kallend 2,150 #26 January 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhich goes back to easy, well established rules that everyone knows. Not 2,000 page monstrosities of leagaleeze.... So what should, in your opinion, be the maximum length of a law? If it came out of this White House, would you bother to read it even if it was only, say, 5 pages, or would you just swallow whole cloth the Rush Limbaugh version? I very much suspect the latter. It seems to me that here in the US no law can be simply stated, as our whole legal system is based on the premise that enforcement must hinge on the exact letter of the law so virtually every contingency must be anticipated and spelled out. Other countries have systems that give courts more leeway to interpret the clear intent or spirit of the law, so laws can be stated more succinctly. For example: Simple law: Thou shall not kill. US version: Thou shall not murder (1). (1) Murder refers to the killing (as defined in paragraph 3 subsections 1-12) of a human being (as defined in paragraph 5 subsections 1-35), except under exclusions defined in paragraphs 12-378. And so on and on for another 1,000 pages. The principles of "Obamacare" can be written out on one page. The specific mechanics of how those principles are to be achieved takes a lot more. Perhaps it could have been done more succinctly, but then many more specifics and details would have to be left implied rather than stated, and you (and those of your political leaning) would still complain you don't know what's in the bill. I recall that the federal legislation establishing universal health care access in Canada was pretty simple (and short). It just mandated that every Province (equivalent to State for those who are so UScentric they don't know what a Province is) had to establish their own system by such-and-such a date. Details were left to the individual provinces, but the coverage had to be comprehensive and universal. That might have been a better approach in the US, but due to constitutional issues of federal vs state powers it would be impossible. Don The Constitution is admirably short. Of course, the courts have been arguing for over 200 years about what it means.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 January 23, 2012 QuotePerhaps it could have been done more succinctly, but then many more specifics and details would have to be left implied rather than stated, and you (and those of your political leaning) would still complain you don't know what's in the bill. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" didn't come from the Republicans, sport.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #28 January 23, 2012 QuoteQuotePerhaps it could have been done more succinctly, but then many more specifics and details would have to be left implied rather than stated, and you (and those of your political leaning) would still complain you don't know what's in the bill. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" didn't come from the Republicans, sport.The complete quote is "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Although snipping quotes so as to change the meaning is "business as usual" for some, it is still dishonest and the practice of those who can't make an intellectually honest counter-argument. The actual quote refers to the difficulty of explaining the actual content of the bill in the face of the barrage of Republican lies and distortions (death panels, for example). This sort of practice is all the rage in the ads that are running this campaign season: sort through everything the candidate has ever said and find a few words you can snip out and perhaps splice together to change the meaning 180 degrees. Romney did this in a TV ad than ran in November. What Obama really said was : "Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Romney clipped it to make it appear that Obama said "If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Ann Coulter does this sort of thing routinely. It's lying, plain and simple, and the only purpose is to recruit people to your camp by deception. I suppose it says a lot about conservative politics that it has become so dependent on the routine practice of bald-faced lying to win adherents. Sport. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 January 23, 2012 QuoteThe complete quote is "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Although snipping quotes so as to change the meaning is "business as usual" for some, it is still dishonest and the practice of those who can't make an intellectually honest counter-argument. And your claim in the prior post *was* intellectually honest? Spare us. QuoteThe actual quote refers to the difficulty of explaining the actual content of the bill in the face of the barrage of Republican lies and distortions (death panels, for example). And yet, they had no problems getting on TV and talking about death panels not being in the bill. You contradict yourself. QuoteIt's lying, plain and simple, and the only purpose is to recruit people to your camp by deception. I suppose it says a lot about conservative politics that it has become so dependent on the routine practice of bald-faced lying to win adherents. Irony score - incalculable. Sport.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
