?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Thoughts Online Magazine
Collected Articles on Culture & Politics
"I'm not going to read the bill." 
2nd-Oct-2009 02:38 pm
Inspiration
That's what he said. and he included enough to mean it.

But that doesn't mean that we don't have to go along with it, and be responsible to the courts if we don't.

And that, right there: passing a health plan that doesn't apply to him (he has a Congressional one, rich with perks) that does apply to other people, that he admits he's not even going to read, is the reason he needs to be defeated by ANYONE ELSE. I'm going to make a contribution to his opponent at the next election no matter who it is.
Comments 
2nd-Oct-2009 10:00 pm (UTC)
If the bill is incomprehensible to men trained as lawyers, that's a clue that it shouldn't be signed into law.
2nd-Oct-2009 11:25 pm (UTC)
I don't think it's incomprehensible. Nor do I think this guy's a moron.

I think he's just trying to reinforce the public perpection that legislation is not understandable to laymen, only to legislators, and that we should trust him and his ilk to know what's best in running the country. He is reinforcing the priestly-class role that congressmen, economists, and laywers already have in society. It makes life easier for him, because he can pull the wool over our eyes much more easily if we're already programmed to trust that a bill will do what he actually says it will do.

Incidentally, Republicans are just as guilty of this as Democrats. They are only criticizing what he's saying right now because it scores them political points with the public to do so.
3rd-Oct-2009 12:15 am (UTC)
It's quite possible, though, that it's been (deliberately) written in such a manner as to be virtually incomprehensible to anyone. The point of doing so would be to conceal the proposed provisions from the public before the vote, and to give the Executive Branch agencies led by the various Cabinet members and "czars" more administrative leeway.

Note that what the guy was saying was that he himself couldn't comprehend it, but was going to vote for it anyway. This implies either idiocy or extreme misfeasance on his part -- if he doesn't understand a bill, his default should be to vote against it. One should not pass laws whose meaning one does not grasp.
3rd-Oct-2009 05:20 pm (UTC)

Incidentally, Republicans are just as guilty of this as Democrats. They are only criticizing what he's saying right now because it scores them political points with the public to do so.


Frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether he's a republican or democrat. He's a bad legislator, and I'm tired of them being in power. I'll contribute to WHOEVER is running against him. If I knock over the table enough times, they may start to pay attention.
4th-Oct-2009 01:39 am (UTC)
I'd support this amendment, even with the potential abuses, if I could get reports on whether my Congressman was doing his job.

Would you?
2nd-Oct-2009 11:20 pm (UTC)
I read the text of anything I sign for credits cards, now, having been screwed by them enough times.

Legislative language is not that hard to read, even for me, being a layman. Most Congressmen ARE LAWYERS, they should be able to understand legislative language! Lawyers write that stuff!

I hate this guy.
3rd-Oct-2009 12:17 am (UTC)
I think that either he's outright lying, or stupid, or that the bill was deliberately written in a confusing fashion. If there was no way to write it but in such a fashion (because it would have been even longer if written more explicitly), then this is a hint that it's trying to do something beyond the administrative competence level of human government, and hence should not be passed.
This page was loaded Nov 18th 2017, 3:36 pm GMT.