This sounds vaguely familiar somehow...

i know a lot of reporters, bloggers, etc that read it in full before it was voted on.

perhaps the senator needed an audiobook version?

He didn't ask for this job. There's no reason to blame him.

I'm shocked there is gambling in this establishment!

We need a law that requires all voting members of congress to have to read an entire bill before voting on it.

Doesn't fark have a "NO SHIAT" tag?

He should stop encouraging people to be alcoholics then...

absoluteparanoia: We need a law that requires all voting members of congress to have to read an entire bill before voting on it.

But it's an EMERGENCY! WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW! THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION CAN'T WAIT! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

/Patriot Act was rammed down Congress's throats this way, too

absoluteparanoia: We need a law that requires all voting members of congress to have to read an entire bill before voting on it.

Even better:
Require all bills in their final form to be read aloud before a quorum in each house.

Christ, at 647 pages, I don't blame them. I don't read e-mails that are more then a paragraph.

Gee. No shiat>

Come on! House and Senate, you have ONE job that you don't even have to do year round, AND YOU STILL fark IT UP?!?!?!?!

We need 4 year term limits ASAP!

Axiomatic: Come on! House and Senate, you have ONE job that you don't even have to do year round, AND YOU STILL fark IT UP?!?!?!?!

We need 4 year term limits ASAP!

How would a 4 year term limit work with the 6 year term of the Senate?

Politicians and diapers need to be changed often, and for the same reason.

/forgot who said it first

corsec67: Even better:
Require all bills in their final form to be read aloud before a quorum in each house.

This happens three times for every bill in Canada's house of Commons.

That's how they roll. The more important and frickin' huge, the faster it goes. PATRIOT Act, part deux.

Axiomatic: We need 4 year term limits ASAP!

I am an advocate for 12 and out. If limits are good enough for the Executive, they're good enough for the Legislative.

You listening Mac?

No YOU'RE a Towel: Christ, at 647 pages, I don't blame them. I don't read e-mails that are more then a paragraph.

Although, to be fair, they're Senators. You're a towel.

Wow this is totally surprising.

No YOU'RE a Towel: Christ, at 647 pages, I don't blame them.

What's your point? Most 10 years old go through 800-page Harry Potter books in less than a week.

On the flipside... Maybe THAT'S the point. If you don't want to be bored to death.. stop writing 1000-page long appropriation bills.

Flab: No YOU'RE a Towel: Christ, at 647 pages, I don't blame them.

What's your point? Most 10 years old go through 800-page Harry Potter books in less than a week.

On the flipside... Maybe THAT'S the point. If you don't want to be bored to death.. stop writing 1000-page long appropriation bills.

True, maybe a few Wizard battles would liven it up. I mean, this:

(2) BINDING CONTRACTS.-Notwithstanding
4 paragraph (1), Internal Revenue Service Notice
5 2008-83 shall have the force and effect of law with
6 respect to any ownership change (as so defined)
7 which occurs after January 16, 2009 if such
8 change-
9 (A) is pursuant to a written binding con10
tract entered into on or before such date, or
11 (B) is pursuant to a written agreement en12
tered into on or before such date and such
13 agreement was described on or before such date
14 in a public announcement or in a filing with the
15 Securities and Exchange Commission required
16 by reason of such ownership change.

Ain't exactly a page-turner. Throw some Harry Potter fan-fiction in there, and we might have something.

corsec67: How would a 4 year term limit work with the 6 year term of the Senate?

Because 4 is 2 less than 6?

No YOU'RE a Towel: (2) BINDING CONTRACTS.-Notwithstanding
4 paragraph (1), Internal Revenue Service Notice
5 2008-83 shall have the force and effect of law with
6 respect to any ownership change (as so defined)
7 which occurs after January 16, 2009 if such
8 change-
9 (A) is pursuant to a written binding con10
tract entered into on or before such date, or
11 (B) is pursuant to a written agreement en12
tered into on or before such date and such
13 agreement was described on or before such date
14 in a public announcement or in a filing with the
15 Securities and Exchange Commission required
16 by reason of such ownership change.

