:26 pm, jjmurphy said:

    Surely he’s not suggesting there aren’t already functional illiterates in this Congress.

    True. I should have seen that.

69. #169
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:31 pm, swede said:

    chap, I’m ok with your point that legislators could have their staff and counsel research the bills, but you can’t tell me that they are even doing that.

    AIG bonuses voted for by every democrazy in the house & senate, and no republicrats caught it either.

    435 reps, 100 senators and perhaps a thousand associated staff missed it. Oops.

70. #170
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:38 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Every trial lawyer knows there are two basic methods for screwing with the other side in discovery:

    1. Stonewall, which has a very definite downside, as it blatantly violates the rules; and,

    2. A data dump—you inundate the other side with a massive blizzard of information, knowing that most cannot economically deal with the glut.

    The latter is evidently the tactic in these paradigm-shifting bills.

71. #171
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm, cheapseat said:

    chap, rags, and corkie; the problem is a very human one in that when you feel screwed by someone, you want to pay them back. dems felt bush and republicans screwed them by impeaching clinton, winning the 2000 election, and “tricking them into supporting the iraq war”. dems impeached nixon who had the good grace to resign so the spectacle wouldn’t happen, hence clinton. bush winning in 2000 because fla voters voted for a third party candidate sounds to republicans like 1992 when clinton won due to perot. filibusters in the senate on judges and big issues sound like 2002 – 2006. i never understood the bush lied crap, as clinton gore and every agency in every western nation believed in saddam’s weapons and plans. but today republicans are saying obama lied and people are losing their jobs. MUST WE CONTINUE THIS GAME OF YOU DID THIS SO I WILL DO THAT. IF SO WE ARE HEADED FOR THIS COUNTRIES THIRD CIVIL WAR. IS THAT GOOD FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN?

72. #172
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:41 pm, chapoutier said:

    The latter is evidently the tactic in these paradigm-shifting bills.

    I know that you fundamentally agree with the the concept, so I am not asking you to support the legislation, but is it too hard to admit that such a regulatory scheme is inherently complex?

73. #173
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:43 pm, chapoutier said:

    Ooops.

    agree = disagree.

74. #174
    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:47 pm, WarTip said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:41 pm, chapoutier said: I know that you fundamentally agree with the the concept, so I am not asking you to support the legislation, but is it too hard to admit that such a regulatory scheme is inherently complex?

    Simplify the laws

    Require they be read on the floor

    I know that it is illegal but I swear I do not understand why … but is it possible to institute some sort of line item veto? If so, this would (theoretically at least) afford the president the opportunity to kill the pork before we the people were forced to pay … not that this president would

    Break down each item in the bills and force them to be voted on individually

    Those are just places perhaps we could start though I do not suppose that it is feasible given the current state of affairs.

75. #175
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:11 pm, Jeff said:

    Surely he’s not suggesting there aren’t already functional illiterates in this Congress.

    I question the use of the word ‘ functional ‘

76. #176
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:12 pm, Jeff said:

    Dysfunctional seems more accurate.

77. #177
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:13 pm, Jeff said:

    If lawyers can create an unreadable document, perhaps a ‘ Plain English ‘ law to protect Congress from themselves ?

78. #178
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pm, Jeff said:

    BTW : Any guesses on how many reserved sections in this bill too ?
    

79. #179
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:27 pm, WarTip said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:13 pm, Jeff said:

    If lawyers can create an unreadable document, perhaps a ‘ Plain English ‘ law to protect Congress from themselves ?

    Any bets on whether or not our new “Fine Print” czar will tackle this issue?

80. #180
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:30 pm, Ragspierre said:

    is it too hard to admit that such a regulatory scheme is inherently complex?

    Of course it HAS to be very complex.

    It is addressing a revolution in America’s economy.

    That MANDATES that it be done…if at all…in a very careful, deliberate and step-wise fashion.

    Instead, it is being crammed down everyone’s throat in a pell-mell “damn the consequences, full speed ahead” all-or-nothing and don’t look tooo close fashion.

    That is irresponsible, stupid, tyrannical, and prone to create havoc.

