Gee that sounds nifty. I’d hope for something a bit more realistic.
Seriously, Clothahump, did you do even so much as a cursory Googling of any of this stuff before posting it here under the guise of it being “reasonable”? If not, what has Glenn Beck ever done to earn such credibility with you?
Why won’t Dopers fact-check glurge before they post it?
both. As I see the former as a great benefit in achieving the latter. Not that that should be the only step taken.
And if they don’t understand something, they should not vote on it until they do. They are their to craft our laws. THAT is their job.
They do understand it. And their offices pour over every word. Having every congress critter read every bill is an exercise in stupidity.
Read a bill, do it. Without the proper research and context they’re arcane. The job of the congress critter is to understand what the bill is doing in detail, not pour line over line through each nub of technical language. You are simply being fished in by moronic Republican talking point.
Who saw the Daily Show in which Jon challenged the lady credited with the death panel bs. She brought half of the bill with her. When Jon asked her to shw him the part she was referring to she had a hard time finding it. Then Jon read it out loud to show she was full of crap and her conclusions and interpretation of the language was in his words “hyperbolic and dangerous” That was his polite way of noting she was a liar more interested in a political victory than actual health care reform. I haven’t watched the whole clip in the Daily Show site but I’m sure it’s worth the time.
After seeing it my question was “Why does it take a comic on a fake news show to to that kind of thing?”
I would like to add quickly that I typed the wrong *pore *in my previous comment. I am ashamed. 
Let’s take the question a step further: If a congressman can accurately say that they fully understand the content and effect of a bill without reading every word on every line (for example, by reading a carefully prepared summary), is there any reasoned argument to force them to actually read the bill?
Further, that summary might have way more useful information in it than the bill. It will certainly include the text of important, or relevant parts of the bill. It might tell you how a law would interact with other laws. It might have statistical predictions or OMB estimates on the real-world effect of a bill. It might have a legal opinion by an actual constitutional scholar as to whether the bill is valid. It might have a summary of what constituents have to say about the bill.
For myself, I would much rather have a congressman read the carefully prepared summary. I don’t want my congressman to waste time reading every line of a 2,000 page bill if he can understand fully what it means by listening to experts who might, in the aggregate, spend months of time studying the bill. I want my congressman to THINK about the bill, and what it does. That’s the hard part. I trust my congressman to do that responsibly, whether that involves reading the text or listening to experts.
It takes a long time to read a big bill, it takes longer to do the homework about it, and I for one would rather my congressman spend that time thinking about a bill and deciding if it does something that is good for the nation and is what his constituents need. Yelling “read the bill” just ignores the other, much more important things a congressman should do.
I watched that. And youv’e got it wrong. Now I like Stewart, but he can make anyone look a little goofy. Especially with his audience salivating. At best (from his standpoint), they disagreed over what the words actually meant. Me? I’m going to go with the person with the PhD in Constitutional Law who has been reading bills for like 20 years rather than Stewart’s take on what it says. As with most legal documents, it can be a little difficult to divine the intent of the words on the page.
By the way, I do find it hilarious that you’ve come to such a firm conclusion while admitting you haven’t even watched the whole “clip”, of which there is more than one.
You know, you, revert to deeming things/people as stupid, moronic, etc., more than any other poster I can think of. I know you’re under some grand illusion that you have some great intellect, but really, why do you think you do it more than anyone else/ I have my theory. Let’s hear yours.
I see people have started calling you on this. Maybe you’ll begin to change now that you’re aware of it. We’ll see.
See above. :rolleyes:
Here it is. You try. It was Page 426, right? Tell us who got closer to reality on “what the words actually meant”.
Let’s get it right. Her PhD is in constitutional HISTORY. Not in constitutional law. The training of a historian is very different to the training of a lawyer–and only one is trained specifically to interpret what laws and bills mean. It doesn’t mean the other can’t understand what bills mean, just that the one who’s trained as an expert in determining how to interpret and understand legal documents, to best explain what laws mean, is the constitutional LAWYER.
And of course, a lawyer would never ever lie. Not even on a Comedy Central show.
As far as I can tell, she’s not a lawyer.
It seems McCaughey’s concern comes from a passage in the bill that discusses doctor reimbursement depending on how well they adhere to living wills, or directives given by the patient regarding “life-sustaining treatment”. This is where she gets the idea that the government wants to kill old people.
Now, I’m no fancy big-city lawyuh, but I just can’t get “killing patients” out of “adhering to life-sustaining treatments”. It wasn’t made clear where she was getting it.
The trouble, magellan, is that the idea is stupid. Having congress people read bills top to bottom when they aren’t the ones writing it on committee is a stupid idea. It would, as many stupid ideas do, have negative ramifications.
Can you understand that?
I notice that you’re deflecting the issue, maybe you should take a moment and remember what it is we’re talking about. There’s a nice pit for you if you want to talk about me.
Well it’s still a stupid idea, see the last few posts. Instead of arguing against the posts that show the idea is stupid you throw a rolleyes. It seems that an intelligent person like you would only support such an idea because of blind, unthinking ideology. If not, why do you support it?
I’ll have to watch those videos again, and I don’t have that chunk of time now. By I remember watching it and thought that he was playing fast with the facts. I thought that, at the very least, her take was a reasonable one, and that his was, as well. But his characterization of her interpretation managed to radicalize her and shut down discussion.
How about YOU tell us what YOU think it says, then?
Knock yourself out, tough guy. Again.
You seem to not understand that your opinion of my intellect, or any other of the posters you’ve opined on, carries about as much weight as Der Trihs writing an essay about the glory and honor of America’s military.
You seem to not understand the issue we’re talking about. Is requiring congresspeople to read every word of every bill stupid or not? I think it is, because as mentioned above, they get very clear digests of the bill’s meaning and elements. Requiring someone not on the committee to read the technical language is both a waste of time and a chance for people to make stupid mistakes, like Betsy McCoughey. You think it isn’t because…
I’m still waiting for that part.
I stand corrected. Thank you. But the larger point is that reading bills is what she does. And Constitutional History is quite relevant, I would think. It’s not like her PhD is in Art History, Psychology, or something else unrelated.