What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
92 Comments
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+51I do read the full contract.
And especially if this is *your job* it's unpardonable not to read what you vote. - nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36"wasn't there a bill introduce a little while ago that was supposed to force congress to read the ***** they pass? "
Yeah, there was. They didn't read it, and so it never got passed.
And I always read anything I sign. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Let's remember, folks. Although this article cites the Patriot Act, this thing is NOT a liberal cause, and it is not a conservative cause either. This thing is (and should be) non-partisan. The point is to get our elected officials to do the job we elect them for, the job they themselves lobby for.
Most of these people are lawyers, or at the very least are highly educated individuals. It is NOT too much to ask of them to read legal documents. In fact, it should (and must) be required of them. Judges do this in the judicial branch. Why can't congressmen do this in the legislative branch? Because they have ego problems? If so, vote them out IMMEDIATELY for dereliction of their civic duties. - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22wasn't there a bill introduce a little while ago that was supposed to force congress to read the ***** they pass? This isn't surprising to me, though. How many of you actually read the full contract before signing.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@darkdaedra
Of course. I have no doubt Sen. Ted Stevens truly believes the internet is made up of tubes. I have no doubt Rep. Don Young truly believed his Alaskan Bridge-to-Nowhere was a good idea. I have no doubt that there are thousands of men and women in DC who genuinely, truly, honestly believe they are helping us; that with enough power, with enough force, with enough control, they can mold the world to their more-perfect vision.
The problem is they're wrong, and we pay for it. - jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13These are the same politicians that voted that they get a salary for the rest of their life after serving only four years. What makes you think they will read anything. They run the show. They don't have to. Oh, by the way, when times are tough congress shuts down great programs to help people and removes funding for important issues so that their salaries are never at jeopardy. How do we cut back their salaries and life time benefits?
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@darkdaedra -- *****.
- cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12When you have a bill named patriot act right after 911, what politician would vote nay. They would later be portrait as unpatriotic american haters. This is one of the many reasons why career politicians aren't good, they are always thinking about the next elections instead of being responsible representatives of the people who elected them.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"If you think Congress is ineffective now, your suggestion would severely diminish the efficacy of our elected officials."
And this would be a bad thing, why? - wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10members of congress are allowed to look at the bill before it is officially introduced in the chambers. i mean, im sure that there are some members who dont read bills before they vote but it all has to do with party politics. "you vote for my bill, and ill vote for your bill."
unfortunately, this is what happens whenever you allow political parties to operate and control a democracy. - iceblademan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10They should make Congress like school. At the end of every presentation there is a long test to see what our elected officials actually know about the legislation they are passing. Somethings tells me more than one official will fail Congress Class......
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14The Anthrax attack was a standard psyop to personalize the threat of "terror" to Congress so that they would be properly conditioned to pass the Patriot Act.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The only thing Congressmen are "busy" with is lobbying for campaign contributions for their re-election bids or their party. It's not unreasonable to ask them to cut down on this and spend more time doing their JOB.
- nukethewhales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I admit I don't often read full contracts before I sign them but if I had a LAWYER who I PAID, I would expect him to read them for me.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"you had any idea how hard these people work."
Hard work toward corrupted ends is no virtue. - oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This kinda thing happens all the time here, I say: we NEED to change it! This site has a good running start, let's help digg. GET DIGGERS TO READ ARTICLES BEFORE COMMENTING. For free t-shirts, I think they can read the articles before they vote and comment on them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12What, you don't believe that all your congressmen are speed-readers?
Clearly, they are intelligent and insightful. Their collective wisdom is what qualifies them to represent us, the common citizen in such important matters.
So I don't see the problem.
(Notice to the Sarcasm Impaired, you must read this comment with the appropriate filter. Please make sure to install the appropriate Active-X control or Mozilla Extension before replying) - thejokell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It's their job to get around to it.
- kaidadragonfly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Part of the point is that a bill should not be hundreds of pages.
