• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

So did anyone else listening to Imus hear Lieberman this morning?

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,288
171
106
Imus: "Did you read the bailout bill"
Lieberman: "I read most of it. The important parts"
Imus (and the rest of his crew.. I'm sure): :Q

I mean... come on here...

We don't who is overseeing the bailout money (its basically so much its impossible)
We don't know where some of the money has gone
Some of it has been going to more bonuses (1 tenth of 1 percent but still)
Some of it has been going overseas
We also have no idea if it will work and no real evidence or past examples that it can work

And of course, we have at least one example of the people voting for it not reading the damn bill. I don't care if its 900 pages and he only read the important parts.

Imus literally said something like don't you think you should have read it? Lieberman response was literally "all I know is that people are losing jobs and losing their houses so something had to be signed"

ARE YOU KIDDING
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,984
84
91
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Do they physically have the time to delve into every pile of legilsation that comes across the floor? Probably not. I suppose that they have their staffs dredge through all of it. If not, then they need to do one or the other. They shouldn't be voting blind...
 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Do they physically have the time to delve into every pile of legilsation that comes across the floor? Probably not. I suppose that they have their staffs dredge through all of it. If not, then they need to do one or the other. They shouldn't be voting blind...
Even the staff had at most 15hrs to read more than 1000 pages.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?

This happened with the Iraq War authorization as well. Something like 24 Senators read the intelligence behind Bush's recommendation. Had they all read it, a lot more would have voted against the authorization.

There is no way they read TARP I. It was passed very quickly and was over 100 pages long. It provided no details, which is exactly what Paulson wanted. He wanted to be able to shovel money to his buddies as HE saw fit. So, Congress bent the American public over and shoved a hot poker up their collective ass.

This problem is getting much worse, and will continue to get worse as problems become more complex.

-Robert
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Mentally deficient people cannot sign contracts, but apparently they are allowed to vote on bills.

"all I know is that people are losing jobs and losing their houses so something had to be signed"
Why am I picturing the old TV and movie gag where the document the person is actually signing is sticking out below another harmless document?

Son: Hey dad, you need to sign my report card.
Dad: Great grades son!
Son: Haha, gotcha, you just signed a 500 billion dollar bailout!
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
And Obama could have avoided all of this by refusing the sign it and letting the public, the congress, and news, etc... all review it for a week or two before putting it into law.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Do they physically have the time to delve into every pile of legilsation that comes across the floor? Probably not. I suppose that they have their staffs dredge through all of it. If not, then they need to do one or the other. They shouldn't be voting blind...
Even the staff had at most 15hrs to read more than 1000 pages.
I could read 1000 pages in 15 hours easily.. plus they were only looking at revisions, as the base of the bill had been out for a long time, and there are multiple people pouring through the bill.
 
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,592
126
You all missed the most important part of the OP's post, he was listening to Imus. Kinda like getting the news from a rabid junkyard dog.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
And Obama could have avoided all of this by refusing the sign it and letting the public, the congress, and news, etc... all review it for a week or two before putting it into law.
But if they didn't sign it IMMEDIATELY... our country would have imploded and the world would have ended. Everyone would have lost their house, job, car, family within a matter of days. If that bill wasn't signed RIGHT FUCKING THEN, we would all be FUCKED. That money needed to get out THE NEXT FUCKING DAY if our country was to survive.

So... how long till they start sending out checks?
 

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,288
171
106
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
You all missed the most important part of the OP's post, he was listening to Imus. Kinda like getting the news from a rabid junkyard dog.
:roll:

Bugs Bunny could have asked the question and the answer would be just as valid.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Insomniator
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
You all missed the most important part of the OP's post, he was listening to Imus. Kinda like getting the news from a rabid junkyard dog.
:roll:

Bugs Bunny could have asked the question and the answer would be just as valid.
And the question!

-Robert

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,057
3,604
126
Congress doesn?t read its own laws and this is supposed to surprise us?

