I am at a loss for words at what I just saw....

Kelly

Who the heck is KELLY?
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
70,173
Reaction score
210
Points
73
I cannot even think of the words to express how STUPID this is...STUPID is just not enough....

Congress has hired a speed reader....

I guess because Americans have griped so much about our represenatives not reading bills they are signing...

Are they actually serious about this?



YES, yes they are....

sort of.




I'm speechless....
 
I'm gonna wait for SuBe to give an estimation to how long it would take this kid to read the current tax code before I comment
 
Well, at least it looks like they're having fun.
 
I wonder how much that guy got paid to have that giggle
 
Dems hire speed reader for climate change bill


WASHINGTON (CNN) – As Congress prepares for a weeklong recess next week, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have armed themselves with a special weapon to deal with a possible Republican effort to delay getting a major piece of legislation out of committee by Memorial Day.

Democrats on the committee have hired a speed reader to read the more than 900-page climate change bill if necessary.

A request to have the entire bill read aloud is a prerogative Republicans have a right to invoke which could be used to frustrate Committee Chairman Henry Waxman's deadline of Memorial Day to get the committee's work on the bill done.

Even with the use of the speed reader, reading the entire bill could take the equivalent of more than a full work day of time.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/20/dems-hire-speed-reader-for-climate-change-bill/
The Republicans thought they could hold up the Bill so the Dems called their bluff.

Dumb? Yes, very much so, But it worked...

House panel advances global warming bill


WASHINGTON – Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican opposition.

The Energy and Commerce Committee approved the sweeping climate bill 33-25 after repeatedly turning back GOP attempts to kill or weaken the measure during four days of debate.

The panel's action increases the likelihood that the full House for the first time will address broad legislation to tackle climate change later this year. The Senate has yet to take up the issue.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the panel's chairman, said the bill represents "decisive and historic action" to increase America's energy security and deal with global warming. "When this bill is enacted into law, we will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader in clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global-warming pollution," said Waxman.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has promised to press for passage of climate legislation this year, but prospects remain uncertain, especially in the Senate. President Barack Obama has told Congress he also wants a bill this year, ahead of international climate talks in December.

The House bill requires factories, refineries and power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and six other greenhouse gases by roughly 80 percent by mid-century and hasten the nation's energy shift away from fossil fuels by putting a price on carbon dioxide releases.

Only one Republican — Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California — crossed party lines in support of the legislation. Four Democrats voted against it. She said that while she had concerns about the bill, including its cost, the country can't wait "to make needed changes to our energy policy."

Waxman had vowed to get the 946-page bill out of his committee before Memorial Day. Pressure on lawmakers to leave for the holiday recess pushed the committee to wrap up late Thursday after considering more than 80 amendments.

"The American people are overwhelmingly calling for a new direction ... to take action in a way that changes forever our relationship with imported oil, with the loss of jobs overseas, with the pollution that is causing greenhouse gas warming on our planet," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of the bill.

Republicans argued that the pollution cuts would lead to soaring energy prices and threaten economic growth by imposing new costs on energy-intensive industries already facing economic hardships.

"We don't want to put the economy in jeopardy," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the committee's ranking Republican. He offered an alternative that would have scrapped the cap on greenhouse gases and a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources. It was defeated 35-19.

Barton said he had "serious concern about the redirection of our energy policy in America."

"For the sake of our nation, I hope to some degree you are right. I'm afraid that you're not. We will see," Barton told Waxman minutes before the vote.

The legislation calls for the government to issue pollution allowances, or permits, to businesses that could be traded on the open market. The bill initially would give away 35 percent of the allowances to electric utilities to prevent higher energy costs from being passed on to consumers. The government also would sell 15 percent and use the money to provide direct relief to lower- and middle-income families.

To get the support of Democrats from coal and industrial states, Waxman had already agreed to give away significant emissions allowances to industries in their states, including the electric utilities, steel manufactures, automakers and refineries. The deal also lowered the bill's targets for renewable energy and required a smaller reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming.

Democrats this week added language to create a clean energy bank to disperse grants for new forms of energy and inserted a "cash for clunkers" program that would provide rebates to consumers who turn in gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel-efficient cars.

Republicans said there were other ways to accomplish the same goals.

"I guess our argument on this is there is so much a better way to do this ... through innovation versus this big government mandate," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "Believe in this next generation of Americans and you will be surprised how fast we can meet these goals without ... the largest energy tax in the history of the United States."

Environmentalists called the committee vote historic, even though some said they hoped the bill would be strengthened.

"The takeaway is that climate legislation is on a path to the president's desk," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "This bill is a breakthrough."

