Voting records a SHAM

[sonic1]

I want to know how many people actually read bills that are voted for or against by Congress people.

Because the way a lot of people talk around here you would think they would have read them all, claiming to know how one politicians voting record stands. It has been shown that most congress people themselves don't read the mountains of information in a bill because it is just too much stuff to read.

So how can we judge a politician by his or her record since bills are not always what their titles claim to be, and since bill contain small print (riders) that add in unrelated provisions?

Jared

Ever heard the term "public record" Mr. 1?


See my reply to your "sham" on the other thread.

[sonic1]

and here is my answer from the other thread:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

And when are you going to realize that I'm not just talking about the name of the bill.

I've read through many of them, and have continually directed everyone here to the site where they can view each individual vote, as well as read the wording of it.

And yes, I do know jack about many of those votes, asshole. It's extremely presumptuous of you to try and tell me what I do and don't know.

But, because you seem to be a bit slower than others here, I will post http://www.vote-smart.org/ once again.

I found vote-smart long before you mentioned it. And it does not post the bill in it's entirety. All they give you on the bills are the summaries, usually limited to a short paragraph, and missing all the detailed riders I just spoke about.

So mr. smart-pants, you MUST be clairvoyant. And even if you WERE reading the bills, you couldn't possibly have the time to read through many novel-sized bills to inform yourself as much as you claim to be informed.

We are all uninformed Scotti. Like I said, most of congress do not read the bills because there is just too much information to get through.

I started a separate thread on this and will post this there too.

you couldn't possibly have the time to read through many novel-sized bills to inform yourself as much as you claim to be informed

Better to not read them at all and proclaim the whole thing to be a sham.

[sonic1]

Scott you really are incapable of saying you might be a little wrong.

Again you polarize my opinion by saying "you know all and I know nothing" which translates to: "I have no real answer".

My point is that bills are complex documents and when members of congress vote for or against a bill, there are details in the bill they can't agree with. Those "details" are often very important points. So just because some moron names his bill the "save the whales bill" does not mean the bill will be good for saving whales.

Scott are you unable to say that I may just have a point? I am not asking you to bow down and kiss my feet. I am just saying that we are not given all the information that is important in these bills, because mainly we would have to be lawyers to decipher them if we HAD the bills before us. That language is complex, and it is the problem with laws in this country.


I am not promoting NOT reading bills. I am saying you cannot necessarily judge a politician's voting record without all the facts. But then again Scott, you do it all the time with Kerry.

I am annoyed at Edwards for doing the same thing to Cheney, though I am reluctant to give that bastard the benefit of the doubt. So don't accuse me of just being partisian on this.

Jared

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by sonic1

and here is my answer from the other thread:

I found vote-smart long before you mentioned it. And it does not post the bill in it's entirety. All they give you on the bills are the summaries, usually limited to a short paragraph, and missing all the detailed riders I just spoke about.

So mr. smart-pants, you MUST be clairvoyant. And even if you WERE reading the bills, you couldn't possibly have the time to read through many novel-sized bills to inform yourself as much as you claim to be informed.

We are all uninformed Scotti. Like I said, most of congress do not read the bills because there is just too much information to get through.

I started a separate thread on this and will post this there too.

Here you go, Jared. This is what the big kids use:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

You want to have it both ways--full texts aren't available, and full texts are available but nobody reads them. Thomas has full texts, as well as summaries; if they're so important to you, start reading.

Members of Congress have paid and unpaid staff members who know (and understand) what bills say in their entirety (in many cases, because those staffers wrote the bills). Likewise, hundreds of groups study and track legislation.

You can't generalize from your own ignorance and frustration. Either trust knowledgeable and ethical sources to summarize bills fairly for you, or, again, start reading.

(When, inevitably, you have questions about what you're reading, you can call the VoteSmart hotline, the offices of the appropriate members of Congress, or your favorite relevant group.)

Originally Posted by Rita

You can't generalize from your own ignorance and frustration.

Thank you, Rita.

My point exactly.

Jared, you are the one making the blustery proclamation here. Not me.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by sonic1

So how can we judge a politician by his or her record since bills are not always what their titles claim to be, and since bill contain small print (riders) that add in unrelated provisions?

I think the question of voting records is a side issue compared to the central point raised here - that reps are casting single votes on huge omnibus bills. This is the reason one of my desired electoral reforms is to force line-item votes. Pork would be hella harder to pass then, at the very least.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

I think the question of voting records is a side issue compared to the central point raised here . . .

I came in late. I responded to what I saw at the end of this thread, and I still haven't looked at several other threads.

[Monte Smith]

Sonic isn't far off from the truth here. Voting records matter, but you have to know that these bills are complicated and often contain legislation that has little or nothing to do with the main thrust of the bill. Like the famous slam on Dick Cheney: that he voted to keep Mandela in jail. Har har har! As the Congress has no power to incarcerate or liberate South Africans, you have to wonder what that "bill" was actually about and what all the small print was. It was probably a hoot.

Voting records matter, but you have to know that these bills are complicated and often contain legislation that has little or nothing to do with the main thrust of the bill.

You mean they're not written on sticky notes and posted on folks computer screens?

Geeeeeeeeeeeez...........I DO have a lot to learn.

[crawjo]

Am I the only one here who has read the Patriot Act in its entirety?

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Am I the only one here who has read the Patriot Act in its entirety?

Different but related question: do you have a bowl cut and pointy ears?

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Here you go, Jared. This is what the big kids use:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

You want to have it both ways--full texts aren't available, and full texts are available but nobody reads them. Thomas has full texts, as well as summaries; if they're so important to you, start reading.

Members of Congress have paid and unpaid staff members who know (and understand) what bills say in their entirety (in many cases, because those staffers wrote the bills). Likewise, hundreds of groups study and track legislation.

You can't generalize from your own ignorance and frustration. Either trust knowledgeable and ethical sources to summarize bills fairly for you, or, again, start reading.

(When, inevitably, you have questions about what you're reading, you can call the VoteSmart hotline, the offices of the appropriate members of Congress, or your favorite relevant group.)

AAAhhhh Bluenotie,

You still holdin' a grudge? Still smarting, are ya?

Well I appreciate the link.

But I think my point still stand that people make grand statements about people's voting records who either don't know what all the bills are really about, or want to whitewash a candidate or politician.

The liberals and conservatives have done this. Kerry has probably been the biggest victom of this, but I think Edwards may have made a couple of cheap shots himself.

And I have tried not to make any assumptions about anyone's voting record bluenotie. I am just tired of hearing other people make those claims.

BTW I find it strange that Bluenote and Scott have teamed up. Strange bedfellows?

When I said full texts were not available, though I really did not say exactly that, I was referring to the link Scott gave me.

I still believe most people here don't have the time to read ALL the bills referred in judgement of a candidate, let us say Kerry. None of yal' as far as I know are in Congress, and I don't think there are many lawyers out there who have the time to read all those bills.

Bluenoter, you might be a lawyer. You hold a grudge like one. But I am not a lawyer, and so I don't trust my ability to wade through the jargon of a bill, through the hundreds of pages of each bill to judge why a candidate voted for or against it.

I think only a candidate could tell you for each bill why or why not the vote was made, and I certainly wouldn't just trust the opponant's word.

Am I suggesting nobody read a bill? NO. Am I suggesting NOBODY reads ANY bills. NO.

I am suggesting that most of us here probably don't have the time to wade through thousands of pages to check the validity of Bush's claim that Kerry's votes are weak on terror, or that he is a flip flop, or inconsistent, or whatever today's term for Kerry is.

I just got back from class, and have to watch the taped debate so I will get back about that.

Jared

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Different but related question: do you have a bowl cut and pointy ears?

No, and, no. In fact, I share something in common with Osama bin Laden. We both have ears where the top ear lobe is folded down.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by crawjo

No, and, no. In fact, I share something in common with Osama bin Laden. We both have ears where the top ear lobe is folded down.

You can hide that shit with a properly fitted towel.

[crawjo]

That's what Osama keeps telling me.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Am I the only one here who has read the Patriot Act in its entirety?

I think you are, Crawjo. By the time I got to section 342 my mind boggled.
I think that you would agree that even the ones who SIGNED the bill into law haven't read it in it's entirety.
It's not enough for them to have read the bill. In order to completely understand the bill, they have to also review and co-ordinate the sections which are simply amendments, or additions to existing law.

So, having said that, I congratulate you on having read the bill.
I confess I have not read the entire bill, nor the law which the Patriot Act modifies, or clarifies. I would bet that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone, including George W. Bush who HAS read the whole bill.

[crawjo]

The only reason I read it was because a professor assigned it as reading for a class. I think he was just in a foul mood when he did it. God, it was hard to read. The bill could have sentenced all people who own a copy of "Kind of Blue" to death by firing squad, and my glazed-over eyes probably wouldn't have noticed it.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

You can hide that shit with a properly fitted towel.

Uh-oh...............

[crawjo]

If only our beloved Chris was still around.............

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

The only reason I read it was because a professor assigned it as reading for a class. I think he was just in a foul mood when he did it. God, it was hard to read. The bill could have sentenced all people who own a copy of "Kind of Blue" to death by firing squad, and my glazed-over eyes probably wouldn't have noticed it.

Me too. I kept thinking of whoever the congressman [I think] was in Fahrenheit 9/11 who said that almost nobody reads the bills they are given to sign. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?? Holy Man!!

If I receive death for saying that Kind Of Blue is the greatest recording known to man, then so be it.


G-d bless the Republic!!!

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by patricia

Me too. I kept thinking of whoever the congressman [I think] was in Fahrenheit 9/11 who said that almost nobody reads the bills they are given to sign. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?? Holy Man!!

I don't blame him. No Congressman could possibly have the time to read all the bills that get passed, or to understand all the different amendments and sections. That's what bureaucrats are for. God bless big government!