Confirmed: Deliberative democracy is a joke
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That was the reaction of Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to the idea that members of Congress would actually read the health care takeover bill before voting on it:
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.
Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.
In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “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 said.
“Members clearly–and staff and review boards, they read them in their entirety. They go over it with members, and members read substantial portions of the bill themselves, but the issue is–I don’t know who signed this (pledge), but frankly the opposition has been very vociferous, not of the verbiage and bill, but on the concept that it incorporates,” Hoyer said.
Let Freedom Ring, a Delaware-based conservative organization, is circulating a pledge that asks members of Congress to promise to read the entirety of the final text of a health-care reform bill before they vote on it. They also are asking that the full bill be made available for review by the public for 72 hours before Congress votes on it.
Obama lied, transparency died.
The joke’s on you. And it keeps getting more and more expen$$$$ive every day.
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.
Trackbacks
- Congress Fears the Public Will Become Too Educated on ObamaCare « Teh Resistance Blog
- The Bamster’s Approval Index Has Dropped 2 More Points to Minus 5 « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- ‘Liberal Democrats Control Everything, No Debate’… New NRSC Ad ‘60′ for 2010 Election (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Those Silly Dems: House Democrats Release Health Bill, Without Costs for Taxpayers « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Cassy Fiano » Read a bill before voting on it? Please!
- Right Wing News
- Confirmed: Deliberative democracy is a joke « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity
- Beatles ‘I’ll Tax the Heat, I’ll Tax Your Feet’: Britain’s a Mess with Its Punishing Taxes, We’re Not Far Behind « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Democrat criminal Steny Hoyer defends Democrat irresponsibility | The TIW Blog
- Democrat Steny Hoyer to America … [Darleen Click]
- Obamarama in Russia! Let’s enjoy Barack’s gaffes, mistakes, blunders and the other stupid stuff « Jim Blazsik
- Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) – If Congress people actually read the ObamaCARE bill very few would vote for it | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- It’s official. The Democratic Congress is Insane. « The Javelineer
- Judicial Watch Asks Court to Declare Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State « Goodtimepolitics
- BizzyBlog » The Arrogance of the Current Congress ….
- Steny Hoyer thinks reading bills is funny « Wellsy’s World
- The Obama Limbo! How Low Can It Go… BHO’s Approval Rating Has Dropped Another 3 Points to -8 « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- The Obama Limbo! How Low Can It Go… BHO’s Approval Rating Has Dropped Another 3 Points to -8 « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Today’s Blogmarks | New Trommetter Times
- ‘Fat-Cat City’ with Bloated, Complicated ObamaCare Bureaucracy: Check Out the Scary-Huge Organizational Chart of House Democrats’ Single-Payer Health Plan « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Michelle Malkin » The Etiquette Czar’s Rules for Patriotic Protest
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Health care
Riehl World View
» More Climate Change Fraud: Et Tu New Zealand?
Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney CaseThe Other McCain
» Alan Colmes, having fun at #1Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas SpecialMudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The Obamas
Agreed. What baffles me is the passion of their enablers in the electorate. What do they gain by propping up the Statists??
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.
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.
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, 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…
Nope, my bad. Given your context I should have read in the quote marks, Major.
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
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.
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.
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.
Waaayyyy OT and I hate to say ‘I toll ya so:”
Misscheryl Its not racism because they were blacks attacking whites.
Its racist for you to suggest that it was a hate crime.
/liberal logical mode off
Please. I would never do that. I can charge another billable hour explaining all the changes I made.
READ the bill…..you have got to be kidding?…..as if the contents of said bill mean anything…when passed there will be provisions for punishing anyone who apposes Nancy….do not bother reading…it is in there some where…and if not it can and will be added later….get real people we have a WHOLE planet to save….and you are asking your congressman to represent your little bitty district?….just who the heck do you think you are?????
But thats exactly what happened with the energy bill. This thing will completely alter the us economy in every aspect of it and 1/3rd of it was never read, or debated by most of the people voting on it.
You seem to have ALOT of trust in very dishonest people chap. These people have been proven corrupt again and again.
Wait till Obama puts lawyers out of business….
Last time I checked, legislators are not paid by the billable hour.
And I don’t know how anyone got the impression I trust Congress. I am just saying that legislators personally reading every word of the bill is unrealistic, unnecessary and unlikely to change a thing or lead to better legislation.