___

The bill is H.R. 2454.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090522/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill
 
Last edited:
Yeah, let's hold it up.....lets give Americans the 5 days online to read the bill that we were promised, and give our represenatives more time to read the bill.....yeah......let's hold it up....oh no, wait.....let's use a speed reader to read it....yeah, that will come across as the same as what was promised....yeah, let's do that.

*sighs*

BTW, it was barely online 48 hours.....oh wait, was this an emergency bill? because those are the only one's not online for 5 days....yeah, I guess this was an emergency bill.....:whatever:
 
Last edited:
Yeah, let's hold it up.....lets give Americans the 5 days online to read the bill that we were promised, and give our represenatives more time to read the bill.....yeah......let's hold it up....oh no, wait.....let's use a speed reader to read it....yeah, that will come across as the same as what was promised....yeah, let's do that.

*sighs*

BTW, it was barely online 48 hours.....oh wait, was this an emergency bill? because those are the only one's not online for 5 days....yeah, I guess this was an emergency bill.....:whatever:
*sighs*

The Republicans could have read it during the 4 DAYS OF DEBATE they had before they passed it on. They didn't want to read it, They just wanted to kill a bill they never read because the Dems wanted it.

IF Americans want to read it, And that's a Big IF, They can read it online right now. If they don't like it they can call their represenatives and tell them not to vote for it.:whatever:
 
It is supposed to be up, according to Obama, 5 days BEFORE any vote....unless it is an emergency bill. As of yesterdays vote, it had been up 48 hours. It is not a vote in both houses, it is any vote, unless an emergency vot


So, now everytime a Republican doesn't want something its
They just wanted to kill a bill they never read because the Dems wanted it.
......maybe its as Barton said, maybe that is why he wanted his ideas in, maybe he had a plan he thought would work better? I'm sorry, isn't that what debate is all about? Looking at alternatives, compromises????
 
Last edited:
It is supposed to be up, according to Obama, 5 days BEFORE any vote....unless it is an emergency bill. As of yesterdays vote, it had been up 48 hours. It is not a vote in both houses, it is any vote, unless an emergency vot
Show me where Obama said ANY vote INCLUDING Committee votes because I doubt he meant Committee votes and that's what this was.

And even if he did mean committee votes it doesn't change the fact that the Republicans had 4 days to read it and instead of reading it themselves they waited till the last minute to pull this "Read it out loud" stunt to stop the Dems. They didn't care enough to read it when they had the chance so what would a few days more do? They just wanted to hold up the Dems any way they could and the Dems called them on it.

Was it dumb to get a speed reader? Yes, But so was the "Read It Out Loud" stunt the Right pulled.

So, now everytime a Republican doesn't want something its

Well they have become the "Party of NO", I mean if the shoe fits....


maybe its as Barton said, maybe that is why he wanted his ideas in, maybe he had a plan he thought would work better? I'm sorry, isn't that what debate is all about? Looking at alternatives, compromises???

Or maybe the Dems looked at Barton alternatives, debated it with the Republicans for 4 days and decided that Barton's ideals wasn't all that great. Maybe that's why his alternative plan was defeated 35-19. Isn't that what democracy is all about? You know "Majority rules" and all that happy crappy.
 
Last edited:
The republican attempt to stall the bill with a cheap parliamentary maneuver got slammed by unique response. Score one for the Good Guys over the foot draggers.
 
900 pages? I'm gonna say no one on either side of the isle actually read the whole thing. The entire middle section could be hardcore erotica and no one would ever know.
 
Now that would be funny if that passed.

And actually they do that kind of crap all the time.

They sneak something in, usually "pork" and it passes.....then when a campaign comes around people ***** about either candidate voting for this or that, even when they don't agree with this or that, and hold them accountable for that "erotica" stuff in the middle.....lol


Politics, gotta love it.
 
Leave it to our government to fix an old, leaking pipe system by putting out a bucket to catch the water.
 
Now that would be funny if that passed.

And actually they do that kind of crap all the time.

They sneak something in, usually "pork" and it passes.....


Politics, gotta love it.

The Simpsons actually had a great episode demonstrating how that works
 
This is just stupid.
STUPID...
I cant understand it.....so unfortunately, the same situation applies.
You need to read and understand it, not just rattle it off without having a knowledge at the end.
 
The Good Guys?

Yep. One side lied us into a war against a country that had not attacked us, suberted laws, international law over torture and bypassed the common sense reasons that a) it doesn't work, b) it subjects are people to it and c) recruits terrorists by the carload to forces working against us simply to get some political hay.

The let the big industrial conscerns pork like crazy on the taxpayer with laughable oversight, including construction work so shoddy it has killed numerous military personnel who are simply taking showers.