You know how long the full text of the constitution is?
Minus amendments it is four pages.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_downloads.html
Hundreds should not be needed just for a bill. - Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Digg for the title. I'll read the article later.
- DangerStevens, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9While it's true that a Congressperson is often too busy to read all of the hundreds of bills that crop up there should at least be a staff member or SOMEBODY who reads the damn thing and can speak intelligently about it. Without that, well, we're just sailing in the dark.
But I'm sure this country isn't being driven into a ditch by its leaders or anything.
http://multipartysystem.com - ColdChilli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Isn't 99% of congress lawyers? and don't we pay them with tax dollars?
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This would also necessitate shorter bills that don't have a bunch of pork and special interest crap thrown into them.
- ruprecht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6How is an ironic comment about politicians in positions of influence having no idea about the areas they have influence over unrelated to a story about politicians allegedly voting on a piece of legislation that they did not have time to be informed about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
... one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand ... - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"If every senator actually had to read every single bill presented before Congress they would see like 20-30 bills a year at most - which would pretty much get nothing done."
How many new laws does Congress need to pass every year?! Are there really that many new issues, issue that hadn't come up in the last two ***** centuries, that they need to sit up there churning out rules to control our lives?
Also keep in mind we operate under the principle of Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat, ignorance of the law is no excuse. How is it *we* are all expected to know the law when the men and women who impose their will us on don't even know it?
Congress creates new law because some small constituency wants to leverage the police-power of the state for his own benefit. Give it long enough and eventually everything in our lives will either be forbidden or mandatory. - haxx4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Why would congress pass a bill that requires them to do more work and slows their job down even more? I support this bill, but it doesn't sound like much will happen with it.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Of course our ignorant diggs and buries don't result in a dozen men in black kevlar and M-16s busting down your door at 3am, and killing your dog in the process. But other than that, yeah, it's just like digg.
- ryllharu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It doesn't necessitate that they *all* read every bill, we know that's impossible at the current number of bills they introduce. But at least a couple of them should be reading each bill. Like assigned reading in elementary school. But this is why we have the various committees that are supposed to screen bills. But the problem is, they don't read them either! On the committees, there are fewer bills to look at depending on their area of concern, and yet, they still don't bother to read most of them when they given an area of specialty.
Then, when they get back to the main hall and congress prepares to vote, instead of saying "Now voting on Bill SE 1879," voting, and moving on, they can say that and have two or four senators or representatives present an argument for or against each bill and give a reason why. Like a debate team or a classroom presentation. After that, the rest of congress can make an informed decision that shows how capable they actually are.
It *disgusts* me that Congress plans to only be in session 75 or so days this year. For a 6 figure salary and only having to work less than a summer break, they should be expected to do a little more at least the same as an average 12 year old in a Civics class. - ruprecht, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The Patriot Act is a series of tubes...
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So as to expedite the rate of government encroachment on our lives? No thanks. Just because we have a Congress does not mean they need to constantly churn out new laws. They've been around for over 200 years, how much annually-specific law could we possibly need? Anything that slows the process down is a good thing. That they might take more time to consider the ramifications of their latest Big Idea is all the better.
- NerdyNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@darkdaedra
Okay, I'll blame the politicians for being stupid and inept. Corrupt is just a given, though, right?
And I agree with a large percentage of the commenters on this subject. It's their damned job to read those bills. They were elected... to read those bills. I don't particularly want a couple interns summarizing some complex and important bill onto a notecard for Congressman X to read while he's riding around in his golf cart. Congress is out of session a lot - so what the hell is more important to a Congressman/woman than preparing for the next session? Well, the answer should be nothing, but of course everything else appears to be more important. - darkdaedra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The best politicians vote their conscience and explain their decision to their constituents. People respect honest politicians who hold strong to their convictions, even when it's unpopular.
