FARK.com: (7107862) Rachel Maddow: I hate when politicians don't read bills before passing them, unless it's Democrats doing it, then it's the best thing ever

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Rachel Maddow: I hate when politicians don't read bills before passing them, unless it's Democrats doing it, then it's the best thing ever (newsbusters.org)		193
		More: Obvious, Rachel Maddow, hate, Sam Brownback, state senate, Kansas House

• • •

2887 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 May 2012 at 3:55 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7107862

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

193 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

Crunch61		2012-05-16 08:00:45 AM

quatchi: DrippinBalls: Maddow = clam-licking idiot.

We get it ...you hate gay people.

/Probably not the whole list either, is it?

Wait... Clam-licking is an insult? What's wrong with a little clam-licking? Then again, I can see how someone named DrippinBalls might not like the clam.

CPennypacker		2012-05-16 08:01:25 AM

The right wishes they had a pundit a thousandth as smart as Maddow

jcooli09		2012-05-16 08:01:32 AM

quatchi: DrippinBalls: Maddow = clam-licking idiot.

We get it ...you hate gay people.

/Probably not the whole list either, is it?

I'd bet my house. my car, all my investments, and my non-drippin balls that she's smarter than DrippinBalls

/What's wrong with clam licking? I enjoy it, too.

SpectroBoy		2012-05-16 08:07:15 AM

Newsbusters to Maddow:

Jackson Herring		2012-05-16 08:07:30 AM

jcooli09: /What's wrong with clam licking? I enjoy it, too.

Crotchrocket Slim		2012-05-16 08:09:31 AM

Animatronik: bdub77: mamoru: DNRTFA, but...

It should be farking illegal for a serving politician to vote on (or sign, if said politician is the President) any law that they haven't read.

Of course, the difficulty comes up in how to guarantee that they have read something before they vote on it (maybe make them take a quiz on the contents of the law? do it electronically, and it could be quick enough feedback to not result in total gridlock... or something), but it would be nice to force the people who represent you to actually read the shiat they are forcing upon you.

This concept is great in principle, horrible in execution.

Laws are in many ways like computer science programs. They are long, buggy, not well documented, hard to interpret. The good news is that when a new law is posted people outside Congress can look at it before it becomes law - in other words, it's kind of 'open source'. That does give us a measure of understanding, even though practically no one understands the full logistics of the health care law.

I do agree though that legislators have a responsibility to read through legislation before it is passed. I think the good ones typically do read through it.

Guffawww.

You actually buy into the idea that a lawmaker should vote for a law that they don't understand because laws are like buggy computer programs.

I didn't see any suggestions for lawmakers in his post, just an observation as to how many politicians end up voting when they don't understand the bill in front of them.

DrippinBalls		2012-05-16 08:13:47 AM

jcooli09
quatchi: DrippinBalls: Maddow = clam-licking idiot.

We get it ...you hate gay people.

No, actually I don't.

/Probably not the whole list either, is it?

Send $5, and an SASE for the whole list.

I'd bet my house. my car, all my investments, and my non-drippin balls that she's smarter than DrippinBalls

/What's wrong with clam licking? I enjoy it, too.

Hey, great deal! Pack it all in a box (shouldn't take you more than 30 seconds) and ship it to me!

Just making my normal snarky comments.

karnal		2012-05-16 08:15:25 AM

Ohhh - the mock outrage is strong in this thread....or should we call it selective outrage.

jcooli09		2012-05-16 08:16:17 AM

dickfreckle: SphericalTime: Awwww. NewsBusters is upset that Rachel Maddow has political opinions that differ from theirs. Why can't liberal TV news show hosts highlight the conservative talking points that conservative websites want them to? Waaaaaaah.

Maddow has screwed the pooch a few times, but typically owns up to it. For this reason alone I would respect her more than her bloviating spittle factory colleagues to the right, even if I were a conservative.

