Quote:
Originally Posted by tbomachines
But saying the information isn't there is false. The information is all available to view, just in a more cumbersome format. All of the parts of the bill are there, someone just needs to take the time and put it all together during their vacation time. So yes, this would be a complete and accurate representation of the final bill if you print out the original and scratch in the passed amendments like any of the congressmen/women did.
If you're able to read 1017/1026 pages of legalese I'm sure that you're MORE than capable of also digesting the amendments.
I would have hoped to have it by now as well, but it does not take away the fact that all of the content is present. Almost all of the amendments were submitted ahead of time, and they are only several pages long. Compiling a 1000+ page bill takes at least few days at best, I'm willing to bet that the congressmen simply took notes when the amendments were passed or rejected so the copy-paste technique wouldn't quite work. When everyone is on vacation obviously nothing gets done and they barely barely squeezed it in before they were dismissed. Would I like to have the updated bill in its entirety? I guess...I wouldn't have the time to read through it though, and since there is no legislation occurring, I don't mind it simmering for a bit. Nothing is going to happen with them until they come back so let the unfortunate congressional intern type up the final copy and get it out.
By the way - the date of July 15 on the document is most likely the day it was accessed from their internal server (look at the address right next to it) rather than the time it was submitted, just like all of the amendments. Furthermore, your defense of this article is frightening. Did you bother to do any research? This is an opinion article from a freely-distributed conservatively bent newspaper, not exactly the most credible source...Its like quoting Sean Hannity, BillO, KeithO for true fact.
Your assumption of "Obamanista Obamafuscation" is not only false, but truly shows that your political slant is impacting the way you look at this logically. I already told you I am just trying to get the facts to you before you ardently defend your position based on an editorial/opinion article. I am, however, very glad that you finally took the time to reluctantly view what I was trying to show you.
|
From the original article's text:
"Whatever its merits, the American people must be able to study the approved bill's provisions before they talk to their senators and representatives members.
Unfortunately, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is dragging its feet on posting the
final bill. When we called them yesterday morning to get a copy, we were told that the
amended version might not be compiled until after the August recess. When we called back for an official comment, spokeswoman Lindsey Vidal gave us the slightly less jarring news that it would take at least two to three weeks, even though we live in an age of computer cut-and-paste.
Yes, more than 50 amendments were added and lawmakers made more than 123 pages of changes on Friday alone, some of them complex in nature. But unless it is being done in longhand, there is no reason not to post the text, amendments and all, immediately. Having millions of constituents reading it during the recess can only help clear up any misunderstandings about the bill's content."
The article clearly states the "final bill" and "amended version" after all you've researched there is no evidence that this information as described in this article is available, come on I'll bet even Obama would admit this! And he won't think anything less of you if you do! I even promise not to email a report of your admission as "something fishy" to the White House!
The information as it exists now maybe complete i.e. all the official parts are there, but it can not be considered accurate because included in the original bill and the companion amendment document are parts that have been stricken as a result of passed amendments. The "final bill”, "amended version" absolutely "is not there" nor is an "accurate" rendition of what was approved on 31 July 2009, I would reluctantly submit the "complete" information "is there" !
The Congress specifically the House is not on vacation but is in recess, many of the legislator’s staff are on the job and working day in day out throughout this time as evidenced by the statements reported in the original article.
Regarding the 15 July date tag, I guess this confirms the date. The document was accessed from an internal server no later than 15 July and could not have been posted before that date.
My defense is not of the article but the facts contained within the article. You allege a prejudice on my part and base on your own admitted prejudice regarding the "bent" of the publisher. Is your quarrel that it is freely-distributed or conservatively bent or a newspaper or all three? The "opinion" is clear, the electorate has a right to the information detailing pending legislation and that vital information delayed during the course of important political discourse is vital information effectively denied. Is this not an "opinion" shared by Obamunists and others? You are of course not suggesting that every fact put forth by every information organ with a "bent" is absolutely never credible or true? Or is it just those which you have prejudgments about? Even the National Enquirer has gotten a couple notable facts correct!
You have admitted you voted for Obama, and you have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy arguing everything and anything but the facts stated in the original article i.e. obfuscation - the process of darkening or obscuring so as to hinder ready analysis.