    If one were to DESIGN a method to result in damage to an entire nation, I cannot think of a better way to go about it.

    Since I do not believe these people are all stupid or do not understand cause and effect, I have to conclude that is their intent.

81. #181
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:31 pm, Stillwaiting said:

    Congressmen who vote on legislation without reading it are a lot more dangerous then borrowers who sign mortgages without understanding them–and look how much damage those idiots caused!!!

82. #182
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:47 pm, Bruce said:

    So which is better… having more ignorant votes on legislation or having fewer informed votes? Unlike Steny Hoyer, I cannot see any virtue in voting for the sake of voting.

    This is how voters do it, right? They voted for Barry Soetoro before they knew anything about him. Like the politicians they elect, they care more about getting voting done than the effects of their blatant irresponsibility.

83. #183
    On July 8th, 2009 at 7:56 pm, Ragspierre said:

    This is how voters do it, right?

    This is, very sadly, true.

    But…

    there is an important difference. Voters have a natural time constraint imposed on us by our process. Election day comes, ready or not.

    Our legislators have no such constraint.

    Nor is that any inherent reason these bills should be so sweeping, or larded with blatant efforts to buy support with pork.

    Which makes the rush of these immense, game-changing, revolutionary laws so obscene.

84. #184
    On July 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm, coffee said:

    I’ll repeat my recent mantra. Congress critters must take and pass oral exams on the content of bills before being allowed to vote on it. I don’t care if his staff does the reading and then give him the Cliff Notes, but he’s the one that has to take the exam.

    (You can bet that they copied from their neighbor’s paper while in elementary school.)

85. #185
    On July 8th, 2009 at 8:53 pm, maisy said:

    Maybe they don’t know HOW to read.

86. #186
    On July 8th, 2009 at 9:35 pm, purplepeep said:

    chapoutier said:
    you can hardly believe that not actually reading the bill is some new development, do you?

    Chappy, this would be another reason why I do a Spockish eye-brow raise when you make claim to being in the legal profession. I don’t know of any attorney that would advise his clients they they don’t need to read something very carefuly before signing it.

87. #187
    On July 8th, 2009 at 9:36 pm, ScottyDog said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 6:47 pm, WarTip said:
    Require they be read on the floor

    That is an excellent idea! I might add that another requirement is that it does not violate the Constitution. About 90% of the legislation Congress writes and votes on violates the Constitution in some way, shape or form.

    Every time Congress passes new legislation, it takes a more of our Freedom and Liberty away.

    There was a time when it was seriously being discussed that Congress spend as much time on revoking old laws as passing new ones.

    The fact of the matter is at the rate Congress passes new laws we are moving closer and closer to a full blown oligarchy.

    I think that is why Thomas Jefferson believed in having a revolution every now again. And as we speak, Americans are becoming the real victims of a tyranny they have permitted to grow to truly ominous proportions.

    Bureaucracies eventually stop representing the electorate and become self serving.

    We got there along time ago. IMHO

88. #188
    On July 8th, 2009 at 9:50 pm, chapoutier said:

    Chappy, this would be another reason why I do a Spockish eye-brow raise when you make claim to being in the legal profession. I don’t know of any attorney that would advise his clients they they don’t need to read something very carefuly before signing it.

    And this is yet another reason why I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about vis a vis the legal profession.

89. #189
    On July 8th, 2009 at 9:56 pm, purplepeep said:

    chapoutier said:

    “Chappy, this would be another reason why I do a Spockish eye-brow raise when you make claim to being in the legal profession. I don’t know of any attorney that would advise his clients they they don’t need to read something very carefuly before signing it.”

    And this is yet another reason why I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about vis a vis the legal profession.

    You advise clients otherwise, Chap?

90. #190
    On July 8th, 2009 at 10:05 pm, Major O said:

    Well consider the attitude that prominent elected Democrats have towards folks who signed on to loans cooked up by predatory lenders.

    Essentially, they absolved the individuals from responsibility to read the “fine print” of the loan, suggesting that they signed papers they didn’t really understand.