Because of the following
That implys a truck load of trust.
Chap: For starters, how about we just make certain the CongressCritters are NOT exempt from any condition of the law they just wrote? That could help cure a lot of ills.
Second, make the $$$ to pay for any pork included in any bill be taken from the paycheck of the person who inserted it in the law. That will cure another ill.
Read? lol, good one. I’m surprised they can tie their own shoes.
and I’d be willing to bet half of them would fail a drug test.
What about limiting any bill to 10 pages? Bills exceeding 10 pages can then be considered toxic pork.
Ask for a DNA sample and watch ‘em scatter like cockroaches on a saturday night feast.
I don’t see how.
Are these folks just incompetent? If not, isn’t this the equivalent of treason? Why isn’t it IMPEACHABLE either way? ?
As long as they have staff that reads it and provides them a summary on which to make judgement, I have no problem with this. As a matter of fact, it’s the entire reason for having advisers.
Then there’s legislators like Ron Klein. He uses Nancy Pelosi as an adviser. He follows her lead on every issue, therefore he doesn’t need staff to read the bill. Of course, that’s also the problem. Groupthink.
Those two sentences contradict each other. On the one hand, you don’t trust Congress. On the other hand, you don’t see any reason why bills should be public knowledge, or even Congressional knowledge, before being voted on.
Logical consistency has never been the lefts strong point. The bottom line for you is the end result – defending the Democrats in Congress for behavior you’d slam in Republicans, which you just did once again.
Then you’re either dim or dishonest, and we all know which it is.
If it would cause them to have less time for imposing legislation on the rest of it, then I’m for it.
on the rest of
itus,sorry.
You ‘betcha Sarah would read the bill and LEAD the fight to throw it in the trash where it belongs! GO SARAH!
Isn’t our legislature passing unread bills much akin to a person signing an unread contract?
Don’t be a tool, flenser. There are at least a few posters here on “your side” that agree with me. Wanna call John Deaux silly names too?
We need Congress to pass the
Read the Bills Act (RTBA):
http://www.downsizedc.org/page/read_the_laws
I’m not holding my breath…
Not at all what I said, but to expect intellectual honesty from you would apparently be akin to expecting all members of Congress to read a bill.
Chap I think its a little much for any congressperson to make an informed vote on a bill that had 1/3rd of it changed less than 14 hours before the vote with most of it not getting to the representives hands only a couple of hours before the vote. Maybe thats fine with a resolution to honor the pedophile Micheal Jackson, but a bill that restructures the entire US economy for decades to come deserves a little more care than that.
I think the timing of a vote is entirely different from the issue of a representative personally reading the bill. I don’t think I would have an issue with mandatory pauses in the process.
No its not because this is what is happening on a regular basis now.
90% of the representatives had no idea what they voted on. It will be the same for the healthcare bill.
Let me put it this way…if the vote is 15 hours after final form comes out of committee, most Congressmen are not going to personally read it.
If the vote is fifteen days after final form comes out of committee, guess what? Most Congressmen are not going to personally read it.
You can argue that these are both reforms that should be made, but really, one has little if anything to do with the other.
Which is why congress is disfunctional.
sonofdy – friend! As your twins grow up you will learn the value of picking your battles.
There are two issues here.
The first is the rush to get legislation passed which means that no proper vetting process has taken place of the language contained therein. It also raises suspicions as to why there is such a hurry, giving the appearance of trying to pass legislation that many would disagree with.
The second is the expectation that a legislator personally read each and every bill. This has never happened and is impractical given the time demands imposed on Congressmen. An acceptable approach would be to have staff/advisers read each bill and provide a summary. This process is not taking place when a bill goes through this quickly. It’s like a couple of people write the bill and the rest of their party accept their word that it’s all good and vote for it. This is the kind of “trust me” approach that ends up putting dictators in power.
Even if our illustruious bloated bureaucrats were to read the bills, there is nothing to indicate that there would be a viable understanding of the language contained in them. I am sure that both Chap and Rags (That just sounded wrong but oh well)would readily admit the relative ease of a skilled writer to create a legal document that was so convoluted as to be undecipherable to anyone who did not literally pick it apart piece by piece.