I have another solution:

1 stop with the
2 weird formatting
3 of bills
4 we aren't using
5 typewriters
6 anymore

(2) BINDING CONTRACTS.
-Notwithstanding paragraph (1), Internal Revenue Service Notice 2008-83 shall have the force and effect of law with respect to any ownership change (as so defined) which occurs after January 16, 2009 if such change-
(A) is pursuant to a written binding contract entered into on or before such date, or
(B) is pursuant to a written agreement entered into on or before such date and such agreement was described on or before such date in a public announcement or in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission required by reason of such ownership change.

See... now, that 647-page bill is now only 300 pages long. Saves a fee trees too!

Why must I think of everything? Sheesh!

Flab: fee

few

/FTFM

But they were assured by the experts who crafted the bill that voting for it would increase their chances of being reelected. If it achieves that goal, it doesn't matter if it is bad for the economy.

ScubaDude1960: If it achieves that goal

It probably won't.

They'll try to distance themselves from it. Just like the USA PATRIOCT act and Iraq.

No YOU'RE a Towel: Christ, at 647 pages, I don't blame them. I don't read e-mails that are more then a paragraph.

tl;dr

I knew they were going to pull this hindsight 20/20 BS.

Does this mean I should expect every major financial transaction from here on out to involve signing some legal-language page and giving an extra form of I.D., and to be told that this is due to the Stimulus Bill?

I don't know why people put so much trust in the idiots in congress.

needs more clip art.

absoluteparanoia: We need a law that requires all voting members of congress to have to read an entire bill before voting on it.

Just slip it into some other bill - they'll never notice.

Fark You American Taxpayer.




I'm doing right for me!

Next up, the excuse that no one actually wrote it either.

Huh, the Mark Twain quote I just posted in another thread will serve doubly duty today.

"Suppose you were an idiot... and suppose you were a member of Congress... but I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain

KaponoFor3: Wow this is totally surprising.

Remember, it had to be passed that day or civilization as we know it would cease to exist. So, it passed and the President jetted off to Chicago for a 3 day weekend and signed it later that week.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Remember, it had to be passed that day or civilization as we know it would cease to exist. So, it passed and the President jetted off to Chicago for a 3 day weekend and signed it later that week.

So there's some rule that stopped them from finishing it over those three days, and sending the President a letter that said "Christ, we were wrong. VETO!"?

absoluteparanoia: We need a law that requires all voting members of congress to have to read an entire bill before voting on it.

chipspastic Just slip it into some other bill - they'll never notice.

We could toss some term limits in right next to Pelosi's district for good measure. Nobody ever reads that.

Lautenberg said that back when the stimulus was being created. Pay more attention, and you can get in on the outrage as it happens.

Remember that 48-hours Congress promised you'd have to read over the stimulus bill before they voted on it? Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) says not even the Dems voting for it will have time to read it first. Change you can believe in

WTF subby? Is the obvious tag taking a dump or something?

I don't give a shiat if you legislate while blindfolded if you vote 'yes' for a bill, you're just as responsible for it as you would be if you had written it yourself.

culebra: WTF subby? Is the obvious tag taking a dump or something?

he headline was rushed so submitter didn't read all the tags before submitting it

CouchMonkey: I knew they were going to pull this hindsight 20/20 BS.

...says the guy with the benefit of hindsight.

Flab: corsec67: Even better:
Require all bills in their final form to be read aloud before a quorum in each house.

This happens three times for every bill in Canada's house of Commons.

I like this idea. I like it a lot.

Well I read the whole thing.

Turns out the zebra did it.

I Said: the headline was rushed so submitter didn't read all the tags...



Bravo. good jorb.

1derful: I don't give a shiat if you legislate while blindfolded if you vote 'yes' for a bill, you're just as responsible for it as you would be if you had written it yourself.

This.

I have no problem with the people pushing the bill through. I take issue with every asshole who voted "yes" without reading it, especially those that want to whine later about not reading it.

You idiots really don'T know how government works ,do you?

How can such cheap talking points be taken seriously?

What do you talk about wen you'Ve got nothing to say? shiat like this is what you talk about. You talk about the other guy. You invent "issues". You lie.

You appeal to the stupidest insticts you can find in people.

And then you find a forum like fark to spread it on. And the mods say "Hey we're entertainers, not journalists".

After all, congressmen don't have sizeable staffs to read and summarize the bills!

LOUD NOISES