Then there is the outright subjersion of constitutional safeguards, the end of the right to haebeus Corps, domestic spying and wiretapping of people KNOWN not to be connected to terrorist organizations, just to political causes the then administration didn't like.

There is the OUTRIGHT Treasonous act of revealing a Nox CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson AND the dismantling of the CIA front organization Plame 'worked' for simply to avenge a slight her husband committed by writing facts in a Newspaper article.

Good guys vs pure evil. ;-pbbbbbbbbbbbbbt
 
Yep. One side lied us into a war against a country that had not attacked us, suberted laws, international law over torture and bypassed the common sense reasons that a) it doesn't work, b) it subjects are people to it and c) recruits terrorists by the carload to forces working against us simply to get some political hay.

The let the big industrial conscerns pork like crazy on the taxpayer with laughable oversight, including construction work so shoddy it has killed numerous military personnel who are simply taking showers.

Then there is the outright subjersion of constitutional safeguards, the end of the right to haebeus Corps, domestic spying and wiretapping of people KNOWN not to be connected to terrorist organizations, just to political causes the then administration didn't like.

There is the OUTRIGHT Treasonous act of revealing a Nox CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson AND the dismantling of the CIA front organization Plame 'worked' for simply to avenge a slight her husband committed by writing facts in a Newspaper article.

Good guys vs pure evil. ;-pbbbbbbbbbbbbbt


It's people like you that actually believes there are good and evil sides that scare the hell out of me. Zealots always end up doing the most evil **** for the "right" reasons. (Most politicians are exactely the same no matter what they claim to believe in)
 
Yep. One side lied us into a war against a country that had not attacked us, suberted laws, international law over torture and bypassed the common sense reasons that a) it doesn't work, b) it subjects are people to it and c) recruits terrorists by the carload to forces working against us simply to get some political hay.

The let the big industrial conscerns pork like crazy on the taxpayer with laughable oversight, including construction work so shoddy it has killed numerous military personnel who are simply taking showers.

Then there is the outright subjersion of constitutional safeguards, the end of the right to haebeus Corps, domestic spying and wiretapping of people KNOWN not to be connected to terrorist organizations, just to political causes the then administration didn't like.

There is the OUTRIGHT Treasonous act of revealing a Nox CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson AND the dismantling of the CIA front organization Plame 'worked' for simply to avenge a slight her husband committed by writing facts in a Newspaper article.

Good guys vs pure evil. ;-pbbbbbbbbbbbbbt

:lmao::pal::lmao:

Yep. One side lied us into a war against a country that had not attacked us,

Wait...so Democrats didn't vote for the War in Iraq? Also, a country that did not attack us, yes - but it was also a country that blatantly and defiantly broke and ignored the agreement made after the Gulf War. When you break a Peace Treaty...war tends to be the consequence, no?

suberted laws, international law over torture and bypassed the common sense reasons that a) it doesn't work,

Incorrect.

b) it subjects are people to it

WHAT?! Terrorist were nice guys until we started torturing them?

and c) recruits terrorists by the carload to forces working against us simply to get some political hay.

Again, this doesn't pass the sniff test. No one joins Al Queda, a group that murders women and children, a group that beheads innocent journalists, etc. after learning their enemy tortures. The only people that find torture offensive are decent people with values. Decent people with values don't join Al Queda.

Then there is the outright subjersion of constitutional safeguards, the end of the right to haebeus Corps, domestic spying and wiretapping of people KNOWN not to be connected to terrorist organizations, just to political causes the then administration didn't like.

When have POW's ever had the right to haebeus corpus? And all the domestic spying and wiretapping dealt with people contacting KNOWN terrorist organizations. You are speaking out of your ass, and poorly at that.

There is the OUTRIGHT Treasonous act of revealing a Nox CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson AND the dismantling of the CIA front organization Plame 'worked' for simply to avenge a slight her husband committed by writing facts in a Newspaper article.

Valerie Plame's identity had already been exposed. Twice.
 
Last edited:
:lmao::pal::lmao:



Wait...so Democrats didn't vote for the War in Iraq? Also, a country that did not attack us, yes - but it was also a country that blatantly and defiantly broke and ignored the agreement made after the Gulf War. When you break a Peace Treaty...war tends to be the consequence, no?

Had I said or remotely implied that, which I did not, you might have something. Instead it's just the usual Republican lie about what was said and an attack on the lie.


But thanks for the attempt to put words in my mouth. At least they were spelled correctly.
 
Had I said or remotely implied that, which I did not, you might have something. Instead it's just the usual Republican lie about what was said and an attack on the lie.


But thanks for the attempt to put words in my mouth. At least they were spelled correctly.

How was it a lie?:huh:
 
this would be an excellent piece for The Daily Show...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
201,159
Messages
21,907,695
Members
45,704
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"