That being said, the reality remains that it is more than slightly disconcerting that the bills must be passed immediately even if the “immediate actions” that are required to avoid an otherwise “inevitable” disaster. (eg the need to pass the stimulus bill immediately so that the money could be circulated as quickly as possible to stave off disaster when in reality much of the money still has not been spent and that which has been spent has not been spent as planned or desired)
What would any lawyer do if 300 pages of new evidence were introduced a mere hours or even days before the trial? Would it not be prudent to request a delay so that the material could be studied in detail? Isn’t the job of the legislative branch of government, “burdened” as they are with the creation of those laws, subject to much more intense scrutiny and bearers of much more responsibility to we the people to act accordingly?
I am not sticking up for Chaps even if I do think he is honestly looking for a way to convert to Conservatism without betraying his liberal profession and ways … but … he does have a point. Just because they read them does not mean that they would (or in many instances even could) fully comprehend their meaning or their potential impact on society as a whole.
Just saying
Stop making sense John Deaux, or flesner will come back and accuse you of being either dim or dishonest.
what has me scratching my head is the idea that congressmen don’t have “much time” to read. even if it was a superfluous act to read every word, i’m still not seeing the urgency that precludes reading. and by the by, what else are they so busy doing that they don’t have time to review the bills before them? i thought this was the very core of their responsibilities?
i totally agree about the idea of having a staffer/advisor give you a thorough summation of what’s in the bill. i’m guilty as charged on a fairly regular basis of the same sort of practice myself. but from the answers from those like Reichert (of my own state, WA) i’m wondering if even THAT is taking place.
it reminds me of the day (celebrated with much fanfare and Robin’s minstrels rejoicing) when Obama signed the executive order to “close” Gitmo and he had to be corrected by his staff re: the contents of what he was signing. as they say, “Dude!”
with the kind of entrance into the presidency he made, with that level of hype around him, with all the controversy swirling around the EO, you’d think he would have read up on what he was signing, specifically with respect to what we would do with the detainees currently there.
look, i’m a nobody major (yeah, it’s an open shot so go ahead and take it), and even i know better than to sit in front of my folks and constantly have Chief correct me. if nothing else, it’s about gaining/maintaining the confidence of your people, which always, by a kind of natural entropy of trust, tends towards cynicism. signing some big leviathan of a bill into law that has huge implications for the country and then giving every impression that you haven’t read it and don’t give a damn isn’t exactly the best leadership.
someone could correct me if I’m wrong but my recollection is that Bush, for all his malapropisms, was known for being in command of the facts of whatever issue he was discussing.
again, maybe these folks had staffers/advisors give them the complete skinny on exactly what was in the bill and that’s fine. they should at least respond with that information, rather than laugh at the question as Mr. Hoyer did. it just lends more fuel to the suspicion that these folks are (and I believe they are for many other reasons) power-hungry tyrants.
Legislation this important- meaning it has a huge impact on many facets of the country- should be completely read and vetted before voting. This is not a question of whether to make the 3rd Wednesday of September “National Sneaker Day.” And our Congresscritters are not that busy, they just do not know how to prioritize. That is an indefensible position. But let’s be honest, the last thing they want is visibility of their actions or a lack of defensibility in case it fails. They suck and it’s our fault for not demanding better. I have more respect for drug dealers- and that ain’t much.
I would have to agree, but consider a lawyer such as yourself. You don’t have to read every word of every law, journal or law book written, but your client fully expects you to have a command of the relevant facts and laws.
“I don’t know” wouldn’t cut it in the courtroom, and it shouldn’t cut it in the Congress. Particularly since they only “work” about half a year. They should have time, with the aid of staff, to fully understand what they are signing, and the implications (not just political) of its passage.
I agree with you, too.
I’m extremely anal about the exact wording of resolutions, contracts, etc, but I often sign things if people that I know and trust assure me that it serves my purposes. For example, if a close, smart attorney that’s working for me drafts something.
I might sign a bill without reading it if I had staffers or fellow Senators (that I trust) give me the green light on something.
However, I really don’t think this is the issue. I think they simply don’t care about the content that much. They just care about public perception of the content. They only need to take a glance at polling data or watch the news to figure that out.
You really need to have a long conversation with purplepeep about how your attorney probably sucks and may be guilty of malpractice, if he (or she) is in fact an attorney at all. And while your at it, pick his brain on his theories regarding expert witnesses.
