Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybob
From the original article's text:
"Whatever its merits, .... 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.
|
Listen, abandon your political ideology for a minute. This article, and YOU are both guilty of fear-mongoring simply because your political slant is impairing your ability to look at it logically. The article is technically correct by saying a single-document version of the final bill is not online - I never argued that. However, the article implies that there is
no information about the final bill online, and that the government is withholding information from the general public. That is completely false - all of the information about the bill is online, including every single amendment, passed or rejected. If someone really wants to go read the 1000+ page bill and get the final version they can do so without much difficulty. You and the prophetic article seem to think America is completely in the dark as to what the legislators voted for. I thought you were asking to read the bill originally, and I dug up those links to help you find the information you were asking for. Since the information is all there, you have no excuse not to go and read it if you choose to do so - however I have a pretty clear impression that you simply posted this thread to troll rather than to gather information.
July 15 means accessed...downloaded on July 15 and edited from there at a later date. Look at the amendments' dates as well and compare them.
Quote:
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?
|
I am simply saying don't believe everything you read. As I said earlier, this article is implying that the government is withholding information from the public which is incorrect. I don't have a quarrel with it, but you are also blindly taking it for absolute truth. If I started throwing Bill Maher quotes at you and saying it was in his blog, would that make me correct?
Quote:
|
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!
|
The electorate has that information, and it has not been denied. Were you able to go look at the amendments? Sure, although only after you got over your personal convictions. Again, the information is there, it is your willingness to go look at it that is the roadblock. The bent of the article is what makes the difference from simply saying "the final, single-document version of the bill is not online yet" and "there is no article online. The government is concealing information from the public." And yes, being 100% advertiser-based, conservatively/liberally bent, and opinion articles DO impact the credibility of the paper. I shouldn't even have to say that.
Quote:
|
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
|
Yes I voted for O, that CLEARLY makes me a supporter of everything he does without question. No WAY could I have disagreed with anything Obama has done, ever. That obviously makes me an "Obamunist" - you sure hit the nail on the head.
I've spent a large amount of time arguing you because you were so reluctant to find out the truth. You are still arguing that the government is withholding information from the public, which is incorrect - not to mention your extreme hesitation to even glance at the "other" side of the argument. So bottom line, are you actually going to go out and read the documentation that I have given to you, or did you just start this thread to try and get a reaction by suggesting the government was completely concealing the "final" document? I think I know the answer
If you're not going to actually use the information that I have given you, I am done posting in this thread. If you want help finding out more about the bill I'd be happy to help - but I have given you everything you need to do so on your own. Perhaps you can relay this to the author of your article since he/she seems to be in the same clueless boat. Funny, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record....