As far as opinionated talking heads go, she's almost beyond reproach. Then again, we've set the bar so low that her favoring of exact quotes and unaltered video over hyperbole, emotional terror and outright lies makes her seem like a saint.

I find it amusing that anyone from NewsF*ckers has the nerve to write a hit piece about a liberal mouthpiece with a straight face. Especially Maddow. Even smart conservatives begrudgingly admire her. All five of them.

This is why you're posts come up bright green.

quatchi		2012-05-16 08:23:46 AM

Crunch61: quatchi: DrippinBalls: Maddow = clam-licking idiot.

We get it ...you hate gay people.

/Probably not the whole list either, is it?

Wait... Clam-licking is an insult?

The ladies prefer "munchin' onna whisker biscuit" or "sushi surfing" these days.

jcooli09: quatchi: DrippinBalls: Maddow = clam-licking idiot.

We get it ...you hate gay people.

/Probably not the whole list either, is it?

I'd bet my house. my car, all my investments, and my non-drippin balls that she's smarter than DrippinBalls

I would not take the other side of that bet.

/What's wrong with clam licking? I enjoy it, too.

Well, duh. Happy women make the best noises EVAH! ^_^

Did not like DB's tone there is all.

/Cunning linguists are cunning.

LivingDeadX1		2012-05-16 08:29:00 AM

SphericalTime: Awwww. NewsBusters is upset that Rachel Maddow has political opinions that differ from theirs. Why can't liberal TV news show hosts highlight the conservative talking points that conservative websites want them to? Waaaaaaah.

Awwww. SphericalTime is upset that NewsBusters has political opinions that differ from theirs. Why can't conservative websites highlight the liberal talking points that liberals want them to? Waaaaaaah.

/What I did there... do you see it?

hasty ambush		2012-05-16 08:29:24 AM

Why can't Rachel Maddow be an attractive lesbian like the real ones in pron? It would go a long way towards justifying her existence as a media personality..

LivingDeadX1		2012-05-16 08:30:27 AM

fickle floridian: SphericalTime: Awwww. NewsBusters is upset that Rachel Maddow has political opinions that differ from theirs. Why can't liberal TV news show hosts highlight the conservative talking points that conservative websites want them to? Waaaaaaah.

Awwww. A liberal is upset the NewsBusters has political opinions that differ from theirs. Why can't conservative web sites highlight the liberal talking points that liberal news shows want them to? Waaaaaaah.

/partisanship is pointless....

D'oh!

for good or for awesome		2012-05-16 08:31:10 AM

DrippinBalls: Just making my normal snarky comments.

Looks more like threadshiatting to me.

DrippinBalls		2012-05-16 08:33:11 AM

for good or for awesome

DrippinBalls: Just making my normal snarky comments.

Looks more like threadshiatting to me.

Such a harsh tone! Lower your standards, you'll be happier.

Summercat		2012-05-16 08:37:35 AM

Speaking as a gay otter, I must admit that 'clam licking' brings up mixed feelings in me.

Also, I didn't even click on the link. Somehow, just by the Fark headline, I knew that RTFA would be like the time I tried to imitate Freep Impact.

...my head still hurts from time to time on the cognitive dissonance between threads.

SphericalTime		2012-05-16 08:38:35 AM

LivingDeadX1: SphericalTime: Awwww. NewsBusters is upset that Rachel Maddow has political opinions that differ from theirs. Why can't liberal TV news show hosts highlight the conservative talking points that conservative websites want them to? Waaaaaaah.

Awwww. SphericalTime is upset that NewsBusters has political opinions that differ from theirs. Why can't conservative websites highlight the liberal talking points that liberals want them to? Waaaaaaah.

/What I did there... do you see it?

Lol. I don't pretend to be a media watchdog group, nor do I complain when conservative media groups phrase things in politically expedient ways (although, they're more likely to just lie).

So, what you did is compare my comment on a website post with an entire posted article from a biased source complaining about the phrasing of a story they think puts their side in a bad light. I'd call that a reach, even by internet standards.