You got that somewhat right, Chappy. I’d posit any attorney who would tell me I don’t need to read even a deal I sign for a “12 CDs for $4.99 Music Club” is an extreme aberration, not the norm – much less the rule.
I’m surprised you’ve never heard the many tales of woe of longtime best buds who went into business saying “we don’t need no stinkeen’ contracts” and who, down the road, find themselves locked in legal mortal combat with the “that &*%!#&& SOB formerly known as ‘my best bud forever”.
So, yup – you didn’t cite who you were replying to there, but feel free to send ‘em my way for a bit of a talk.
You’re also correct in advancing my observation that any attorney who would tell anyone s/he shouldn’t read a contract before signing it would open him/herself up to a legal malpractice lawsuit.
So it would be a financial win-win for the legal profession in that it generates income for someone in that profession and lose-lose for former best friends who were the victims of extremely bad legal advice on an incredibly basic and fundamental, Contracts 101 point of law.
Thank you again for proving your ignorance.
Let me let you in on a little secret.
Clients pay me to know and understand that which they do not want to or cannot read.
They pay me to look out for their best interests when dealing with language which, frankly, it would be a waste of their time to read both in terms of comprehension and in terms of best use of their time.
Please stop speculating about what you think a lawyer should and should not do. You are worse than clueless. You are clueless and deluded into thinking you have a clue.
As I said, you’d the extreme exception, not the rule, Chappy.
This is something that anyone can very easily verify. There are countless legit law firms on the interwebs, most should have a contact page where anyone can send an email.
If anyone here stops by any such site of their own choosing and sends a quick note asking if they should sign anything without first reading it and gets a reply “Yeah, go ahead!”, I’ll stand corrected as to your advice being – how shall I term it? – “unique”. Then I’d tell the commenter to note the law firm’s name well so they run the other way if they have a legal issue with which to deal.
If you think any law firm of any quality is going to respond to your random, unsolicited, and frankly stupid email query, you are more deluded than I thought.
Again, you have zero clue as to the role of a business attorney. But keep pretending you do! Maybe next week you can grab a plastic stethoscope and play doctor with that neighbor girl!
WE ARE PAID TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AND REPRESENT ITS INTERESTS. We are reading every single little word of the contract BECAUSE THE CLIENT DOES NOT WANT TO OR CANNOT COMPETENTLY DO SO.
Again, and let me know if I am going too fast for you and I will try to dumb it down even more, this does not mean that the client does not know the essential business terms, nor does it mean that the client is not ultimately responsible for the contract’s content. What it does mean is that they have to trust their attorney to provide good counsel and look out for them. It also means that attorneys face a ton of professional liability (not that anyone cares about that, not as sexy a cause as fighting for tort reform in medicine).
It is clear you have not succeeded in life enough to have to deal with such issues, so I guess it is not entirely your fault but for the love of God please sop pretending you have any idea what you’re talking about.
That’s a challenge to anyone who would believe a real attorney would tell them not to read anything before they sign on to it, Chappy. As for law firms refusing to responding to emailed questions you’d also be the exception to that rule. This isn’t 1960 where lawyers have to wait in their offices for prospective clients.
Or, if anyone has any doubt that your take is “unique” and if they have some kind of an aquaintance with an attorney in real life they can pose the “Should I sign anything without reading it first?” question to him/her as just a conversational spitball.
Can you cite even one instance of an attorney telling his client to sign anything without reading it first? If it’s SOP, that should be a breeze.
Can you name even just one law firm that tells it’s clients not to read something before signing it? You are very fond of telling folks to “just google” as psuedo-responses. You can Google your brains out looking for a law firm which insists clients not read something before they sign it.
On the other hand, whilst you’re googling you can see if the contrary is correct – if “don’t sign anything you haven’t read first” is or is not the norm, if not the top “Commandment”.
Since googling the word will yield you over 800 million hits, to narrow it down Try the exact phrase:
“don’t sign anything without reading it first”
I note that one of the hits include “The Florida Attorney General’s Office and the Better Business Bureau” as the source for that advice. Why do you suppose the a state Atty General and the BBB would give such awful, dreafully wrong legal advice and which contradicts your personal feelings?
You’re welcome to comeback with the same ol’ name-calling in a desperate attempt to shore up the absurd (”don’t read anything, just sign it”) assertion, but the ad hominems speak much more of an agitated emotional state than it does to the topic at hand. I’m just not as willing to suspend both the legal norm and common sense to try to justify an unjustifiable political position, sorry.
