social: Email This

Conyers: "What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages…"

Con. John Conyers, the Democrat Congressman who wants to investigate the Bush administration but refuses to investigate ACORN, wonders why he should read a 1,000 page bill if he isn’t going to understand it when he’s done reading it:




This guy…

Here’s a novel idea…how about you stop writing 1000 page bills then? It’s a crazy idea, but it just might work.

Here’s another. How about you write the bills in English, rather than government speak? You could do that, couldn’t you? You could write a bill that almost anyone could understand.

But let’s be honest for a second. There are citizens who have read this bill already and understand it. This is simply a cop out, and a really bad one at that.

For the record, this is the second Democrat to scoff at reading the bills. Steny Hoyer laughed out loud at the idea:

If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.

Behold the stark arrogance of government. “Read the bills? Understand what I am voting for? You silly child. That’s not how things work here.”

share: Email This
Subscribe to the All American Blogger RSS feed.
[8]
  • http://forgottenliberty.com Forgotten Liberty

    Mark Twain was right when he said— "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." This guy doesn't deserve to be in Congress if he isn't even willing to read what he is voting on!

  • http://forgottenliberty.com Forgotten Liberty

    Mark Twain was right when he said— "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." This guy doesn't deserve to be in Congress if he isn't even willing to read what he is voting on!

  • http://forgottenliberty.com Forgotten Liberty

    Mark Twain was right when he said— "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." This guy doesn't deserve to be in Congress if he isn't even willing to read what he is voting on!

  • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/ Shane Vander Hart

    Crazy, crazy, crazy!!!! You mean they should read the bills they vote on? Who would have thought that was the responsibility of a Congressman.

    Maybe, he's just admitting he's too stupid for the job… either way it's not good.

  • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/ Shane Vander Hart

    Crazy, crazy, crazy!!!! You mean they should read the bills they vote on? Who would have thought that was the responsibility of a Congressman.

    Maybe, he's just admitting he's too stupid for the job… either way it's not good.

  • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/ Shane Vander Hart

    Crazy, crazy, crazy!!!! You mean they should read the bills they vote on? Who would have thought that was the responsibility of a Congressman.

    Maybe, he's just admitting he's too stupid for the job… either way it's not good.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/44Grim 44Grim

    It's no more a valid point to drilling by saying "We won't see results for 10 years". OK, so had we started 10 years ago, we'll have oil. suppose we start today, in 10 years we'll see results. in 10 years we can't look back and say "if we'd started this 10 years ago, we'd have oil" if we do this.

    "I think we would have very few votes"
    and that's bad why????

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/44Grim 44Grim

    It's no more a valid point to drilling by saying "We won't see results for 10 years". OK, so had we started 10 years ago, we'll have oil. suppose we start today, in 10 years we'll see results. in 10 years we can't look back and say "if we'd started this 10 years ago, we'd have oil" if we do this.

    "I think we would have very few votes"
    and that's bad why????

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/44Grim 44Grim

    It's no more a valid point to drilling by saying "We won't see results for 10 years". OK, so had we started 10 years ago, we'll have oil. suppose we start today, in 10 years we'll see results. in 10 years we can't look back and say "if we'd started this 10 years ago, we'd have oil" if we do this.

    "I think we would have very few votes"
    and that's bad why????

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/rjjrdq rjjrdq

    Wasn't this idiot on the senate judiciary committee? And he needs a lawyer to understand a bill?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/rjjrdq rjjrdq

    Wasn't this idiot on the senate judiciary committee? And he needs a lawyer to understand a bill?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/rjjrdq rjjrdq

    Wasn't this idiot on the senate judiciary committee? And he needs a lawyer to understand a bill?