Racist US laws

[Tilted]

The comment about Pelosi is correct, and does not compare with Palins Statement, that Palin never made.
The Statement referenced by you to Pelosi was a part of a Saturday Night Live skit that idiots actually believe she said.

The fastest reader in the world could not read the ACA bill in the time between when it was posted and the time it was passed. And even if they could read that fast the bill references other bills that would have had to have been looked up and studied. No way anyone who voted on that bill knew what was in it.

Then we add to the fact that the bill gave Sebelius powers to change almost anything it said, and Obama did change many things it said.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...20000-pages-of-obamacare-regulations-n1532069

The bill grows like Topsy .A law that changes and expands every day. Fact is even when Pelosi said" Pass it to see what's in it" It was only partially written.

The bill gets rewritten most every day.

What was said as part of the SNL skit was based on something that Mrs. Palin had actually said. It was a misstatement of what she said (though that probably isn't a fair characterization because it was meant as a joke, a play on her words, not as an assertion that she'd actually said what was being said on SNL), no doubt, but she had made a statement that was being alluded to. Much the same is the case with the infamous Pelosi statement. The misquotes that followed were based on what she had said, but they were misleading and inaccurate. She didn't say or suggest that she hadn't read the bill, or that no one in congress had read it, or that they couldn't or didn't need to read it. She was saying, with all this stuff going around about what it did or didn't do - some of it not accurate - people were only going to be able to know what it actually did after it was passed. It was complicated and controversial and had lots of moving parts; the point she was making was quite apt, though she made it pretty poorly and left herself open for the criticism and derision she received. Her statement was stupid and perhaps arrogant, but she was not saying that they didn't need to read it before it was passed as so many have since pretended that she did. She said they had to pass it so that people would find out what was in it - e.g., how it would affect them - not so that she or other congresspeople would.

Now, to be sure, some - perhaps many - congresspeople didn't read it all before they voted on it. I would suppose how they handle such things differs greatly. Some may make it a point to read all bills themselves before voting. Some may have their staffs divide bills up and provide them with summaries of various aspects. Some may not give a #### and just do whatever they're told or otherwise base their understanding of bills under consideration on whatever the sponsors (or others) tell them. I don't doubt that most congresspeople didn't actually read the entire bill. But they could have if the wanted to; and to your point Mrs. Pelosi wasn't saying that they hadn't read it. That was BS spin that people put on her silly comment, and what makes it really bad is that many have misquoted her in a way that makes it look like she meant something quite different than what she actually meant - and they've done it using quotation marks. If you're going to use quotation marks, you have a duty to your readers to use the words that were actually said (or to clearly indicate where you've made changes, e.g. to make them grammatically fit their usage).

All that said, there was time for someone - if they want to of course, and if they were sufficiently masochistic - to read (and even cross reference) the bill before it was passed. I did just that, and I'm not a particularly fast reader. The bulk of it was posted online a month or so before it passed the Senate and 4 months before it passed the House - more than 3 months before Mrs. Pelosi made that infamous statement. I'm not suggesting that people should be expected to read such monstrosities, or refuting the notion that our laws have gotten out of hand with their complexity and scale. I'm just refuting your assertion that it wasn't available, with enough time, for people to read it even if they wanted to. I know for sure that it was. And people in Congress wouldn't even have to rely on bills being posted online for the public, they surely have access to internal copies.

There was also the Reconciliation Bill though, that wasn't posted online months before it was voted on. But it was posted online with enough time for it to be read.

 

[Hijinx]

What was said as part of the SNL skit was based on something that Mrs. Palin had actually said. It was a misstatement of what she said (though that probably isn't a fair characterization because it was meant as a joke, a play on her words, not as an assertion that she'd actually said what was being said on SNL), no doubt, but she had made a statement that was being alluded to. Much the same is the case with the infamous Pelosi statement. The misquotes that followed were based on what she had said, but they were misleading and inaccurate. She didn't say or suggest that she hadn't read the bill, or that no one in congress had read it, or that they couldn't or didn't need to read it. She was saying, with all this stuff going around about what it did or didn't do - some of it not accurate - people were only going to be able to know what it actually did after it was passed. It was complicated and controversial and had lots of moving parts; the point she was making was quite apt, though she made it pretty poorly and left herself open for the criticism and derision she received. Her statement was stupid and perhaps arrogant, but she was not saying that they didn't need to read it before it was passed as so many have since pretended that she did. She said they had to pass it so that people would find out what was in it - e.g., how it would affect them - not so that she or other congresspeople would.