I guess I do have to spell it out in even simpler terms:
Attorneys are not advising their clients not to read something before signing. Clients are coming to attorneys because they do not want (or cannot understand) something before signing.
Are you so dense as to think that any law firm, in this litigious environment, is going to provide you, in writing mind you, with anything that could conceivably be construed as legal advice, and thus exposing themselves to possible liability, without getting paid for it? Dear god, you really have no idea, do you?
And that is super good advice. What you are stubbornly ignoring (because you don’t know what you are talking about) is that people hire attorneys to act in their stead, to read what they do not want to. or what they cannot understand.
And my “name calling” is not ad hominem. They are objective, and unfortunate, descriptions of your mental acumen in this field. I am sure that you think all those episodes of Perry Mason, LA Law, Ally McBeal, or whatever law show was popular in your particular generation, has given you a unique and accurate perspective on the practice of law. It has not.
One small correction to above:
LOL, talk about “projection”, Chap.
But while I’ve given you a plethora of resources which confirm that my statement is correct (Ya don’t don’t sign something before ya read it) and is in fact the legal norm, you have failed to offer anything but your own “unique” opinion.
There must be something else you can offer other than your feelings and you surely must know how use google. Also, feel free to use any commonly used legal journals and reference sites (e.g. Nolo).
So let’s try again and see if you’re up to the challenge or if I’ve called your bluff here & you’ve folded:
Can you come up with even one resource which jives with your feelings?
Which law firms tell their clients they don’t need to read anything before they sign it?
If it were the SOP, you’d have zero problem in producing evidence from any number of sources.
But I don’t expect any law firm that would advise it’s clients to do anything other than reading things over very carefully would quite wanna make that a bragging point, so I’ve given you a tough task.
Again, while you search for even one source confirming your feeling that it’s SOP to tell clients all they need to is “sign it, not read it”, something else for your googling pleasure.
“sign a document without reading it” law.
Your evidence to the contrary, expert counselor?
As head of the Democrat Party, as well as it being his agenda and his plan etc., yes…it IS Obama’s responsibility to make sure the members of his party in both houses act ethically and responsibly on this, or amy bill they write, sponsor and/or vote on in either house prior to voting.
Just imagine if this was a Republican Administration that controlled both houses that was acting this way. The cries of foul would be deafening.
Yup, RetFireman. When they try to force through something posthaste, without any thought that it will impact at least 300 million people, allowing no time for reading, questions or (even more terrifying for the Democrats) debate by the American people, that is shameful.
A healthy dose of sunlight would be a good disinfectant.
purplepeep, I’m real sorry, but you’re a bit far out on a limb here.
I’ve signed many multiparty agreements without reading them simply because I know and trust the lawyer that drafted them. I’ve even done this when the lawyer isn’t even working for me (but working for one of the co-parties).
Keep in mind, I would NEVER do this if the lawyer was working for one of the counter-parties, if I didn’t think the lawyer was smart, or if I knew that the lawyer was prone to make mistakes.
Again, if I was a Senator, I would probably often trust my staffers to read and brief me accurately, and I would probably trust certain friendly Senators that I knew were very familiar with bills we both cared about. Additionally, I would hope that some of my fellow Senators would trust me to know when a bill was safe for them to sign.
Well then I guess we will have to trust our Federal, State and Local legislators-yes those people who pass Temporary Taxes every recession just for the emergency, the 1% income tax and the 1% Social Security.
But it never changes so I guess a large percentage of the populace agrees with the fools. But those trusting/trusted legislators do pass an awful lot of bills that do a lot of damage. “More Government-Less Freedom“- new beer commercial this Super Bowl season.
Hiya Corkie -
I’d say you are kind, thoughtful, but much too trusting soul, Corkie. Attys are not omniscient, nor infallible and they aren’t Mother Teresa, sacrificing themselves just to make people happy.
The questions here are: Did any lawyer ever tell you that you don’t need to read – or shouldn’t read – what you were signing unto? Have you ever known one who disagrees with the “read it before you sign it” maxim or had issues with it?
A good attorney appreciates a client that not only reads what’s put in from of them, but one who also asks questions.