Yes, I see what you did there, and find it unconvincing. At least fickle got off a comment about partisanship at the end of his comment, so I'm going to award him at least one more point.

Kibbler		2012-05-16 08:39:37 AM

Sumding Wong		2012-05-16 08:43:32 AM

DrippinBalls: Maddow = clam-licking idiot.

you're just mad that she wont lick your clam

Hobodeluxe		2012-05-16 08:43:53 AM

is this one written by the troglodyte?

not clicking the link.

Imperialism		2012-05-16 08:46:03 AM

The Pelosi comment obviously meant "you'll see what the bill ACTUALLY does if we pass it as opposed to what Republicans are telling you it does."

skylabdown		2012-05-16 08:46:35 AM

Nice to see the white knights all out in force... and the hacks who don't even read the articles..

"I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO READ THE ARTICLE THAT IS ABOUT NOT READING BILLS BUT HERE'S MY OPINIONZZZZ!!!!"

rinse... repeat.

liam76		2012-05-16 08:53:25 AM

styckx: unlikely: Not clicking a NewsButters link but I am guessing an out of context quote and false equivalence.

Do I win?

It's spintastic.

Maddows did make the comment about passing it before reading it.. That's where the facts stop and the spin begins.. They they dug deep how Maddows interviewed Pelosi two days after she made the comment of passing ObamaCare first, then finding out what's in it after but never asked Pelosi specifically about that.

So you see.. .... ... Yeah..

How is that spin?

She ranted against signing before reading yet when Pelosi said legislators should do that she had no porblme with it.

karnal		2012-05-16 08:53:40 AM

Imperialism

The Pelosi comment obviously meant "you'll see what the bill ACTUALLY does if we pass it as opposed to what Republicans are telling you it does."

I get a good laugh when people that try to defend Pelosi....and in this case, it doesn't even make sense.
Pelosi already had a plan to pass the bill without the House even voting on it! Support from the Congress wasn't there because public support wasn't there.

Alphax		2012-05-16 08:55:14 AM

liam76: How is that spin?

She ranted against signing before reading yet when Pelosi said legislators should do that she had no porblme with it.

You just spun.

X-boxershorts		2012-05-16 09:03:32 AM

karnal: Imperialism

The Pelosi comment obviously meant "you'll see what the bill ACTUALLY does if we pass it as opposed to what Republicans are telling you it does."

I get a good laugh when people that try to defend Pelosi....and in this case, it doesn't even make sense.
Pelosi already had a plan to pass the bill without the House even voting on it! Support from the Congress wasn't there because public support wasn't there.

The public understood that it was a conservative pipe dream Heritage Foundation gift for big insurance. So, yeah...the liberal leaning public was pretty much unified behind single payer and they knew this piece of shiat was going to be a piece of shiat, even though congress has passed far worse pieces of shiat.

But Lieberman was publicly threatening to filibuster or kill single payer as early as June 2009, Soooo...single payer was dead on arrival anyways.

Jackson Herring		2012-05-16 09:07:15 AM

liam76: Pelosi said legislators should do that

woops

Zerochance		2012-05-16 09:08:26 AM

I don't particularly like pundits, even when they're singing my tune, and I feel Rachel Maddow is coming dangerously close to that for me. Her blog is now predominantly filled with anti-Romney diatribes which I'm beginning to find obnoxious.

Wyalt Derp		2012-05-16 09:11:10 AM

unlikely: Not clicking a NewsButters link but I am guessing an out of context quote and false equivalence.

Do I win?

100% dead-on accurate. Congratulations on your psychic abilities.

Citrate1007		2012-05-16 09:11:46 AM

DNRTFA, I assume that the healthcare thing was bad, but the countless ALEC laws being passed at state levels are good. Can't we agree it's bad for everyone when this happens?

The partisan response: It is kind of sad that the ONLY legislation that republican's are supporting isn't even being read by them. Go Koch bros. USA! USA! USA!

hasty ambush		2012-05-16 09:19:47 AM

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - forbidding discrimination based on race and sex: 8 pages

Original MEDICARE bill - 28 pages

The 1935 Economic Security Act, which established the Social Security Administration was 64 pages

The Affordable Care Act, as passed and signed into law, weighs in at 2409 pages.

The US Constitution: 4400 words

All seven Harry Potter books is 1,083,594 words

The Affordable Care Act: 1.147.271 Words

US Tax Code: 7.000.000 words (inc. abbreviations and numbers)

US Legal Code: 50.000.000 words

Diogenes		2012-05-16 09:20:06 AM

NewsBusters infatuation with MSNBC is deeply concerning. That can't be healthy.

qorkfiend		2012-05-16 09:23:01 AM

Citrate1007: It is kind of sad that the ONLY legislation that republican's are supporting isn't even being read by them

Not conceived, not written, and not read by them...it makes you wonder what exactly these legislators are doing.

coeyagi		2012-05-16 09:24:51 AM

skylabdown: Nice to see the white knights all out in force... and the hacks who don't even read the articles..

"I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO READ THE ARTICLE THAT IS ABOUT NOT READING BILLS BUT HERE'S MY OPINIONZZZZ!!!!"

rinse... repeat.

NewsBusters has proven itself to be a pinnacle of blog hackery, and you, a God amongst concern trolls.

Rinse... requeef.

liam76		2012-05-16 09:28:12 AM

Alphax: liam76: How is that spin?

She ranted against signing before reading yet when Pelosi said legislators should do that she had no porblme with it.

You just spun.

When republican does A Maddow mad. When dems do A Maddow has no problem.

that isn't spin.

I like Maddow, doesn't mean she is perfect.

Alphax		2012-05-16 09:30:06 AM

liam76: Alphax: liam76: How is that spin?

She ranted against signing before reading yet when Pelosi said legislators should do that she had no porblme with it.

You just spun.

When republican does A Maddow mad. When dems do A Maddow has no problem.

that isn't spin.

I like Maddow, doesn't mean she is perfect.

Pelosi did not pass a bill without reading it.

Citrate1007		2012-05-16 09:30:43 AM

qorkfiend: Citrate1007: It is kind of sad that the ONLY legislation that republican's are supporting isn't even being read by them

Not conceived, not written, and not read by them...it makes you wonder what exactly these legislators are doing.

Really though, both parties have been purchase by special interests. The republicans have just cut out the middle men (themselves). It's a great step towards small governement and efficency.

s2s2s2		2012-05-16 09:31:47 AM

If Maddow in any way tried to hide her liberal bias, this would be news.

EyeballKid		2012-05-16 09:32:28 AM

hasty ambush: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - forbidding discrimination based on race and sex: 8 pages

Original MEDICARE bill - 28 pages

The 1935 Economic Security Act, which established the Social Security Administration was 64 pages

The Affordable Care Act, as passed and signed into law, weighs in at 2409 pages.

The US Constitution: 4400 words

All seven Harry Potter books is 1,083,594 words

The Affordable Care Act: 1.147.271 Words

US Tax Code: 7.000.000 words (inc. abbreviations and numbers)

US Legal Code: 50.000.000 words

You know what you could have done in the time it took to formulate how many words all of these contain? Reading.

Can't wait for the "THESE BILLS AREN'T SCRATCHN'SNIFF!!!" whine from the next generation of congressional Repubs.

quatchi		2012-05-16 09:35:34 AM

liam76: Alphax: liam76: How is that spin?

She ranted against signing before reading yet when Pelosi said legislators should do that she had no porblme with it.

You just spun.

When republican does A Maddow mad. When dems do A Maddow has no problem.

that isn't spin.

It is when it's a false equivalence argument as this one obviously is.

Not obvious to you?

quatchi		2012-05-16 09:36:34 AM

liam76: Alphax: liam76: How is that spin?

