For the record, Snopes does a good job explaining how Pelosi's statement was taken out of context by the right, especially when compared to Republican actions that were much more questionable regarding a somewhat (?) comparable Republican-sponsored bill called the American Health Care Act.
That article (and it's rating of "Mixed") has puzzled me.
The context "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." doesn't really change the way I think about her remarks.
It would be ridiculous if she hadn't spent the two previous paragraphs which are quoted on the same Snopes page outlining what she claimed was the content of the bill.
Those paragraphs eliminate the possible interpretation of her sentence as you can only find out what's in the bill if we pass it. They also eliminate you can only be certain what's in the bill if we pass it-- she was clearly claiming the bill as an obvious positive step in health care.
It even eliminates we have to pass quickly to overcome the Republicans' criticisms-- because obviously the Republicans would (and did!) continue vociferously critiquing it after it passed.
The only meaning left I can see is the obvious interpretation-- we have to pass this so that you can benefit from the things I just said, and those benefits won't be subject to controversy. That's like bog standard political rhetoric-- what every politician claims for legislation aimed at the general public.
It's certainly an awkward sentence, but it's not difficult to figure out what she meant.
This is a really good point and I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Think of it this way, who the heck approves of an Incident Response Policy or an Information Security Policy without reading it? Oh wait, your downvoters would approve an Incident Response Policy without reading it, /facepalm.
Because in context, “We [legislators] have to pass the bill so that you [citizens] can find out what is in it” does not at all imply that congressmen don’t need to read the bill.
I'm not sure how it is irrelevant. The Pelosi statement "fact check" is pretty bad. They misleadingly state the ACA was passed by the House in October 2009. They neglect to mention the bill the House passed in October 2009 was titled “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009”. They continue on to falsely claim Republicans of hiding the text of the American Health Care Act bill. Their claim was the draft was not posted until June 2017. A person can easily confirm the first draft of the bill was posted in March 2017 by a quick check on archive.org. They used this false claim to "illustrate" the Republicans are the shady party. They entirely ignore the Democrats took the House bill which had nothing to do with healthcare, replaced the entire text of the bill with an unrelated topic, and did everything they could to pass it because they knew they would no longer have the votes necessary if they waited on the House to pass it first. It is clear they were going out of their way to defend Democrats and demonize Republicans.
I cannot expect any site publishing such garbage be much better with the rest of their content. I certainly cannot expect any site rating such a site as "pretty accurate" any where near unbiased.
It really is sad to see these sites to sink as low as they have. They used to be decent.
This looks really neat! I noticed that it talks about how to call command line programs from my own webassembly program. Does it talk about techniques that could be used for package management, where someone publishes webassembly binaries and people consume them in their own webassembly binary? If so, does that work even when the webassembly "packages" are written in different languages?
Somewhere I read that the idea proposed that the more money flows from the government to voters, the more mud slinging happens.
For example, after the Civil War in the U.S., politics got extremely bad due to the large numbers of voters who were veterans and were receiving money from the government. Things got less nasty after those people died.
The idea is that nowadays in the U.S., there are several ways large numbers of voters get money from the government: welfare, government employment, and government contractor employment. Speaking generally, the Democrats tend to have more voters on welfare and directly employed by the government, while the Republicans tend to have more voters in government contractor jobs. So, each party has policies that give more money to their constituents, which results in bitter political fighting.
I know I'm being hand-wavy but that's the general idea. Here are some links that support this idea:
This would imply there's some correlation between countries with large state sectors and political vitriol and dissonance, which absolutely does not appear to be the case.
(Also, politics after the civil war was brutal because Reconstruction was necessarily the destruction and re-building of a culture at gunpoint, that of the slave owners. Their resentment is still a poisonous factor in current US politics, Charlottesville passim)
You may not have intended to come across this way, but I have heard comments similar to yours made to my parents (I have quite a few siblings) and they are offensive.
Think about what it: you're asking about someone's love life. It is no business of yours. So if you're going to ask a question like that, please be respectful. For example, say "If you don't mind my asking, why did you have so many kids?"
At UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) they have started requiring first-year students to live in the dorms. Not sure if they require second-year students to.
Just brainstorming here. Here are a few ways in which you can get in trouble with the law because of unencrypted online communications (these are ordered from most likely to occur within 1 human lifetime to least likely to occur within 1 human lifetime, IMO):
1. You could travel to another country where they arrest you for something unencrypted you did online in a country where it was legal. This has already happened. [1]
2. Your communications could become evidence in court that you "always had radical leanings." So while you're not convicted for what you did online, it still becomes evidence against you. I suspect this has already happened.
3. You could travel to another country where retroactive laws are allowed, and get caught because of something you said in the past in the US.
4. The US could eventually allow retroactive laws, and catch you for something you did before retroactive laws were allowed.
Note: these are just ways you could get in trouble with the law; not mentioned are things like your reputation being destroyed, death threats, identity theft, or malware due to lack of encryption. I also have not mentioned ways in which your friends could get in trouble because of something unencrypted you did online.
The first and last paragraphs are incorrect; you may disagree that the federal government actually follows the Constitution, but that's a different issue. And while many provisions of the Constitution address only the federal government, States are still bound by it to the extent it addresses them, as it does, among other places, in the 14th Amendment.
The first paragraph is correct because I clearly meant it in figurative language, not literal language. Regardless, my point is this: the US government does not obey the US constitution.
The last paragraph is correct in context. Specifically, with regards to encryption, states are allowed to do whatever they want because the Constitution doesn't mention encryption and because of the 10th amendment, which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The last paragraph is also correct because the ex post facto law clause of the Constitution only applies to Congress, not the states [1]
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the...
For the record, Snopes does a good job explaining how Pelosi's statement was taken out of context by the right, especially when compared to Republican actions that were much more questionable regarding a somewhat (?) comparable Republican-sponsored bill called the American Health Care Act.