Political discourse in the Glenn Beck years

Jun 19, 2009 20:54

This is mostly between me and someone I went to high school with. Now, I burned out as many brain cells as anyone else who was a teenager in the 70's, but you can draw your own conclusions about this guy.

His FB status: How come this Administration forces legislation, and won't allow those voting to actually read the bills? Oh yes thats right, they hired a speed reader to cover the rules. Why don't they want our Congress to actually read items? Wouldn't you want to fully read something prior to signing it? Just a thought from the common sense people...

Other person #1: I don't know [Him], I kind of feel like they aren't taking things very seriously by hiring a speed reader. Can't they see how foolish that looks? Why were they all laughing and joking about it? I don't see anything funny about it at all.

Other person #2: be afraid...be VERY afraid.

Me [feeling bored enough to engage]: Which is more foolish, hiring a speed reader, or invoking an old and obscure clause in the rules to force the entire several hundred pages of a bill to be read out loud on the Senate floor just as a delaying tactic?

If you've ever read the full text of a bill, you know that all bills have a horrible signal-to-noise ratio. It might be 300 pages long, of which fewer than ten are the real meat of it, the rest being all the legalese needed to make it pass constitutional muster, be enforceable, and hold up in court. There is nothing to be gained by forcing everyone to sit through all that.

Him: Are you saying its perfectly ok with you that our Congressmen don't even read what they vote on Ed? Thats too stupid of a statement for someone like you to make.

When legislation that hasn't been properly read is rushed to pass, especially when the votes needed are already in place for a super majority, its ok with me to invoke an obscure clause. The clause was placed for exactly this reason Ed.

Why do you think its ok to pass bills and budgets and stimulus packages without first having read them in their entirety??

Thats a bit foolish Ed and honestly, I'm surprised at you.

Him [without any intervening comments; this happens more than once]: I guess theres less than 53% of Americans that have any common sense at all. Sorry for them. They will be the ones bitching when our Government takes full control of America and Americans.

Fascism is the new face of America. The sad part is many will embrace it. :(

[Someone's not been following the action in Iran, otherwise they wouldn't be so quick to kick around the word "fascism". But in the interest of sticking to the subject, I let it go. Also, 53% is Obama's latest approval rating.]

OP #2: You can't free fools from chains they revere, [Him]. (Voltaire)

Him: Well said [OP #2]. I like you. :)

OP #2: Thank you. I like you, too, [Him].

Him: *searches for number written in post earlier*

Me: My point is that senators and representatives are responsible for reading pending legislation on their own time prior to voting.

While portraying our elected representatives as idiots is a tradition that goes back centuries, the truth is that they are not actually illiterate. Therefore, they do not need pending legislation read to them on the House or Senate floor. That is why the reading of a bill on the Senate floor is so rare that it makes national news.

BTW, according to the House of Representatives' web site, there have been 2899 bills introduced so far in this session (and remember, those are just the ones that made it through committee). If every single one of those had to be read out loud on the House floor, then doctors would start prescribing getting elected to Congress as a cure for insomnia.

Other Person #3: NOBODY had enough time to read the porkulous bill that was rammed down everyone's throat. These people are voting on things they have not read, filled with earmarks and God knows what else. There could be a clause stuffed into those thousands of pages that nobody bothers to freaking read before signing it into law that abolishes the Constitution, eliminates elections or declares 0bama "President for life" and you wouldn't know it until it was FAR too late!

[Was that a black helicopter I just saw passing overhead?]

Me: You could say the same thing about the other 2898 bills that went through the House this session as well. What would you do about that? (Personally, I like the idea of the line-item veto.)

Him: Ed.
Lets try a different approach.
Lets say you are purchasing a new car. You discuss terms with the salesperson and agree verbally to add options and upgrades and set the APR . You come to an agreement.
Now it comes time to sign the contract.
Are you telling me that you need not bother reading this contract prior to signing it?

Really Ed? REALLY?

Please tell me you are smarter than that.

Why would you think that our Congress should follow that logic?

Really Ed, I'm surprised that you are trying to defend this idioacy. Theres too much at stake and the decisions made today are critical to the future safety and health of our entire Nation.

I'm truly at a loss for words. You CAN'T really think its ok to pass laws, legislation and spending bills without first having read them. Can you???

[OP #3].... well said, you are one of my favorites, you always have been too. I always read your words with a smile on my face. Except that one time. hehe

So nice to see you kitty :)

Me: Please reread what I wrote. I never said that bills should be voted on without being read. I'm saying that senators and representatives can and should read the bills themselves beforehand, and that it's not necessary to read them out loud in their entirety on the House or Senate floor. I read things aloud to my four-year-old daughter, not to my congressman.

Your car purchase analogy makes my point for me. When was the last time a car purchase contract was read *to* you?

Your legal right to enter into private contracts comes with the responsibility of familiarizing yourself with the contents of those contracts prior to signing them. It is nobody else's job to tell you what's in a contract you sign, unless you're somehow incapable of reading it yourself, in which case you should hire an attorney.