Now, to be sure, some - perhaps many - congresspeople didn't read it all before they voted on it. I would suppose how they handle such things differs greatly. Some may make it a point to read all bills themselves before voting. Some may have their staffs divide bills up and provide them with summaries of various aspects. Some may not give a #### and just do whatever they're told or otherwise base their understanding of bills under consideration on whatever the sponsors (or others) tell them. I don't doubt that most congresspeople didn't actually read the entire bill. But they could have if the wanted to; and to your point Mrs. Pelosi wasn't saying that they hadn't read it. That was BS spin that people put on her silly comment, and what makes it really bad is that many have misquoted her in a way that makes it look like she meant something quite different than what she actually meant - and they've done it using quotation marks. If you're going to use quotation marks, you have a duty to your readers to use the words that were actually said (or to clearly indicate where you've made changes, e.g. to make them grammatically fit their usage).

All that said, there was time for someone - if they want to of course, and if they were sufficiently masochistic - to read (and even cross reference) the bill before it was passed. I did just that, and I'm not a particularly fast reader. The bulk of it was posted online a month or so before it passed the Senate and 4 months before it passed the House - more than 3 months before Mrs. Pelosi made that infamous statement. I'm not suggesting that people should be expected to read such monstrosities, or refuting the notion that our laws have gotten out of hand with their complexity and scale. I'm just refuting your assertion that it wasn't available, with enough time, for people to read it even if they wanted to. I know for sure that it was. And people in Congress wouldn't even have to rely on bills being posted online for the public, they surely have access to internal copies.

There was also the Reconciliation Bill though, that wasn't posted online months before it was voted on. But it was posted online with enough time for it to be read.

So after reading that bill tell me how it resembles the monster it has become.
Could someone who read it know what it has turned into?

 

[Lurk]

as palins infamous 'i can see Russia from my house'.

That was Tina Fey. Palin's house has mountains between it and Russia.

 

[Tilted]

So after reading that bill tell me how it resembles the monster it has become.
Could someone who read it know what it has turned into?

Could you know the details of all the regulations that would be promulgated in accordance with it? Of course not. With most bills of any size you can't know what the regulations will look it when the bill is first passed.

But could you know it was a monster? Yes. Could you have a pretty decent idea of how it was going to affect things in general and, in some regards, how it was going affect specific things and people? Yes. You could get a pretty decent idea of what this thing was going to mean and how profound an effect it might have on some aspects of health care in this nation. There have been some temporary exceptions that I didn't see coming, and I didn't anticipate the botched roll out of the exchanges, and some of the regulations are surely different than what I might have predicted had I thought in specific about them. But by and large this thing is much what I - and so many others - expected it to me. It's a hot mess for sure, but that's part of what many of us expected.

And, btw, you didn't have to read the whole thing to expect that. Some of the things it was trying to do were problematic - and just plain wrong in my view - conceptually, not just in the details.

 

[Hijinx]

Could you know the details of all the regulations that would be promulgated in accordance with it? Of course not. With most bills of any size you can't know what the regulations will look it when the bill is first passed.

But could you know it was a monster? Yes. Could you have a pretty decent idea of how it was going to affect things in general and, in some regards, how it was going affect specific things and people? Yes. You could get a pretty decent idea of what this thing was going to mean and how profound an effect it might have on some aspects of health care in this nation. There have been some temporary exceptions that I didn't see coming, and I didn't anticipate the botched roll out of the exchanges, and some of the regulations are surely different than what I might have predicted had I thought in specific about them. But by and large this thing is much what I - and so many others - expected it to me. It's a hot mess for sure, but that's part of what many of us expected.

And, btw, you didn't have to read the whole thing to expect that. Some of the things it was trying to do were problematic - and just plain wrong in my view - conceptually, not just in the details.

Didn't Rahm Emmanuels Brother write it?

It might be nice if the people we elected to vote on laws actually wrote them.

 

[Lurk]

What was said as part of the SNL skit was based on something that Mrs. Palin had actually said. It was a misstatement of what she said (though that probably isn't a fair characterization because it was meant as a joke, a play on her words, not as an assertion that she'd actually said what was being said on SNL), no doubt,

Do you happen to remember that Palin was talking about? It was something that was true and pointed out the inexperience and shallowness of the Neighborhood Organizer.

 

[Tilted]

Do you happen to remember that Palin was talking about? It was something that was true and pointed out the inexperience and shallowness of the Neighborhood Organizer.