“Blind” trust in God is fine, but not in humans – especially when it comes to legal matters that can likely come back to bite ya in the backside down the road. You’d be surprised how many people spend time and money trying to get out of a contract that they didn’t read. That time and money is invariably more costly than the original unread contract benefited. Saying they didn’t read the contract is a very difficult way to try to correct things legally. It’s just a bad excuse, so they’d be probably be stuck with the contract.
On the other hand, if the person has proof that the attorney(s) involved told them they didn’t need to or should not read the contract, they have a much, much better case. The attorney would have be facing ethical, civil, and possibly criminal lawsuits/charges for such an act.
But at any rate, Corkie, I’ve never heard any attorney advise to the contrary of that maxim and I’ve never heard of anyone who has ever known any attorney – at least honest any atty – to give such advice.
sigh….
You are wrong and or totally missing the point. I don’t know how more plainly I can say it.
Attorneys don’t advise clients not to read contracts. I have zero problem with a client reading every single word of a contract. That is not the issue, and for you to continue to say it is is either disingenuous or decietful. The issue is clients come to us when they don’t want to read them.
One of the smartest posters here, corkie, has told you you are wrong (hmmmm….that sounds familiar) yet you continue to dig in and make an ass of yourself (also, familiar).
Don’t go way mad, purple. Just go away.
Setting aside your complete dependence on emotional argumentum ad hominem, Chappy, you’ve tapped danced all over the place on the question at hand:
Should a person read something before they sign it?
The fact that you are at a loss to answer that question is telling.
Au contraire – the stupidity of people not reading what they sign is not only the topic we’re all commenting about, but it’s also – oddly enough – the topic of Michelle’s post.
As far as I know you’re the only person here arguing that they shouldn’t read what they sign, no matter if it ruins a nation and countless lives – which is why you can’t answer the question;
If you agree with common sense and legal maxim that people are best served if they read what they sign, it puts you in quite the pickle of logical inconsistency and cognitive dissonance.
What everyone, multiple times, has tried to tell you is that everyone is more than welcome to do so. The CEO of a company, however, is not going to waste (and yes it would be a waste) their valuable time reading every word of sets of documents that can range into the hundreds or even thousands of pages. Hell, try getting them to read a 15 page service contract. That is why they hire attorneys.
Perhaps in your world, where the most complex and lengthy contract you have to deal with is the “Have It Your Way” promise at Burger King, people read every single word of what is put in front of them. The big boys, however, do not. I would never discourage them if they wanted to, but 99% of the time they are hiring me because they are not going to read all of it. I don’t know how more plainly I can say it, but feel free to keep digging in your heels and making a fool of yourself.
I still maintain the “ad hominem” is objective analysis of your cognitive function, but in any case, I have told you time and time again what people do in the real world. You have offered nothing but speculation and platitudes.
This shows you how much you have been paying attention to the comments here. Corkie smacked you around too.
I suspect now you will revert to tactic #22 for you: lying about a quote of mine. That was your M.O. on the other thread after all.
Yes, I have had a lawyer tell me that I didn’t need to read – or shouldn’t read what I was signing. Once.
He actually told me that I didn’t need to read it, but you used an “or” in your question so that situation fits your criteria.
However, to your point, I’ve never had a lawyer tell me that I shouldn’t read something. I agree that 90% of lawyers would probably never make such a statement. Yet, I could easily see 10% saying, “You shouldn’t waste your time reading it” to close, longstanding clients.
I’m actually NOT very trusting, but I think I employ effective risk management in expending resources. My time is a resource, and it doesn’t make sense to expend my time reading something drafted (or reviewed) by someone I trust IF the downside isn’t significant. In other words, the probability of being harmed and extent of such harm need to be considered.
I have to trust people all day every day. There’s simply not enough time to trust nobody. (We all except a certain level of risk in our lives – even you.) Those with good track records command more of my trust, those with poor track records command very little trust. Nobody commands “[b]lind” trust. I hope you understand the difference.
BTW, haven’t you ever delegated any authority?
You are clearly implying that some legal matters can’t come back to bite ya in the backside. I agree. Don’t you think it makes sense to expend less time on these type of legal matters?
I didn’t smack purplepeep around. I was nice.
purplepeep is one of the best names on here.
Chappy, chappy – after wading through the latest ad hominem swamps of emotion you left, I see you were still unable to answer the question.
Let’s give it another try and see if you can tackle it:
Should a person read something before they sign it?
Try “Yes, a person should read something before they sign it” or “No, they shouldn’t read something before they sign it”. Now, that’s as plain as you can get.
Michelle’s weighed on what she thinks of the “don’t read” M.O. and I believe the consensus among folks here is pretty much “they better damn read what they’re signing – especially since they work for me and I’ll be picking up the tab!”. You are, of course, welcome to dissent.
I’ll answer that.
The answer is….sometimes.
It depends what they are signing!
Not to worry, Corkie ,I had a big enough family with lots of bros to fight with so that even if you had, I’m used to being smacked in the rough and tumble
Don’t mind Chappy, he has a tendency to try to enlist other commenters in his causes. I don’t mean that as a slam on him, but just as an objective observation. As I mentioned to him before, back in “very old days” of the internet it was called “playing to the board”.
purplepeep,
Sorry, I see you are instead employing tactic #12, trying to set up some sort of inane “gotcha” yes or no question to an answer which is far too complex for you to understand. Again, just like you did in the last thread. Predictable. Sad, but predictable.
There are two separate issues here, which you are confusing and convoluting together.
1. Should a person read something before they sign it? The answer is, as corkie says, sometimes. Other times it is not worth their time or effort. And if you tell me that in real life you read every contract before signing, or whatever constitutes consent to terms of service, I’ll go right ahead and call you a liar. Do you read the entire inside jacket of your plane ticket before boarding? Do you go to the airline’s website and scour their terms of service? No, you don’t because it would be an incredible waste of your time. Just like having to explain something so facile to you is a waste of mine.
The second issue is whether or not I would ever actively advise someone not to read something. The answer is no, but that is the wrong question. I am also not going to proactively tell them they should because, as I have explained time and time and time again, I am being paid to read it for them.
And corkie, I know you are being nice personally to him. I lost all patience for his bull in a previous thread, so I am in no mood to be charitable. But you do dismiss his silly argument quite well.
I’d say you should always read before you sign, Corkie, even if it’s the tab for dinner. Moreso important to do so when it’s something that involves the future, I’d mentioned things like “CD Clubs” and “Book Of The Month” type deals where you’ll get a sweet deal on a bunch of books/cds but later on are stuck with lousy choices, higher prices and shipping charges.
I don’t know what “being deluded into thinking corkie agrees with your argument (or that NJ agreed with your argument on the other thread)” was called in the old days of the internet, but from now on I am just going to refer to it a “purplepeeping.
This is because you live in a delusional fantasy world. Or are lying for the sake of being contrary. Or are lying because you somehow think this stupid tangent bolsters your argument about representatives and legislation.
I noted it would be an impossible question for you to answer because of of the illogical inconsistency and cognitive dissonance you would naturally experience. So in that sense I can understand you feel it is a gotcha question, Chap.
Others have no problem with it because they are not willing to apply a lesser standard on a Congressperson than they would on someone who buys a big-screen hidef TV on revolving credit. You are. And I believe that’s part of the problem; the constant lowering of the bar. The lower the bar gets, the less accountability is demanded, the less responsibility is taken – it’s a downward spiral.
That’s like saying, “you should always read everything before you sign it – for example, your will.”
Of course you should read your will before you sign it. Of course you should read contracts which most certainly contain recurring costs (your mobile phone contract is a PERFECT example of this).
Do me a favor, instead of providing me with “moreso important” (i.e. obvious) examples of what should be read, please provide me examples of documents which are LESSO important.
In other words, please tell me again why it’s so important for me to read unimportant documents before signing them?
I’m not all that sure you’d really want to keep trying to enlist Corkie (or anyone) to jump in and help you out here, Chappy.
Not just because I expect folks are way too bright for that, but it also kinda smells of desperation. I’m not insulting, it’s just sayin’, word to the wise stuff.
if I had a staff of competent attorneys and advisers with me as I walked into Best Buy to buy that high def TV, ones who could better understand and explain the contract to me, and who I am paying to have my best interests in mind, I would have zero issue not personally reading that contract.
That is the point you continue to ignore. Not reading the contract personally does not equal ignorance of it, or responsibility for it.
I’ll chose to get my debating advise from someone who knows how to debate, thank you.
What would cite as example(s) as qualifying for “unimportant” status, Corkie? We might agree or disagree, but I’d be interested in getting a basic idea of some kind of a reference point.