Him: I guess theres no explaing the obvious to you Ed. You can't grasp the seriousness of the actions or inactions of our elected representatives.

My point is.... that our officials should, no, MUST be given time to read the legislation before them. To rush the vote, not allowing time to read it fully, is pure nonsense.

Its sad that you aren't able to grasp the concept.

Its nice to see you again though Ed. :)

[At this point it's obvious I'm not going to get through to him. It's become sport.]

Me: OK, so it sounds like you're talking about some *other* problem, the only solution to which you believe to be that all bills placed before the House must be read out loud in their entirety, because to do otherwise would deprive representatives of sufficient time to read them themselves. If I'm on the right track here, please elaborate, and a couple specific examples would be helpful.

Him: I don't know where you got that Ed, I find it insulting to me that ANY bill had to be read aloud. My point, that was lost on you somehow, was that this Administration and our officials should do the work we elected them to do. They are supposed to be professional and need to be held accountable when they disregard their duties.

I have no idea where you are coming from, and to be honest, you don't make sense.

I'll put it as simple as I can so you'll not misunderstand me again...

If you are responsible for enacting legislation, you should read what is before you. Time MUST be allowed for this, to push things through without time to read them is against everything we are taught to believe.

Omnibus contained 9000 earmarks.
This Federal budget granted money we don't have, to programs we don't need, or want.

I get the feeling I'm beating a dead horse Ed.

Me: So let's go back to your question that started all this: "How come this Administration forces legislation, and won't allow those voting to actually read the bills?" I'll even stipulate that it's actually happened, i.e., that some bill was introduced then brought to a vote in so short a time that no person of average reading speed could have read it in its entirety.

First off, the Administration cannot "force legislation". Congress can vote down any bill placed before it, regardless of where it originated.

Second, the Administration is not part of the legislative branch, and has no control over the operation of congress. Therefore, the Administration cannot prevent representatives or senators from reading bills prior to voting on them, either by rushing votes or by any other means.

I suspect that the House leadership is who your gripe is really with.

[At this point, I don't know how much bigger of an opening I can give him to actually make his point, but he just can't bring himself to do it.]

Him: Oh you SO don't get it, I'm tired of trying to explain something that you won't understand Ed. I guess I've failed at trying to explain in a way thats easily understood..

Obama himself is the head of the Dumbocratic party and he has said that the importance of swift passage of the past few huge pieces of legislation is paramount. This going on regardless of whether the Retardicans back it or not. Heck he doesn't care if they even read it, he just wants their votes.

I have a feeling we are both wasting time here Ed. I'm not going to engage with those that can't see things clearly enough to bypass party affilliation and stand for what they think is right. If you see no problem with our Leader nudging members of his party to quickly vote, knowing full-well it hasn't been afforded an opportunity to be perused, then I'm not going to be able to reach you.
Sorry Ed, we will just have to part here. I don't want to insult you, but its clearly going that way, so I will cease.

Me: All I wanted from you was a clear description of the problem that motivated you to post this in the first place, factual evidence of that problem's existence, and a proposed solution. You've provided none of that.

Telling me again and again that all those things would be self-evident were I not lacking in some basic understanding is pointless. I need something better than (to paraphrase) "You'd understand if you were me." I guess I'm not going to get it. I'll have to settle for, "There's no explaining the obvious to you."

Assert away.

Him [posted then deleted]: Theres no point Ed. I posted my thoughts and you didn't understand the meaning or won't try to understand, not sure which, but regardless, its clear to me that we are on different ends of the political spectrum and it will be pointless to continue. I could draw a fucking picture and you'd still be clueless.

Do you not read and watch different forms of media thats available for us? Or is it possible that you get tingles up your leg too when thinking about Obama?

I have to say, you DID provide me with some giggles today, thanks for that.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Him [presumably after a deep breath:]: Pointless is right Ed. I have already lost patience. I don't do well in dealing with those lacking common sense.

Me [to make sure he knew I read the deleted comment]: I'm going to answer your last question, which I caught in email: My primary sources for basic news are the NY Times, and Reuters. For conservative opinion I read The Economist, and for liberal opinion I read The Nation. For by-the-numbers economics, I listen to Bloomberg Radio, whose flagship station is here in NYC. I don't watch TV news, and I don't listen to talk radio.

One final thought. Trial lawyers have a saying: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.

Which one of us was reduced to swearing and name-calling?

Adieu.

Him: You read all that and still can't find your way out of a box. Damn, a mind IS a terrible thing to waste.

Have a fuzzy day Ed.

Him: Oh and yes I was reduced to using language that isn't the norm for me, but I'm afraid thats all you'd understand.

It worked too apparently.

[Well, sir, you're welcome to think that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your paranoid fantasy that we're about to descend into totalitarianism is a brainwashed moron. Your FB profile indicates that you want Nancy Pelosi impeached and that you're a fan of Glenn Beck, Ronald Reagan and Oliver North, so I get where that comes from. You'd probably like Ayn Rand, too, but I'm a little scared of telling you about her for fear of unleashing another born-again Objectivist on society. But thanks for playing.]

politics

Previous post Next post
Up