    Perhaps they’re just extrapolating their own practice with respect to lawmaking on to the poor benighted souls with “bad” loans.

91. #191
    On July 8th, 2009 at 10:07 pm, Major O said:

    I think that is why Thomas Jefferson believed in having a revolution every now again. And as we speak, Americans are becoming the real victims of a tyranny they have permitted to grow to truly ominous proportions.

    Bureaucracies eventually stop representing the electorate and become self serving.

    We got there along time ago. IMHO

    Agreed. What baffles me is the passion of their enablers in the electorate. What do they gain by propping up the Statists??

92. #192
    On July 8th, 2009 at 10:13 pm, purplepeep said:

    Major O said:
    they absolved the individuals from responsibility to read the “fine print” of the loan, suggesting that they signed papers they didn’t really understand.

    Yup. Unfortunately way too many people, even good, upstanding and otherwise smart ones, take that advice on way too many areas. It’s later on that they (hopefully) learn the lesson.

    I disagree with the “predatory lenders”, thing, tho, Major. Some no doubt are, but even when you’re dealing with the most respectable of lenders you’ll probably have problems if you don’t read what you put your name to – they are in business to make money, afterall, and the terms are designed to benefit them.

93. #193
    On July 8th, 2009 at 11:00 pm, Major O said:

    I disagree with the “predatory lenders”, thing, tho, Major. Some no doubt are, but even when you’re dealing with the most respectable of lenders you’ll probably have problems if you don’t read what you put your name to – they are in business to make money, afterall, and the terms are designed to benefit them.

    My bad. I should have been clear that I don’t endorse the whole “predatory lenders” concept. I was trying to represent the Dems’ position.

94. #194
    On July 8th, 2009 at 11:17 pm, Dimsdale said:

    On July 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, chapoutier said:

    Well chap, yes the issue had been debated for quite a while, however the final text was not given to the rank and file members until just before the vote. ANYTHING could have been in the amendment and most of the reps either didn’t have a chance to read it or didn’t care to.

    Do you think that the actual text of the bill has changed one single Congressperson’s mind? I mean if you were philosophically for cap and trade back in November, chances are you are going to support the bill regardless of the particular text. And if you were against it back then, doubtful that anything contained in those 1600 pages is going to change your mind. That’s my point. Its a little disingenuous for a Congressman to claim that they didn’t have enough time to consider the bill when it is glaringly obvious they were never going to vote for it in the first place.

    Having them sign a pledge to read the bill (and hopefully comprehend it) could provide some positive benefits:

    1) They couldn’t say “I didn’t know that was in there!”

    2) If they had to read them, they would undoubtedly be shorter. Much shorter.

    3) If they had to read them, they would probably be in simple English. So they could understand them.

    4) It would be harder to bury earmarks, loopholes etc., in the shorter simpler versions.

    5) If shorter and easier to read, more people would actually read them too.

    6) The press might actually delve into a detail or two.

    7) The philosophical agreement with say, cap and trade, might fade with a real understanding of the implications of the (im)practical applications of the legislation.

    Agreed generally. However, I would submit that there is a lot of behind the scenes discussions and deliberations that go on before the issue really catches with the public. I mean its not like we haven’t known a cap and trade bill hasn’t been coming since say…November 4th.

    Agreed, but somehow, I see those behind the scenes deliberations and discussions happening as follows:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1azumuu_vmQ

    But then, I live in Massachusetts…

95. #195
    On July 8th, 2009 at 11:30 pm, purplepeep said:

    Major O said:
    My bad. I should have been clear that I don’t endorse the whole “predatory lenders” concept. I was trying to represent the Dems’ position.

    Nope, my bad. Given your context I should have read in the quote marks, Major.

96. #196
    On July 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm, Send_Me said:

    This is the government America deserves, for two reasons: (A) it’s the one for which she voted, and (B) this is the product of the beloved two-party system.
    “Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.” Proverbs 26:11

97. #197
    On July 9th, 2009 at 8:02 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he )Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer) said.

    Finally Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer admitted that even the Democrat Leadership does not know what this bill contains. He goes on to state that staff members read them in their entirety–yet the bill was not finished when voted upon. The man does lie.