This will only be resolved when our two incumbent parties and their elite ruling class are no longer in power. That is called accountably, and they have ZERO accountability as the nation currently stands. They could get away with murder because Americans vote along party lines.
 

StepUp

Senior member
May 12, 2004
654
0
76
I hope to see a No Congressman Left Behind program.

That should help to fix the problem me thinks.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: StepUp
I hope to see a No Congressman Left Behind program.

That should help to fix the problem me thinks.
LMFAO!!

Yes, we need some standards for these idiots. But, it's like trying to measure love with a thermometer

-Robert
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: chess9
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?
This is not entirely the fault of those members of Congress - or at least not the minority's fault. It's well documented that starting in the late 70s, whichever party held power routinely puts together enormous bills and presents them for reading to the minority at the last possible second.

Your last stimulus bill was posted to everyone, including members of Congress, on the House Appropriations Committee website late Thursday. It was about 1000 pages in length. The House was expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

Competence isn't the issue.
 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
0
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
And Obama could have avoided all of this by refusing the sign it and letting the public, the congress, and news, etc... all review it for a week or two before putting it into law.
Yes, imagine that, the lord savior lied. He is record on tape stating he would give at least 5 days for himself and the public to read over any bill.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: chess9
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?
This is not entirely the fault of those members of Congress - or at least not the minority's fault. It's well documented that starting in the late 70s, whichever party held power routinely puts together enormous bills and presents them for reading to the minority at the last possible second.

Your last stimulus bill was posted to everyone, including members of Congress, on the House Appropriations Committee website late Thursday. It was about 1000 pages in length. The House was expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

Competence isn't the issue.
So, you think giving members less than 24 hours to review a 1,000 page bill is a sign of competence?

-Robert

 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
Originally posted by: StepUp
I hope to see a No Congressman Left Behind program.

That should help to fix the problem me thinks.
On MSNBC about an hour ago, Maxine Waters was on talking about about her comments today about President Obama needing to clarify what went on between Treasury and Dodd, then the host asked her something about how the Congress could have avoided all this. Her reply was that she hasn't read the fine print and that she wished she did.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: chess9
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?
This is not entirely the fault of those members of Congress - or at least not the minority's fault. It's well documented that starting in the late 70s, whichever party held power routinely puts together enormous bills and presents them for reading to the minority at the last possible second.

Your last stimulus bill was posted to everyone, including members of Congress, on the House Appropriations Committee website late Thursday. It was about 1000 pages in length. The House was expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

Competence isn't the issue.
So, you think giving members less than 24 hours to review a 1,000 page bill is a sign of competence?

-Robert
It would be incompetent if that timeframe was provided because Congress bumbled around and barely got things done in time. In reality, the timeframe for review is what it is because it's a mean-spirited but effective technique to minimize dissent.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: chess9
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?
This is not entirely the fault of those members of Congress - or at least not the minority's fault. It's well documented that starting in the late 70s, whichever party held power routinely puts together enormous bills and presents them for reading to the minority at the last possible second.

Your last stimulus bill was posted to everyone, including members of Congress, on the House Appropriations Committee website late Thursday. It was about 1000 pages in length. The House was expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

Competence isn't the issue.
So, you think giving members less than 24 hours to review a 1,000 page bill is a sign of competence?

-Robert
It would be incompetent if that timeframe was provided because Congress bumbled around and barely got things done in time. In reality, the timeframe for review is what it is because it's a mean-spirited but effective technique to minimize dissent.
Which destroys the competence of Congress when that tactic is employed. No member can give such important legislation his/her full input in such circumstances. These bills are crafted in committee, and often the members have no clue what is in them. Obviously, someone doesn't care if the bill is right or not, or someone has such a high opinion of himself or herself they think they are right.

Competence is a huge issue. If you are going to have Congress acting like juvenile delinquents, you can't expect competence.

Anyway, this is a question of semantics between us. We agree this is no way to run a country!

-Robert

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY