It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Campaign Asks Congress to ‘Pledge to Read’ Bills Before Voting on Them

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the pledge seems to just be about the health care thing. Why not do something that would make it law that they have to read what they vote on prior to voting on it and that it has to be available to the public for a certain period of time as well. Something like the 72 hours




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Well, the list is growing, but it's growing at a very slow rate.

What can be done to speed up the process?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
These bills are tediously long for a reason. Absolutely nothing will get done if everybody has to do their reading homework first, if you're going to propose such a pledge then you should also propose making the material more manageable.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


That is the problem and the harm in this! It is a placebo specifically designed to encourage people to rally behind a lost cause (I personally see it as akin to SETI and their current goal of searching the cosmos for TV signals).

To the layperson looking at any politician signing this non-binding petition, it seems like a hopeful step in the right direction, but how can you believe anything that someone signs who doesn't care enough to know what they are forcing the American people to abide by? How can a politician be expected to follow the laws they are passing, when they don't look at what they are passing?

Imagine for instance, Public Safety Act 304b protects the public interest by curtailing the reckless behaviors of motorists. Politicians will sign this outright. What is it? I don't know, I just made it up! Even if the politician does read it, does that make it a good law? No! Does it make it a bad law? Not necessarily, but the Bush administration did have field days passing scores of similiar sounding bills like the Patriot act. If a politician doesn't vote for these bills (regardless of they mean) it compromises their ability to get reelected (in '08 my opponent Congressman Bobo, refused to vote in favor of the Public Safety Act that promised to reduce the number of reckless drivers in his home state).

This law could authorize the use of unrestricted lethal force on anyone caught violating traffic laws! This is just a worse case example, but the strategy is in place to get laws passed and remove the checks and balances that remain a challenge to those who are successfully manipulating the system. Then we add the Band-Aid of getting politicians to agree to read the bills they shouldn't be passing in the first place! Ok! I read the bill, all better!

You cannot expect politicians who vote to remain in power to change their attitudes through a non-binding promise that only by paying lip service to will increase their popularity.


[edit on 6-7-2009 by GideonHM]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
What a fantastic and novel idea! Now if we could also get them to limit the bill to just one subject matter, instead of overloading them with a plethora of extraneous amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the original bill, that would be a change we could believe in! I doubt it will ever happen, though!



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
These bills are tediously long for a reason. Absolutely nothing will get done if everybody has to do their reading homework first, if you're going to propose such a pledge then you should also propose making the material more manageable.



Nothing is getting anyway.

True, these bills are long for a reaon.
They rush to pass them before anyone has a had a chance to read them, then we all pay for it in the long run.

The way I see it, the internet got Obama elected, henceforth, the internet should be able to get him and everyone else in the other branches removed.

This is more manageable and they should be constantly reminded that they will be closely monitored. - tweet tweet



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 




This is more manageable and they should be constantly reminded that they will be closely monitored. - tweet tweet

So even if everyone plans on voting no on a stupid 1,000 page something or other you're going to force them to read it? Let us think of this logically, if you're going to propose such insistence then propose a more manageable way of doing business.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Why are you sympathizing with these people?

They got elected to do the very thing they are not doing and you want to go easy on them?

Since Democrats took over Congress, the amount increased 50 percent in two years, costing taxpayers about $13 million last year.

Tax me, I would gladly pay for speed reading courses for all members of Congress and the Senate.
Obama is doing just fine with his teleprompter though.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


How sad is it that we have to ASK our senators and represenatives to have read the bills before they vote on them. That's like having to ASK your surgeon to have read the x-rays before he opens you up and start cutting things out....or like having to ASK a public defender to read the police report before going to court.

I mean, we're basically having to ASK the people we elected "Would you mind, please, sir, before you vote on this issue and collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in your bank account from the special interest groups...would you mind just please READING the damn bill before you vote on it??"

Insane!!! What has our country come to that we have to remind our senators and congressmen what their job should entail. I know, I know, supposedly they have staffers who read this stuff for them...but isn't that just kind of like....um, using Cliff notes to read a major piece of literature?

If they don't like reading the bills, then they should NOT RUN FOR OFFICE!



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I agree it would make more sense for them to make those bills short, sweet and to the point. I am betting if you take the BS out, a thousand page bill could probably be whittled down to about 25-50.

Yes, it would be nice to know that people actually read them and that the people we trust to vote on them have actually read them.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 



Why are you sympathizing with these people?

I'm not, I'm making a perfectly easy point to grasp. Our system will be horrendously slowed down, a simple reason for why this will not be approved that has nothing to do with responsibility. Plus you can not assure that someone reads something, what, you going to have them tax us for employing personal reading monitor people?


They got elected to do the very thing they are not doing and you want to go easy on them?

There is a difference between logically solving the problem with manageable, readable material that they have no excuse for not reading and this senseless proposal, I realize it is coming from a good place, but it is a rather thoughtless place as well.



[edit on 6-7-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I have an even BETTER idea.

Make them vote on each page. They can vote 1300 times on one bill. Maybe that will give the bastards some incentive to make them smaller.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Now that's the best idea I've heard in quite some time!!! How about you run for office! You'll get my vote!



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
well its about time. congress has a responsibility to read over the bills they vote on because they have a duty to the voters that they serve. all the bills that are forced or are too important to delay even enough time to read the bill over like the stimulous bill are the dangerous bills of all and need to be stopped.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
They owe it to us to actually READ this legislation.


That they absolutely do buddy.


It's ridiculous to think that they'd sign something without actually knowing what they're signing... But unfortunately, it happens far too often.




Peace,
FK



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
I have an even BETTER idea.

Make them vote on each page. They can vote 1300 times on one bill. Maybe that will give the bastards some incentive to make them smaller.


There ya go. Problem solved.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Oh, nice.

That would be such a greaaaaat idea now, wouldnt it???

You think?????

My money's on the fact they will not read it.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Well I think it's pointless outside it showing and letting people know they don't read the bill.

Think about it - They vote on it without reading it. Do you really think it's going to matter if they do read it? They are still going to know if they will vote for it or not based on how they are told to vote.

Just last week I seen an interview with Ron Paul. And democratic guy was talking to him and Ron Paul asked if he was going to vote for the bill. And the guy said Yes, but I hope it doesn't pass. CLUE!

It completely ignores why they do not read them in the first place - they already know how they are going to vote for it because they are owned puppets. Making them read the bill isn't going to change that at all. If they actually gave a crap what it said, then they would be reading them on their own.

Better off voting the ones who vote without reading out of office. The problem is not a lack of laws to being with, so adding more laws isn't going to help the problem.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Problem is they are politicians... and with the exception of a small few, ron paul, nader, kucinich ect... they only care about the lobbyist's. I like how everyone is using the word corporatism but ehhh, I think we are already at fascism... They will sign it just like the sign the crap they pass on to the senate or to the president without a care... just shut the people up, this is truly insulting... "get up stand up... stand up for your right, get up stand up, don't give up the fight"... please




[edit on 6-7-2009 by iamjesusphish]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by iamjesusphish
 


corporatism = fascism. I like they people use the term as well, because it's more more easy to understand than fascism is. People just associate a fascist as someone who enforces their beliefs and screwed up way of life. But it's really about the corporations controlling the government, and that is exactly what we got.

Corporations are soul-less entities that men of power use to control things while ensuring 0 liability on themselves. They are paid for by economic slavery and the "loans" of new money created by the central bank. And they have bought and paid for everything with the peoples own money. Despicable that they do it, and just as despicable that the people are none the wiser and don't care.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join