Let me be blunt.
We should be focused on the content of these bills. We shouldn’t waste our time worrying about whether or not everyone in Congress reads every bill.
The reading pledge stunt (yes, it was a stunt) was being proposed in an attempt to control the content of the bill. It wasn’t be proposed to actually assure that the bills were read.
Personally, I want to focus on convincing 60 Democrat Senators (and many RINO Senators) not to sign liberal bills. I don’t give a crap if they read them or not.
I definitely think Hoyer was politically stupid to make his joke (or was it an admission). But ya gotta credit the guy for being honest.
You tell me. You gave me two “moreso important” examples. Please give me two lessso important examples.
Wow! Well said. You’ve outdone me!
purplepeep, does that make sense?
If your spouse was a great consumer product finance attorney would you trust them to review the HDTV contract for you?
I believe the Let Freedom Ring project is an ongoing open-ended one, Corkie, so it may be a “stunt” but it’s not one-day, one-shot type of thing.
And, I’d say it is effective in that it is designed to control legislative content, one way to do that would certainly be to force Congress to read everyhting it passes. While that may not be realistic as a goal, it highlights that what’s in the bills is important. If Congress ain’t reading ‘em, somebody will and give ‘em holyheck over this & that.
Highlighting what’s actually in these bills work – the Dems have already backed off cap-n-tax. If nobody knew what was in it and they give it an Orwellian “Happy Days Are Here Again, America Bill” title, all the good ol boys(and gals) would line up to sign on.
I think what you’re talking about – what motivates you – and what the pledge does are complimentary, both are approaches to the same end. Same with the Tea Party movement. Putting pressure on using different methods is good “strategery”. Everybody does what they can in the area they are best.
It does if shopping for TVs at Best Buy were what Congress does, Corkie.
Actually, I wish it were their job since they probably couldn’t mess up the nation and shaft 300 million people.
Even then, I’d be watch ‘em closely. They’d bring back everything in the store and send my grandchildren the bill! Money is an abstract concept to them.
No no. Don’t backpedal now. Every document. Every situation. Every time. That is your standard.
At least have the courage of your convictions.
Well, first off, this week my work schedule was such that this is my bedtime, Corkie! So I’m ready to hit the hay and will really have to pick this up later.
But – I see – you’re stressing my use of “moreso”. I didn’t have any “lesso” in mind there – to me it’s a given that I’m gonna look anything over carefully before jumping aboard.
My use there was a delineation of temporal consideration; to indicate that there are times when someone can get shafted on the spot if the person leaps before looking. That’s bad enough, but to carelessly log on into something that will shaft a person with regularity in the future is an even worse situation. It’s a “moreso” of occurance.
So it’s not of “degree” but of potential of prolonging suffering.
Hope that clears it up, cuz I’m off to snooze! Have a good night – errr…Good day, that is.
Well, their website doesn’t indicate anything about mandatory bill readings.
That might be. I never opposed the pledge stunt. I oppose focusing on it.
“It does if shopping for TVs at Best Buy were what Congress does.”
The problem is that Congress shopping at Best Buy for HDTVs only exists in your fantasies, Chap!
I don’t mind if you want to share a fantasy scenario, but at least include Playboy Bunnies next time. Maybe something like “Hef took a dozen very healthy-looking Playmates to Sam’s Club, so why don’t we build a harem for Congress to make their naughty peccadillos even easier?”
Good day!
It does on at least on Obamacare, Corkie. On the right hand side of the main page near the top you should see the “Pledge To Read” notice/link which will take you to that section. Bye for now.
Look over? I remember you stating that everything should be read.
Such consideration wasn’t necessary. Everyone already agrees that many things should be read before being signed.
We were debating whether or not everything must be read before being signed.
You are now simply making crap up and you know it (I knew you’d get around to it eventually). You think (or at least you are arguing here) everyone should personally read every document put in front of them. That is your argument, your standard. From the most complex piece of legislation all the way down to pulling into a parking garage, and everything in between. Remember those nice cites you linked to that purported to support your contention? “Don’t sign anything without reading it first?” I guess you meant “anything” to mean “anything until I am called out on my stupid, unrealistic standard. Then I will make specific exceptions in a vain attempt to cling to my last shreds of credibility in this argument.”