Your comment only rationalizes your ignorance. What you’re saying is that your limited English comprehension skills prevent you from understanding. This is self evident from your response to my posting. You can’t even understand what I wrote in simple English. I said exactly what I meant. None of you posters commenting on tha bill even read it before posting their opinions.
Yes, you are probably correct that most of the posters have not read the bill. However, you further went on to imply that people who comment on legislation without reading it are stupid. I countered that legislation is not written in English (this is a reference to the incomprehensibility of the legal-ese language used in legislation); even legislators do not usually read the bill, but only a summary. Unless you think the general public should be held to a higher standard than a professional legislator, it is perfectly reasonable for a layperson to form opinions of legislation based on a summary. If IJ’s summary is inaccurate, that is the sole responsibility of IJ.
Go back and re-read your own comment; perhaps you did not say what you meant to say. With practice, your English may improve.
The implication is that you shouldn’t rely on an IJ article summary to base your opinion. Also, legislators rely on a summary that’s provided within the proposed legislation, not a news article. If you don’t know the facts, then your opinion is pure equine scatology. The general population too often reacts to a short news article that fails to contain adequate information. And they’re too stupid or too lazy to research it. “If IJ’s summary is inaccurate, that is the sole responsibility of IJ.” So whose responsibility is it for forming an uninformed, ignorant opinion based on IJ’s incomplete summary? Once again you rationlize your ignorance. This is why so many idiots are elected.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Your comment only rationalizes your ignorance. What you’re saying is that your limited English comprehension skills prevent you from understanding. This is self evident from your response to my posting. You can’t even understand what I wrote in simple English. I said exactly what I meant. None of you posters commenting on tha bill even read it before posting their opinions.
Yes, you are probably correct that most of the posters have not read the bill. However, you further went on to imply that people who comment on legislation without reading it are stupid. I countered that legislation is not written in English (this is a reference to the incomprehensibility of the legal-ese language used in legislation); even legislators do not usually read the bill, but only a summary. Unless you think the general public should be held to a higher standard than a professional legislator, it is perfectly reasonable for a layperson to form opinions of legislation based on a summary. If IJ’s summary is inaccurate, that is the sole responsibility of IJ.
Go back and re-read your own comment; perhaps you did not say what you meant to say. With practice, your English may improve.
The implication is that you shouldn’t rely on an IJ article summary to base your opinion. Also, legislators rely on a summary that’s provided within the proposed legislation, not a news article. If you don’t know the facts, then your opinion is pure equine scatology. The general population too often reacts to a short news article that fails to contain adequate information. And they’re too stupid or too lazy to research it. “If IJ’s summary is inaccurate, that is the sole responsibility of IJ.” So whose responsibility is it for forming an uninformed, ignorant opinion based on IJ’s incomplete summary? Once again you rationlize your ignorance. This is why so many idiots are elected.
I’m sorry, you’re absolutely right. I’ll make sure to read this bill very carefully before I vote on it.
So much anger, so little compassion.
Guess that’s what comes with being so intelligent, eh?