any bill around internet monitoring and censorship : saving the precious children from horrible paedophiles act of 20xx
any bill for actually taking care of the physical and intellectual well being of children : bill 50906-3
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
1102 points (99.0% liked)
Political Memes
9117 readers
2112 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Wow, you want to FEED kids to keep them in good health? I'd rather spy on everyone in the hopes of catching someone under 18 accessing 18+ material. That's where REAL good health comes from."
They care about their SPIRITUAL health. Physical health doesn't matter compared to an eternity of hellfire, you heathen.
The suffering means we are doing it right!
Oh God, I'm having flashbacks to growing up in an evangelical community
Ban abortion, also makes it illegal to find food to kids or homeless
Anytime I see something like the Safe Children and Everyone Who Wants One Gets a Puppy Act I know my life is about to get worse
"The Sunshine Protection Act", oh is this some bill against pollution or something. "This bill makes daylight savings permanent."
Oh fuck off, that's too grandiose of a name for that. I mean I want that, but you aren't protecting sunshine ...
I don't have a problem with that act having a grandiose name because axing daylight savings time is something I can totally get behind no matter where I am.
I always thought it was weird, that the one argument for Day Light Savings is that we get more sun. Someone can correct me, if I am wrong. I'm pretty sure the amount of daylight isn't magical dictated by clocks and time created by humans.
Abolish day light savings time. Stick to standard time like the rest of the world does.
So like, in January, the sun sets at say around 5:15pm. With DST active, it would set at 6:15pm.
So there is more daylight after work or school gets out for most people.
Either way, the time change seems like it's not useful in today's age, so we should pick one.
Instead of playing games with clocks, why don't we just do things at different times?
That's the exact same thing.. we could say that you start work at 8 and finish at 16 half the year, and work 9-17 the other half. We've just decided that it's more practical to say that you always work 8-16, and then shift the clock to keep in sync with when there is more light outside.
It's useful for habits, communication, and planning. What time do banks close, Usually 5pm. When's lunch rush hour, between 11am and 1pm. When do events like sports or primetime television or the local bowling league start, maybe 6-7pm. When do kids go to school, 7am.
You have all these references in your head about when people go about their day. Phrases like "man, the busy season started and I ended up working until 10pm last night" don't need clarification that you worked about 5 hours over.
If you ever left your native timezone, you can just look at your phone or a local clock and make assumptions about the world around you. If the clock reads 7pm, you know you still have time to hit a restaurant. Move two timezones east, and now 7pm means you don't have time.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They tried that in the 70s. The permanent DST thing, I don't know what they called it. Everyone hated it so much that they switched back before the next general election.
It's wild this is even allowed in your country. You'd think a bill should relate to a single topic or area so you can actually vote on it, and people can easily see how reps voted on certain topics.
Right?
But if they did that, how else would they be able to get money for some random project in their district. Or tack on something everyone is against because the optics of going against the stop Stop Child Rape bill are so bad.
If there is no answer for "how does this help a politician?" then it's probably not going to happen.
The funny part is public initiatives are bound to this rule, depending where you live
They also have to have a cute acronym, so it fits neatly into a headline:
- FAPS (Free Affordable Pepsi Soda) Act
- ANAL (Anyone who Needs it Always gets Licorice) Act
- BROJOB (Best fRiends Only Jack-Off Best friends) Act
- PUPPY (Pee Under People’s Pants Yearly) Act
SODA (Scorn Owners of Dogs Act)
Hmm licorice
I'm gonna vote in favor of ANAL.
Aren't we all?
How else would the brown licorice industry survive?
One of America's dumbest legislative mechanics.
Something something Patriot Act
Ah, yes. Citizens United.
Oh silly you. This bill is called free soda for all because it's trying to free this dog that happens to be named soda.
And by "free," they mean "free from its mortal coil."
It's because Congress doesn't have a single subject rule.
43 states have it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule
E: There are some good reasons why Congress doesn't have it. First, Congress does soooooo much stuff that it might be utterly impossible to do it one subject at a time. That's why we have omnibus bills for things such as spending, which includes the budgets of all or most federal departments. Along with reconciliation and appropriations bills, it's how a lot of business gets done and how compromises are made. A single subject rule would clear up a lot of the pork, but night just grind things to a hault just by the shear number of bills that would have to be written, debated, and voted.
Another reason is that it opens a whole new category of litigation as to whether or not the title of the bill matches the subject of the bill; the standard is one of whether the title alone would give fair notice as to the range of subject matter in the bill.
Yeah, I wish we had this for a long time in Congress.
I've said it before and I'll say it again Democracy simply doesn't work
for those who are downvoting, this is a simpsons reference about almost this exact same thing.
if you’re downvoting because it’s a simpsons reference, ouch!
First past the post representative "democracy" sure as hell doesn't.
I'm not certain it's a valid inference to throw all possible forms of truly democratic government through the drain along with it.
It works quite well. And it could work much better than it does now in the US. But wealth inequality erodes the education and free time of the population entrusted with the responsibility of voting.
view more: next ›