    Rule by fiat-hand the King/Dear Leader/Fuhrer power and trust. Fascism is the correct word. We saw Obama’s use of ACORN to intimidate opponents and Eric Holder’s wink at the New Black Panther Party intimidation of voters. What will be our Reichstag Fire? Hitler did not become the great murderer until after the Reichstag gave him “Temporary Emergency Powers”. The Duma-Parliament of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-gave Stalin absolute power and he killed damn near everyone of the Duma members and millions more.

    Fascism is the correct word and fools ignore it.Deliberative democracy is replaced.

98. #198
    On July 9th, 2009 at 8:44 am, tarpon said:

    Who were those Colonel; Obama voters and what were they thinking. Oh yeah, thinking, that’s not their shtick.

    Suckers, it’s your money too that is being flushed.

99. #199
    On July 9th, 2009 at 9:06 am, sonofdy said:

    chap to client:
    Just sign it, its okay, we discused it last week.

    Client to chap:
    But you just changed 1/3rd of it a few seconds ago.

    Chap to client:
    Trust me.

100. #200
     On July 9th, 2009 at 9:09 am, Misscheryl said:

     Waaayyyy OT and I hate to say ‘I toll ya so:”

     Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family
     By Phil Trexler
     Beacon Journal staff writer

     POSTED: 07:44 p.m. EDT, Jul 07, 2009

     Akron police say they aren’t ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

     But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

     It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend’s home in South Akron.

     Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ”This is our world” and ”This is a black world” as they confronted Marshall and his family.

     The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

     ”This was almost like being a terrorist act,” Marshall said. ”And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?”

     They said it started when one teen, without any words or warning, blindsided and assaulted Marshall’s friend as he stood outside with the others.

     When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens.

     His daughter, Rachel, 15, who weighs about 90 pounds, tried to come to his rescue. The teens pushed her to the ground.

     His wife, Yvonne, pushed their son, Donald, 14, into bushes to keep him protected.

     ”My thing is,” Marshall said, ”I didn’t want this, but I was in fear for my wife, my kids and my friends. I felt I had to stay out there to protect them, because those guys were just jumping, swinging fists and everything.

     ”I’m lucky. They didn’t break my ribs or bruise my ribs. I thank God, they concentrated on my thick head because I do have one. They were trying to take my head off my spine, basically.”

     After several minutes of punches and kicks, the attack ended and the group ran off. The Marshalls’ two adult male friends were not seriously hurt.

     ”I don’t think I thought at that moment when I tried to jump in,” Rachel Marshall said. ”But when I was laying on the ground, I was just scared.”

     Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center.

     The construction worker said he now fears for his family’s safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance.

     ”I knew I was going to get beat, but not as bad as I did,” Marshall said. ”But I did it to protect my family. I didn’t have a choice. There was no need for this. We should be all getting along. But to me, it seems to be racist.”

     Akron police are investigating. Right now, the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime. There were no other reports of victims assaulted by the group that night.

     The department’s gang unit is involved in the investigation, police said.

     ”We don’t know if it’s a known gang, or just a group of kids,” police Lt. Rick Edwards said.

     The Marshalls say they fear retaliation at home or when they go outside. They are considering arming themselves, but they’re concerned about the possible problems that come with guns.

     For now, they are hoping police can bring them suspects. They believe they can identify several of the attackers.

     ”This makes you think about your freedom,” Marshall said. ”In all reality, where is your freedom when you have this going on?”

     ——————————————————————————–

     Phil Trexler can be reached at 330-996-3717 or ptrexler@thebeaconjournal.com.

     Martin Marshall (right) recounts the attack by a group of teens on himself and his family while they were watching a Fourth of July fireworks display in Firestone Park. His daughter, Rachel Hopson, 15, (left) and wife, Yvonne Marshall, listen. (Michael Chritton/Akron Beacon Journal)
     View larger version>> Akron police say they aren’t ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

     But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

     It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend’s home in South Akron.

     Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ”This is our world” and ”This is a black world” as they confronted Marshall and his family.