Yes, I remember what she said and in what context she said it. That's the point, what was later said on SNL didn't fairly reflect what she said (or the reasonableness of what she said). But then again, it was a comedy skit so...

Anyway, the same can be said of so many characterizations and misquotes of what Mrs. Pelosi said. People like to pretend that what she said - and more importantly what she meant - is different than what it actually was.

 

[This_person]

Yes, I remember what she said and in what context she said it. That's the point, what was later said on SNL didn't fairly reflect what she said (or the reasonableness of what she said). But then again, it was a comedy skit so...

Anyway, the same can be said of so many characterizations and misquotes of what Mrs. Pelosi said. People like to pretend that what she said - and more importantly what she meant - is different than what it actually was.

You're right. Palin actually said that there are parts of Alaska from which one can see Russia. This is a factually accurate statement that SNL made into a joke.

Pelosi said that Congress would need to pass "the bill" (that didn't exist at the time) so that people would "know what was in it", a factually incorrect statement. But, she meant well. She effectively was saying, "shut up and support whatever we eventually put forth because we are benevolent rulers and know better than you what is right for you - you'll see that you'll like it later."

The comparison is that Palin told the truth and was turned by a lot of media into a joke and Pelosi told a blatant lie and people today still defend her lunacy.

 

[BOP]

An informed voter and commentator would read the actual 7+ pages of the section instead of posting a single sentence summary.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ457/pdf/PLAW-110publ457.pdf

Oh, look! The town "pump" speaks!

 

[BOP]

Gee you and I are the same in that regard aren't we? Just on opposite sides of the fence.

You see one does not have to be white to be racist, but your side accepts the racism they promote as something to be proud of.

Indeed you are much more racist than I could ever be. But the accusation you toss at me is like water off a ducks back, it doesn't bother me at all coming from a racist profligate such as yourself.

I started to say "I hate stupid people, which is why I have bigbluebuttnonothing on ignore," but the truth is, I really am apathetic towards stupid people. Hate is not the opposite of love.

 

[Tilted]

You're right. Palin actually said that there are parts of Alaska from which one can see Russia. This is a factually accurate statement that SNL made into a joke.

Pelosi said that Congress would need to pass "the bill" (that didn't exist at the time) so that people would "know what was in it", a factually incorrect statement. But, she meant well. She effectively was saying, "shut up and support whatever we eventually put forth because we are benevolent rulers and know better than you what is right for you - you'll see that you'll like it later."

Yes, Mrs. Palin's original statement was (I'd guess, though I can't verify it for myself) factually accurate. SNL was poking fun at it (I suppose) suggesting that it was silly (in the context that it had been offered) even though it was factually accurate. Was that fair criticism? I don't know, it arguably was though I can see where some might feel that it wasn't. But it's the kind of fun-poking that happens all the time on late night TV in general and SNL in particular.

As for what Mrs. Pelosi said, what do you mean that "the bill" didn't exist at the time? She was referring to the PPACA which certainly did exist at the time, and in the form that eventually passed the House. It had been passed by the Senate about 3 months earlier and would be passed by the House within the month. The Reconciliation Act hadn't been introduced yet, it went on to amend and add to the PPACA, but the bill that Mrs. Pelosi was referring to existed at the time she referred to it.

The comparison is that Palin told the truth and was turned by a lot of media into a joke and Pelosi told a blatant lie and people today still defend her lunacy.

How did Mrs. Pelosi tell a blatant lie? Again, what she said was pretty silly - what she was getting at was poorly expressed and left her open to the (misinformed or disingenuous) misleading characterizations that persist - and perhaps arrogant, but it wasn't a lie. Whether one thinks it a good thing or a bad thing, her point was actually pretty valid. There was a lot of controversy about the bill and most people weren't going to truly understand what it did until it did it.

The comparison is that Mrs. Palin said something and some went on to think or pretend (e.g. because they confused it with the SNL skit) that she said something quite different and Mrs. Pelosi said something and some went on to think or pretend that she said something quite different. And I don't know who you're referring to as defending what she said, I've criticized it several times and in a number of ways. But I've also pointed out that people have been mistaken - or perhaps lied to themselves and others - about what she actually said and meant. And they've done it by using quotation marks wrapped around words that aren't actually the ones she used. Even you just did that, though at least the words you substituted for hers are closer to what she actually said - and more accurately reflect what she meant - than the words that some have fabricated being her own.

 

[This_person]

As for what Mrs. Pelosi said, what do you mean that "the bill" didn't exist at the time? She was referring to the PPACA which certainly did exist at the time, and in the form that eventually passed the House.

