You guys argued that three page bills are silly. I just pointed out the evils of the alternative.
A 1,600 page bill subdivided in three-page bills would end up being 533 three-page bills – which I am sure is what would happen if a three page limit was enforced.
No, you didn’t.
Because insurance companies would reject anyone with any preexisting conditions, and they end up draining Medicare. Privatize the profits, socialize the risk; it is what conservatives have been pushing for decades.
Actually, it would have to be “In accordance with instructions and conditions found in document XYZ12345” or some such nonsense, because you cannot lay out detailed laws, treaties and regulations in three pages.
Right. Judging a bill by its length is a poor solution that’s intended to appeal to the terminally stupid. An incomplete, unclear three-page bill is not inherently better than a long, hard-to-understand bill.
I think you guys are reading what he said a bit too literally.
Take, for example, Cain’s support for the Fair Tax. Compared to the current tax code and IRS regulations, The Fair Tax Act is roughly 1/5th the physical size. Is it 3 pages long? No, but Cain’s praised it’s simplicity compared to the current system.
Did any of you actually take the time to view the video where he made the comment? If not, do so. If you still consider his comment as humorless after viewing it in the context it actually occurred in, well, then I’ll entertain your nitpicks.
It’s easy to read what he said literally and spin it to fit your argument. Anyone with half a brain that saw the speech knows it was an obvious joke, however. The context is clear as day.
In before the liberal s**t storm.
You know damned well why he didn’t do that. Because despite claiming to prefer simple bills, the Republicans would have filibustered something so “socialist” (translation: “efficient”).
Because if the bill is shorter it must be better.
Here’s an even shorter one:
“All income, from any source, above the national median for the prior year, is taxed at 35%”.
Wow, that’s short… I must be a genius.
The parallels drawn were to clarity rather than quality in reference to pending or existing legislation.
I can see how such a vague statement would be misinterpreted, what with the fact that it included a specific number, his reasoning [snort] and a counterexample. But isn’t kind of ironic that Cain was arguing in favor of clear legislation and somehow accidentally made it sound like his obvious metaphor was a specific proposal? I think he actually had to disavow the three-page limit a few days later.
Haha, too good. Spin more. So long SD.
I looked around for longer portions of that particular speech, but I didn’t see any. It does seem clear he meant that comment to be taken literally. That he later retracted the comment and said it was a metaphor that nobody understood is very standard spin.
I hardly think that’s clear. It is one reasonable interpretation, but it kinda depends on your already believing Herman Cain to be a profound ignoramus. OTOH, if we take it as given that a 3-page limit to the length of bills before Congress would be preposterous, and we look at Cain’s breaking into a huge grin as he says “three pages,” another reasonable interpretation would be that he was using hyperbole.
And even if we do think that Herman Cain is a profound ignoramus, that doesn’t exactly make the latter option less likely than the former.
Hm… OK, so let’s be generous and say “3 pages” was hyperbole.
How do we wave away this one:
Well that’s just fucking vile, of course.
Or that he believed he was speaking to an audience of profound ignoramuses. I wasn’t Cain a fan before this particular comment because public, but I didn’t believe him to be a profound ignoramus until I heard the above. Like I said, I’m open to changing my opinion of that comment if somebody can provide more context. (In which case I’d hang the “profound ignoramus” comment on the comment Jas09 quoted.)
If only we could assume that politicians would never deliberately say something preposterous.
Oh, see, I was solidly in the “profound ignoramus” camp after his Constitution/DoI quote:
The guy is unbelievably ignorant. A couple weeks ago he was holding forth on Middle Eastern policy, and the host asked him about the Right of Return. Cain had no idea what he was talking about.
Another damn “Gotcha!” question. And from a Fox News host, no less.