i dunno, these dildoes in congress draft multi-thousand page bills full of bullshit.. i'd think you'd need an army of lawyers to dissect that shit because that's what these snakes use to write them. what we really neet are rules about the lengths and breadth of these documents and just how many individual points a single bill can have. the process is just fucked.
VOTE NO on any bill that is unreadable. Didnt anyone learn when Piglosi said you have to vote on it to know whats in it? How did that work out for you? Why continue to fall in that trap. Just vote NO, simple common sense.
Here's the thing: The way most bills are written, "reading the bill" doesn't necessarily tell you what it does. Often it's a lot of "in section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, delete phrase X and insert sentence Y." And if you look up section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, you probably still have to look up a bunch of other statutory definitions, regulations, and even court rulings to figure out what the practical effect of the new language is. Reading a summary from a staffer who knows the particular area of law really well is usually going to be a lot more informative than "reading the bill." As long as the staffer knows their stuff, the summary will tell you in a minute what it would take an hour to figure out if you had to sit there and do all the cross-referencing yourself. So I don't necessarily blame them for doing that.
I never trusted the guy but it should be pointed out that the issue is not within one man being unable to read 2k~ pages in a matter of two days, but rather in the idea that that is what is asked of people in the first place, which should be against the rules. And if a congressman has not read a bill personally, he or she MUST abstain from voting, in my humble opinion. Otherwise, it should be seen as lobbying by the very same assistants that are tasked in reading this in the first place. They're both really the same thing if you think about it.
i dunno, these dildoes in congress draft multi-thousand page bills full of bullshit.. i'd think you'd need an army of lawyers to dissect that shit because that's what these snakes use to write them. what we really neet are rules about the lengths and breadth of these documents and just how many individual points a single bill can have. the process is just fucked.
True, true. They probably make them long on purpose.
Don't leave out Stefanik, McCarthy and Nunes. Fuckin' rino's make me homicidal ...in a Christian way of course.
VOTE NO on any bill that is unreadable. Didnt anyone learn when Piglosi said you have to vote on it to know whats in it? How did that work out for you? Why continue to fall in that trap. Just vote NO, simple common sense.
this is like the biggest Duh ever!
but then, Downsize DC has been a voice crying in the wilderness on this issue for a long time:
https://downsizedc.org/blog/read-bills-new-progress/
Here's the thing: The way most bills are written, "reading the bill" doesn't necessarily tell you what it does. Often it's a lot of "in section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, delete phrase X and insert sentence Y." And if you look up section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, you probably still have to look up a bunch of other statutory definitions, regulations, and even court rulings to figure out what the practical effect of the new language is. Reading a summary from a staffer who knows the particular area of law really well is usually going to be a lot more informative than "reading the bill." As long as the staffer knows their stuff, the summary will tell you in a minute what it would take an hour to figure out if you had to sit there and do all the cross-referencing yourself. So I don't necessarily blame them for doing that.
Yeah good point well made. If I can jolt them into staying frosty with an attack meme, I hope they will understand the underlying motive...
His email system wont even let you write him fuck you letters unless you lie about your address and say that you live in his district.
I never trusted the guy but it should be pointed out that the issue is not within one man being unable to read 2k~ pages in a matter of two days, but rather in the idea that that is what is asked of people in the first place, which should be against the rules. And if a congressman has not read a bill personally, he or she MUST abstain from voting, in my humble opinion. Otherwise, it should be seen as lobbying by the very same assistants that are tasked in reading this in the first place. They're both really the same thing if you think about it.