What I meant was that there were multiple bills, all intended to be changed, and the bill that passed the House was without question not going to be what they were going to "deem" into law. I think we can agree it was intentionally deceptive.

How did Mrs. Pelosi tell a blatant lie?

One does not need to pass a law to see what's in it. One needs to read and comprehend it, analyze it for unintended consequences, etc.

The comparison is that Mrs. Palin said something and some went on to think or pretend (e.g. because they confused it with the SNL skit) that she said something quite different and Mrs. Pelosi said something and some went on to think or pretend that she said something quite different.

While very few have mischaracterized Pelosi's comment, I did not sense anyone doing that in this thread. Pelosi made a condescending, factually incorrect statement. While she may have had what she would consider to be honorable intentions, her meaning was not inaccurately conveyed. She said what she meant - that people would not be aware of all aspects of the law until it was forced upon them.

 

[mamatutu]

It is very simple. If laws can be changed on a whim by an Executive Order, then all the time taken in Congress, or the way our country is supposed to operate doesn't really matter. Unnerving, and scary, indeed. I suggest we take the blindfold off of Lady Justice. That could be a start. I know Obama, Holder and their other cronies wear an invisible blindfold.

 

[GURPS]

Now, to be sure, some - perhaps many - congresspeople didn't read it all before they voted on it. I would suppose how they handle such things differs greatly. Some may make it a point to read all bills themselves before voting. Some may have their staffs divide bills up and provide them with summaries of various aspects.

my understanding is, Congressional Staff do 99 % of the work, from summarizing other legislation, to writing the actual items Congress Joe Schmo proposes

the real POWER on the Hill resides in the Staff Members

 

[GURPS]

One does not need to pass a law to see what's in it. One needs to read and comprehend it, analyze it for unintended consequences, etc.

what we have now is a bureaucratic nightmare yep those of us smart enough knew PPACA was just wrong, but now that the Gov is turning vague law in to regulations .... and requirements ....

men pay for neonatal care as part of their package, 1000's had their inexpensive policies - that they were happy with - because the policy did not meet the GOV. Mandated minimum coverage

look at Hobby Lobby - PPACA had NO Provision for providing birth control, that was added by progressives in charge as bureaucratic rule



this is way beyond Pelosi's arrogant trust us, we know what is best

 

[Midnightrider]

The fastest reader in the world could not read the ACA bill in the time between when it was posted and the time it was passed. And even if they could read that fast the bill references other bills that would have had to have been looked up and studied. No way anyone who voted on that bill knew what was in it.

However, I do believe that some laws are written with as much legalese as possible to convolute the message. I digress back to Nancy Pelosi's statement referring to Obamacare. "If you want to know what's in it, pass it."

Pelosi said that Congress would need to pass "the bill" (that didn't exist at the time) so that people would "know what was in it", a factually incorrect statement. But, she meant well. She effectively was saying, "shut up and support whatever we eventually put forth because we are benevolent rulers and know better than you what is right for you - you'll see that you'll like it later."
The comparison is that Palin told the truth and was turned by a lot of media into a joke and Pelosi told a blatant lie and people today still defend her lunacy.

What I meant was that there were multiple bills, all intended to be changed, and the bill that passed the House was without question not going to be what they were going to "deem" into law. I think we can agree it was intentionally deceptive. One does not need to pass a law to see what's in it. One needs to read and comprehend it, analyze it for unintended consequences, etc. While very few have mischaracterized Pelosi's comment, I did not sense anyone doing that in this thread. Pelosi made a condescending, factually incorrect statement. While she may have had what she would consider to be honorable intentions, her meaning was not inaccurately conveyed. She said what she meant - that people would not be aware of all aspects of the law until it was forced upon them.

maybe you should try reading for a change, your spidey senses are failing you

Not to mention Pelosi's statement was WIDELY misrepresented by most of the talking heads on the right.

 

[BigBlue]

I started to say "I hate stupid people.

To say you suffer from self loathing is an understatement .

 

[mamatutu]

PSA: This thread has an irony alert. Please take the correct precautions.

 

[This_person]

maybe you should try reading for a change, your spidey senses are failing you

Not to mention Pelosi's statement was WIDELY misrepresented by most of the talking heads on the right.

I read all that you quoted. I stand by my claim.

 

[Midnightrider]

I read all that you quoted. I stand by my claim.

then you either have a severe issue with reading comprehension or you are willfully ignorant