English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I personally find it irresponsible to pass so much legislation in so little time. This isn't a partisan position either. the repiblicans rubber stamped every bill bush proposed which has lead to the quagmires were engaged in today. Now it seems Pelosi and the Dems take the same route that lead to their predecessors loss of seats in the house.

2006-12-23 18:16:07 · 8 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

8 answers

LMAO !!

Only 3-400 pages??? Hell, some bills are over a 500 pages deep.

She promised nothing, which is exactly what she will deliver. At least she was honest about being too *(&^ lazy to work.

Smoke & mirrors...Bait & Switch... Or simply spit something out there, knowing full well that less than 10% of the public are even aware of what is happening in their own neighborhood.

Irresponsible ?? I think not...smart...very smart.

2006-12-23 20:51:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You partially answered your own question in menitoning rubber stamp but in aditon to it there are many other reasons to distrust such moves.
To understand what rubber stamp realy means is to understand how bills get passed. The Committee or congressioanl persoange that introduces them and co-sponsors and even what happens to them and changes allowed after they have passed the floor votes.
I have seen bills thousands of pages in length and to read them and crosscheck them with all the added=ndums to past laws etc. takes not hours but days and one must understand that most congresspersons do not write the bills or even read the bills as they have staff assigned to do so and make a recommendation to them.
To be albe to pass tht much legislation in first days is done not by parlimentary means but comes from committees and must at this time already been written. this means they were not read by the committees that are responsible for them, say a ways and Means Committee before recommending to house vote. This leads to partisian politics and Parlimentary jerrymandering and bypasses a valid pro con argumetn on the issues and as we know many bill titles have little earmarks within that get pork to certain candidates areas.
It may be good for the politicos pocket books along with campaign contributors needs but does very little to aid a Freedom from legislaton towards the populace.
As an example take the Patriot Act. The bill was presented to the floor with a three hour debate and only around 8 members of the Intelligence oversight group had seen it before hand. This bill passed unread and unfinished, yes unfinished.
What the bill did was to give to comittees the right to write laws having to do with National Security, not make recommendations for changes as no one section on rules or laws had even been completed so they just asked for permission.
Today we have laws not reviewed by Congress, passed by Intelligence Committees of unelected bureaucracy and if one loks close enough to most important, outside loss of persoanl freedom, was the permission for financing needs in future, as they are almost unlimited in scope, whatever the enforcing arms of bill needs it gets.

2006-12-23 18:38:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Man. It's a one-party system. What does it matter what side they are on. We all know they represent multinational corporations and the defense industry. They will never differ on anything that matters to taxpayers or citizens or consumers. Pelosi, for one is completely sold. Just look at her. If that's not plastic surgery and a face lift what is? She's a conservative "ho". Also, her role in the party has been to start dialogue between the two parties---she's a deal-maker--she makes it nice and comfy for the men to talk. Not someone who questions things.

2006-12-24 05:31:19 · answer #3 · answered by crazyloonynice 2 · 0 0

I have to agree with you there. Just look at the Senate immigration bill in it's final form to see what happens when Congress perceives a 'must have' legislation with a time limit. The hundred plus 'management amendment' slipped in at the last moment was only part of the problem. Even Feinstein at one point turned to a neighbor (per the press) and said "Did we just vote to limit or increase the number of H1B visas?"

Haste makes for really stupid, pork ridden bills.

2006-12-24 01:14:31 · answer #4 · answered by DAR 7 · 0 0

Pelosi smokes pot San Francisco style. She couldn't get a single bill passed in 100 days.

2006-12-23 18:30:51 · answer #5 · answered by wunderkind 4 · 1 0

I think it's just another in a string of lame attempts over the years to make up for the fact that those guys barely even show up for work at all.

2006-12-23 18:32:09 · answer #6 · answered by Ricky J. 6 · 0 0

i dont know that much about her but from what i have heard on the radio, conservatives consider her a wreckless idiolog and this seems consistant with that.
i suppose that if you support her extreme views, you think this a heroic gesture. sneak in while no one is looking like valley forge.
if you oppose her views it seems underhanded.
both are probably right.

2006-12-23 19:49:51 · answer #7 · answered by karl k 6 · 0 0

productive work

2006-12-23 19:29:49 · answer #8 · answered by KOISHCHEN 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers