|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Transparency or secrecy??? (8/9/2009 2:38:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Point is, the president wanted it passed already.
No time to read or debate - it's already supposed to be on the books.
Which is not what you said and now you're trying to sidestep.
To refresh your memory, this is your exact quote:
Regarding all the secrecy of the bills which can't be read or debated before they're passed, and him sending in his union goons to bust heads if people start asking questions, vs. his total openness pledge, yes it's astounding hypocrisy.
Now I'm not even going to get into the union goons nonsense, but I think you need to offer an explanation for implying there are bills being passed in secret, or you are displaying the same hypocrisy you are condemning by making false claims.
Forcing a vote on a bill before anyone has the chance to even read it is the same as passing it "in secret" to me.
Of course, publishing it, and not giving anyone the time to read and analysis it prior to the vote allows you to make the claim that it "wasn't in secret", but we all know that this is just propaganda. For people like you.
Two bills that the Administration has done this with:
1. The Health Care Reform bill (no, wait, it's the Health Insurance Reform bill now ...)
Want to dispute this?
2. The Stimulus Bill
The 1,071 page measure -- eight inches thick -- was posted on an overburdened congressional Web site late Thursday, giving lawmakers just a few overnight hours to read it before debate resumed in both the House and Senate Friday morning. Just on Tuesday, the House voted unanimously to recommend that lawmakers and the public have at least 48 hours to read the legislation before a vote.
That's two bills, so that takes care of your quibble about the "s".
Firm
|
|
|
|
