What is Your Top Issue?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:18 am

Ahso!;1381336 wrote: You'd read every bill? :yh_eyerol No, of course not. How is that even relevant? Lemme answer for you. It's not.

But it is relevant that the people who vote on a bill know what's in it.

Ahso!;1381336 wrote: We had a discussion on the Pelosi speech a while back and I was amazed how confused a couple of members here were on it, as you also appear to be. If reading transcripts of relatively short speeches are too much of a chore, how could I or anyone else believe people who complain about representatives reading bills thousands of pages long would fare any better?
You completely miss the point. The bills are too damn long! They should be broken up into digestible pieces that are voted on separately so that we don't end up with (to understate) unpleasant surprises.

Ahso!;1381336 wrote: To be fair:

Transcript of interview on Conyers' remarks > Just Read It Transcript - On The MediaFrom your link:BROOKE GLADSTONE: In your piece, you said that if they'd wanted to read the bill, they would have had [LAUGHS] to have read 208 pages an hour every hour for 16 hours.

KEN SILVERSTEIN: Exactly.

[LAUGHTER] And, you know, that was if they happened to be cruising the House website where it was posted at 12:15 a.m. and they'd stayed up all night because of this page-turner that they just couldn't put down. I mean, this happens all the time.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: As a citizen, one would think that what we could do to help is to read the bill, or a bill, if we could get a hold of one. But they're largely unreadable. Then they shouldn't be passed! If I were a congressman I could never in good conscience vote for a bill I didn't understand. This excerpt and the entire interview you linked puts on full display the contempt I was describing.

Ahso!;1381336 wrote: Transcript of Nancy Pelosi's short speech on passing the health care bill > Coalition To Protect Patients' Rights Lies About Health Care Law, Pushes For IPAB Repeal | Political CorrectionDid you read this? The vid I posted was in perfect context. That patronizing pap turned my stomach. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." WTF?? And if we don't like what we find, what then? It's already law! That's too late to be "finding out."

I can't believe you give such people a pass.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:29 am

Accountable;1381374 wrote: Did you read this? The vid I posted was in perfect context. That patronizing pap turned my stomach. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." WTF?? And if we don't like what we find, what then? It's already law! That's too late to be "finding out."

I can't believe you give such people a pass.The bill was posted online, in fact i recall LarsMac offering to examine the thing with whoever was interested. To my memory he didn't get any takers. Pelosi was referring to people who choose to get their information strictly from the media; she was saying there was mass misinformation and demagoguery circulating and the only way to understand it (for those people) passage was the only remedy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:39 am

Ahso!;1381380 wrote: The bill was posted online, in fact i recall LarsMac offering to examine the thing with whoever was interested. To my memory he didn't get any takers. Because it was hundreds of bills heaped into one.

Ahso!;1381380 wrote: Pelosi was referring to people who choose to get their information strictly from the media; she was saying there was mass misinformation and demagoguery circulating and the only way to understand it (for those people) passage was the only remedy.
She's talking hogwash and I can't believe you perpetuate it. The only remedy?? Here's a remedy: break the bill into separate bills so that each one can be examined and passed or defeated on its merits.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:50 am

Accountable;1381402 wrote: Because it was hundreds of bills heaped into one.

She's talking hogwash and I can't believe you perpetuate it. The only remedy?? Here's a remedy: break the bill into separate bills so that each one can be examined and passed or defeated on its merits.People become so conditioned to what appears normal that they can forget there are alternatives or the system is structured to prevent change.

What makes you think it's any different at the state level?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:02 pm

Accountable;1381226 wrote: Larger. No doubt about it.

Thanks.

I spent most of last evening wading my way through all of the configurable parameters behind the Garden looking how to change the subscriber only options and failing to find any way to do it.

The next point of attack will be to dig through the code but that might take rather longer.

I've not forgotten, patience please

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:44 pm

Bryn Mawr;1381436 wrote: I spent most of last evening wading my way through all of the configurable parameters behind the Garden looking how to change the subscriber only options and failing to find any way to do it.

The next point of attack will be to dig through the code but that might take rather longer.

I've not forgotten, patience please

Finally!

It turns out that my logon only has partial Admin rights and I couldn't see the options until I logged in under another Admin - the cheek of it!

I've updated the Polls, Polls and more polls forum to allow all members to start a poll there.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:46 pm

Ahso!;1381403 wrote: People become so conditioned to what appears normal that they can forget there are alternatives or the system is structured to prevent change.

What makes you think it's any different at the state level?
One thing that makes it different is that it follows the Rule of Law established by the Constitution.

Do I understand you right that you agree they should have broken the gargantuan bill into manageable pieces?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:46 pm

Bryn Mawr;1381447 wrote: Finally!

It turns out that my logon only has partial Admin rights and I couldn't see the options until I logged in under another Admin - the cheek of it!

I've updated the Polls, Polls and more polls forum to allow all members to start a poll there.
Thanks, Bryn!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:43 am

Accountable;1381461 wrote: One thing that makes it different is that it follows the Rule of Law established by the Constitution.

Do I understand you right that you agree they should have broken the gargantuan bill into manageable pieces?Absolutely, break them down.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:25 am

Ahso!;1381500 wrote: Absolutely, break them down.

Whilst there are cases where a government will wish to bring in a package of measures to tackle a single issue and those measures are interdependent on one another to the extent that it make no sense to vote them in separately it strikes me that much of the legislation you're seeing tries to cover several independent issues under a single vote and that just has to be wrong.

One issue, one bill, one vote - that way no one is forced to vote a measure in that they disagree with in order to get something that they really want passed.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:43 am

We hear of that happening constantly over here. There appears to be a very loose criteria for doing this in the area of association to the main bill being voted on. Our system is rife with bad behavior and scheming activity.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:47 pm

Ahso!;1381500 wrote: Absolutely, break them down.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:49 pm

Ahso!;1381541 wrote: [QUOTE=Bryn Mawr;1381535]Whilst there are cases where a government will wish to bring in a package of measures to tackle a single issue and those measures are interdependent on one another to the extent that it make no sense to vote them in separately it strikes me that much of the legislation you're seeing tries to cover several independent issues under a single vote and that just has to be wrong.

One issue, one bill, one vote - that way no one is forced to vote a measure in that they disagree with in order to get something that they really want passed.We hear of that happening constantly over here. There appears to be a very loose criteria for doing this in the area of association to the main bill being voted on. Our system is rife with bad behavior and scheming activity.
Yup. I swear they do it on purpose, so that you're damned if you do & damned if you don't.