She ranted against signing before reading yet when Pelosi said legislators should do that she had no problem with it.

You just spun.

When republican does A Maddow mad. When dems do A Maddow has no problem.

that isn't spin.

It is when it's a false equivalence argument as this one obviously is.

Not obvious to you?

s2s2s2		2012-05-16 09:36:35 AM

EyeballKid: Can't wait for the "THESE BILLS AREN'T SCRATCHN'SNIFF!!!" whine from the next generation of congressional Repubs.

I had a scratch n sniff sticker that smelled like peach. Got it when I was in third grade. That thing lasted for more than 15 years.

/Cool Smell Bro

MyRandomName		2012-05-16 09:37:10 AM

Guidette Frankentits		2012-05-16 09:41:25 AM

mamoru: DNRTFA, but...

It should be farking illegal for a serving politician to vote on (or sign, if said politician is the President) any law that they haven't read.

Of course, the difficulty comes up in how to guarantee that they have read something before they vote on it (maybe make them take a quiz on the contents of the law? do it electronically, and it could be quick enough feedback to not result in total gridlock... or something), but it would be nice to force the people who represent you to actually read the shiat they are forcing upon you.

Is sees whats yous dids theres

liam76		2012-05-16 09:42:35 AM

Alphax: liam76: Alphax: liam76: How is that spin?

She ranted against signing before reading yet when Pelosi said legislators should do that she had no porblme with it.

You just spun.

When republican does A Maddow mad. When dems do A Maddow has no problem.

that isn't spin.

I like Maddow, doesn't mean she is perfect.

Pelosi did not pass a bill without reading it.

She claimed that senate added the 1099 provision, yet it was in the version she voted on, so if she read it she didn't pay attention.

But using herequote alone it doesn't say she didn't read it.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

However it is still encouraging others to pass it without reading it.

Wyalt Derp		2012-05-16 09:43:28 AM

Nordolio: I thought the point of Pelosi's statement wasn't that she didn't know what the bill contained, but that once it passed it would be heavily modified in committee.

Well, according to the actual quote that NewsBusters helpfully provided in the artcle, she said: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy." Which, of course, does not in any way state or imply that she has not read it. I'm actually surprised they didn't omit the last seven words, to try and muddy the waters even further.

karnal		2012-05-16 09:44:30 AM

God - She looks like a guy.
www.mediabistro.com

CheapEngineer		2012-05-16 09:46:38 AM

DrippinBalls: Maddow = clam-licking idiot.

I have you favorited in Troll Red as "Bruce Springsteen raped his cat".

Imagine how I weigh your opinions.

Alphax		2012-05-16 09:47:13 AM

liam76: Alphax: liam76: Alphax: liam76: How is that spin?

She ranted against signing before reading yet when Pelosi said legislators should do that she had no porblme with it.

You just spun.

When republican does A Maddow mad. When dems do A Maddow has no problem.

that isn't spin.

I like Maddow, doesn't mean she is perfect.

Pelosi did not pass a bill without reading it.

She claimed that senate added the 1099 provision, yet it was in the version she voted on, so if she read it she didn't pay attention.

But using herequote alone it doesn't say she didn't read it.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

However it is still encouraging others to pass it without reading it.

What part of "Pelosi did not pass a bill without reading it." did you not understand?

coeyagi		2012-05-16 09:47:28 AM

Wyalt Derp: Nordolio: I thought the point of Pelosi's statement wasn't that she didn't know what the bill contained, but that once it passed it would be heavily modified in committee.

Well, according to the actual quote that NewsBusters helpfully provided in the artcle, she said: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy." Which, of course, does not in any way state or imply that she has not read it. I'm actually surprised they didn't omit the last seven words, to try and muddy the waters even further.

Pronounds in the conservative realm follow quantum relativity in that they can be both Second Person AND First Person at the same time. You = I / We

Displayed 50 of 193 comments