Paul Ryan, perfect modern-day Teapublican, a total hypocrite through and through.
We really need a constitutional amendment to stop this kind of bullshit. Something that requires a single page of plain English intent of the law on any proposed bill, and anything that isn’t on that front page is not allowed in the bill - no bullshit riders, no removing all the text of a bill and putting the full text of another in its place, none of these shenanigans that subvert people’s attempts to know what Congress is really doing in their names. Also, a good way to stop the nasty tricks of either pushing through something wildly unpopular by sticking it inside something else sure to pass (like Ryan is doing here) or tacking on something horribly partisan to a bill to force the other party to vote against something they want.
No amendment needed - a Senate rules change could take care of it, or an annual rider like the Hyde Amendment. Either way, the batshit crazy Senate would still need to give their OK.
Balance of power works great, except when actors on multiple sides are actively trying to subvert the system.
Uh, for some reason I’m reading the article in Jack Sheldon voice…
I’m sure this will give us another demonstration about how bipartisanship is alive and well when it’s something they really care about, like trying to instantiate a totalitarian state.
Well I guess that would be the end of Obamacare.
And Federal taxation.
And Social Security and Medicare.
And the entire military.
Sounds great when Republicans whine that a bill is umpteen hundred pages long, but what they really want is to strip out the part about not screwing everybody. Like Paul Ryan.
So… What exactly is Paul Ryan trying to do, in more concrete terms?
I always get Paul Ryan and Anthony Wiener confused.
Wiener took a photo of his dick, Ryan is a “dick”.
Is it safe to assume you didn’t RTFA?
Well, I read the BB article but just read the FFTF one, which actually provides some still-generalized specifics, but there still isn’t very much concrete language about what the bill will do. E.g. We already know that the NSA is spying on us and that companies already feed our data to the gov without accountability, so how does Ryan’s bill make it worse? Like I said, some of the FFTF talking points provide some clarity but I’ll wait for more comprehensive and technical analyses to get a better understanding of what is being changed from our already perilous data/cybersecurity situation. (I work in IT and know a little of the disaster, so often when I hear about the latest news on the subject I have to scratch my head because from where I’m looking it often seems like this news is old. Like the Snowden revelations.)
It looks like we have just a couple days at most to educate ourselves.
I called. My spiel was basically this:
Hi, I’m calling about the Appropriations bill. I understand there’s language in the bill that would restrict the FCC’s ability to enforce net neutrality. I strongly support net neutrality and so I’d like you to oppose sections 628, 629 and 630 of the bill. That’s all I have to say, thanks for taking my call.
(Next time I’d start by saying I’m a constituent.)
Then they say thanks, they’ll definitely pass it on the the senator/congressperson. Pretty easy.
Aye, there’s the rub.
Can the “rider” system be used for anything other than evil?
I emailed from the website.
My two state responded via auto reply. One very non-commital.
Cory Garnder put my worries at ease with "I assure you that I am following this issue closely and I am actively exploring ways in which we can reverse the FCC’s decision. Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you. "
To show how open he is to communication my reply got this “THIS IS AN UNATTENDED MAILBOX. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITE.”
I appreciate I should have noticed the do not reply. But I love the all-caps!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.