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why does the title talk about the Patriot Act? Do a ctrl+f on that page and look for "Patriot." There's nothing. I'm not saying if i'm pro/against the patriot act but this article has nothing to do with it. The submitter just wanted some attention.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i guess congress runs like digg. digg or bury w/o rtfa.
- axiomata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I call for a renaming of this proposed act. What was to be known as the “Read the Bills Act” (RTBA) shall henceforth be known as “Read the ***** Bills Act” (RTFBA).
- verax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4One of the smoking guns of 9/11 is actually the Partiot Act itself due to it's size and complexity. It's so big and so complex that a dream team of lawyers would need to work at least 6 months, 24/7, to put anything remotely similar together.
This is why the whole world knows that the Bush administration had it planned all along.
Because without the "Patriot Act", which was clubbed through without letting the people voting on it getting the time to even briefly understand what it was about (hey it's "called" the "Patriot Act", it can't be bad then, right?), the Bush administration wouldn't have been able to put a chokehold on the nation and they would not have been able to go through with atrocities like the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp etc. etc.
Time to stand up for the country against the corporate criminals masking themself as "the government". - diverdan117, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My opinion comes from experience from working as congressional staff. While it may not be an "expert" opinion, it should serve the digg community well.
The congressional staff is set up as the following: Representative/Senator followed by their selected Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff coordinates between the district/state offices and the Washington offices. In the Washington offices you will have Legislative Directors and Legislative aides who will assist each federal official with the bills at hand. This means that the bills are usually presented to Congress beforehand allowing time for research to be conducted.
While I'm not arguing that something as critical as the Patriot Act should deserve a full blown debate, I am just trying to point out that the endless debate that has already occurred with its continuous passing may mean that Congress is hopefully starting to focus on other prominent pieces of legislation. I would expect that after the November elections debate will pick up again as new members of Congress are sworn in. - theyateser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@d00ley -- thanks for pointing that out. i agree, you don't really have a say at all. But relying on public opinion polls would be ridiculous. Americans are neither informed nor rational.
- ruprecht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Quite right - and as a democratic republic, by design US citizens don't have a say, they just have a say in who has a say for them. Still it's better than being a non-US citizen - we don't even have a say in who has a say in US politics which, like it or not, affects most of the world's people in some way.
- FunnyBuzzy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A Brief Analysis of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003
Also Known as USA Patriot Act II
by Alex Jones
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was "seizing dictatorial control." On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC, revealed the full text of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the Federal government. The document consisted of a 33-page section by section analysis of the accompanying 87-page bill.
The bill itself is stamped "Confidential - Not for Distribution." Upon reading the analysis and bill, I was stunned by the scientifically crafted tyranny contained in the legislation. The Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs admits that they had indeed covertly transmitted a copy of the legislation to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, (R-Il) and the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney as well as the executive heads of federal law enforcement agencies.
It is important to note that no member of Congress was allowed to see the first Patriot Act before its passage, and that no debate was tolerate by the House and Senate leadership. The intentions of the White House and Speaker Hastert concerning Patriot Act II appear to be a carbon copy replay of the events that led to the unprecedented passage of the first Patriot Act.
There are two glaring areas that need to be looked at concerning this new legislation:
1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this legislation secret would be more at home in Communist China than in the United States. The fact that Dick Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the first Patriot Act, ensuring that no one was allowed to read it and publicly threatening members of Congress that if they didn't vote in favor of it that they would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by the White House's own definition terrorism. The move to clandestinely craft and then bully passage of any legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an impeachable offense.
2. The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.
I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act and to compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Ninety percent of the act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead a giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into every facet of our society. It strips American citizens of all of their rights and grants the government and its private agents total immunity. Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of just some of the draconian measures encapsulated within this tyrannical legislation:
SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.") Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.
Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation.
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.
SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification Database) set up a national database of "suspected terrorists" and radically expand the database to include anyone associated with suspected terrorist groups and anyone involved in crimes or having supported any group designated as "terrorist." These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government.
SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.
SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the "enemy combatant" designation.
SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.
SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.
SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate themselves or others. This sections annihilate the last vestiges of the Fifth Amendment.
SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in the first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes the five year sunset clause from other subsections of the first Patriot Act. After all, the media has told us: "This is the New America. Get used to it. This is forever."
SECTION 111 expands the definition of the "enemy combatant" designation.
SECTION 122 restates the government's newly announced power of "surveillance without a court order."
SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network. One passage reads, "thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime."
*Note: Over and over again, in subsection after subsection, the second Patriot Act states that its new Soviet-type powers will be used to fight international terrorism, domestic terrorism and other types of crimes. Of course the government has already announced in Section 802 of the first USA Patriot act that any crime is considered domestic terrorism.
SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine the entire spectrum of public and private sector information from bank records to educational and medical records. This is the enacting law to allow ECHELON and the Total Information Awareness Network to break down any and all walls of privacy. The government states that they must look at everything to "determine" if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you are guilty until proven innocent.
SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners' and medical examiners' operations whenever they see fit. See how this is like Bill Clinton's special medical examiner he had in Arkansas that ruled that people had committed suicide when their arms and legs had been cut off.
SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena. So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.
SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistle blower protection for Federal agents.
SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.
SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone investigating Haliburton.
SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists. The database will also be used to "stop other unlawful activities." It will share the information with state, local and foreign agencies for the same purposes.
SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in the area of information sharing.
SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security, violating their privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are all preventative measures - has anyone seen Minority Report? This is the access hub for the Total Information Awareness Network.
SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.
SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly take individuals out of foreign countries.
SECTION 402 is titled "Providing Material Support to Terrorism." The section reads that there is no requirement to show that the individual even had the intent to aid terrorists.
SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.
SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or "other criminals" to use encryption in the commission of a crime.
SECTION 408 creates "lifetime parole" (basically, slavery) for a whole host of crimes.
SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.
SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.
SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.
SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities. There are many other sections that I did not cover in the interest of time. The American people were shocked by the despotic nature of the first Patriot Act. The second Patriot Act dwarfs all police state legislation in modern world history. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Bribe taking does NOT take priority over their job.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The only reason that bills are hundreds of pages is that the lawmakers like to throw in lots of crap together including pork and special interest concessions (as well as items that should be completely separate bills). Take, for example, the minimum wage increase being tied to the inheritance tax decrease. That's just one current example that everyone should be aware of. There is ***** like that in every bill.
- century18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If a Member of Congress does not read a bill before voting, he should be impeached, or at least should not receive your vote in the future. But of course, how could anyone read thousands of pages of double talk before voting? More fundamental changes may be necessary.
- w3weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The fact that Congress did not have a chance to review this was widely publicized years ago, when the bill first passed. We were all a little to worried about appearing unamerican to question our leaders at the time. A bit later when we should have remembered to say WTF, we were too distracted by who Paris Hilton was blowing.
I signed every petition I could find. I wrote personal letters to my congressmen. It's all too late now, its permanent. I wonder what Paris Hilton is up to? - NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I say make it a two part essay test. The first part would summarize the bill and explain its effects. The second part would be their explanation for supporting or voting against it.
- chabuhi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2CAPTCHA is the code you have to type in to verify that you are human and not a bot.
- vitaminbmeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most of these officials aren't even there to vote, so why does it matter. No one makes them vote, party whips try to get them in to vote. Thats right, parties have a whip, a guy that reminds/pressures them to go in and vote in first place. These people live in another reality, I mean they will read out of a phone book to stop the other party from getting to say anything.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good luck with that.
- FreyrVanir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Only one senator voted no on the Patriot Act and said that it infringed upon citizens' civil liberties. So it's a good guess that he went over it before voting unlike his fellow senators..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold#PATRIOT_Act - rzklkng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd suggest that everyone go take a look at readthebill.org.
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is