The Obamabot thought police

[targus]

"House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has released a helpful, updated primer for members regarding their conduct on the floor and in committees."

"Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/House_guidelines_for_Presidential_putdowns.html

Somebody help me out. Who was the Dem that stood on the floor of the house and ranted that President Bush took delight in the slaughter of women and children?

No doubt the last no-no about "sexual misconduct on the President's part" was added for Clinton's benefit.

 

[Aaron]

Every conservative on the floor should chant "Obama lies!" en masse during the entire session.

Can four or five be counted as a mass?

 

[donnA]

so long freedom of speech

 

[matt wade]

so long freedom of speech

No..it isn't so long freedom of speech. These have been part of the House Rules and Manual for quite some time. While I'm no fan of Slaughter, she was just reminding people of the rules. Nothing new has been added.

 

[targus]

No..it isn't so long freedom of speech. These have been part of the House Rules and Manual for quite some time. While I'm no fan of Slaughter, she was just reminding people of the rules. Nothing new has been added.

My point is that they are quite selective in what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Why is it not valid to speak of the President's sexual misconduct (Bill Clinton) whileit is ok to rant that President Bush takes delight in the death of women and children.

Can someone please help me find that one?

 

[HankD]

"House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has released a helpful, updated primer for members regarding their conduct on the floor and in committees."

"Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/House_guidelines_for_Presidential_putdowns.html

Somebody help me out. Who was the Dem that stood on the floor of the house and ranted that President Bush took delight in the slaughter of women and children?

No doubt the last no-no about "sexual misconduct on the President's part" was added for Clinton's benefit.

Just out of curiosity, I am wondering if synonyms are allowed.

For instance, could one shout out "you equivocate!"?
Or "You fib!".

HankD

 

[targus]

I found it:

"The Republicans are worried that we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you going to get that money. You gonna tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war. You don't have enough money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement...

...But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress."


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/hypocrisy-flashback-dem-rep-pete-stark.html

Where was House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) then?

 

[matt wade]

My point is that they are quite selective in what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Why is it not valid to speak of the President's sexual misconduct (Bill Clinton) whileit is ok to rant that President Bush takes delight in the death of women and children.

Can someone please help me find that one?

I completely agree with you that there is definite hypocricy going on. I just wanted to make sure we all understood that these rules are nothing new and were not just introduced.

 

[donnA]

No..it isn't so long freedom of speech. These have been part of the House Rules and Manual for quite some time. While I'm no fan of Slaughter, she was just reminding people of the rules. Nothing new has been added.

Still a lack of freedom of speech, and how come these were enver enforced in the past, and suddenly are now?

 

[donnA]

I found it:

"The Republicans are worried that we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you going to get that money. You gonna tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war. You don't have enough money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement...

...But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress."


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/hypocrisy-flashback-dem-rep-pete-stark.html

Where was House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) then?

The rules may have existed then, but no one cared, they only apply to some people, but not all.
It's still a lack of freed of speech, being enforced by obamas people, and thats nothing new, been going on all along.

 

[Salty]

Didnt anybody read the fine print at the bottom of the bill - it does not apply to Republician presidents :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a House Rules issue. Freedom of speech is not absolute in all circumstances. These rules are limited to a specific venue. Members can go out and spout whatever they like. They can even go on Meet the Press and make fools of themselves. To frame this as a First Amendment issue is dishonest in itself.

 

[matt wade]

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a House Rules issue. Freedom of speech is not absolute in all circumstances. These rules are limited to a specific venue. Members can go out and spout whatever they like. They can even go on Meet the Press and make fools of themselves. To frame this as a First Amendment issue is dishonest in itself.

Agreed, I have a code of conduct I have to adhere to at my job. I don't have any problem with it, since God's code of conduct is more strict than my jobs, but still I have one at work. If I violated my work's code of conduct, I'd be in trouble and possibly fired. This is the same thing...not a first amendment issue.

 

[targus]

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a House Rules issue. Freedom of speech is not absolute in all circumstances. These rules are limited to a specific venue. Members can go out and spout whatever they like. They can even go on Meet the Press and make fools of themselves. To frame this as a First Amendment issue is dishonest in itself.

It would be more accurate to say that the rules are limited to some in a specific venue.

When it's convienent they can be ignored if the subject of ridicule is a Republican President.

By the way, where does the Constitution provide the Congress with the power to limit speech even in specific venues?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It would be more accurate to say that the rules are limited to some in a specific venue.

When it's convienent they can be ignored if the subject of ridicule is a Republican President.

By the way, where does the Constitution provide the Congress with the power to limit speech even in specific venues?

If you believe free speech is absolute, why is libel and slander illegal? Why can you not yell "Fire!" in the proverbial theater? The First Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law....". This is not a law. It is a set of rules for the particular venue, much like Parliamentary Procedure. It creates an environment where work may be done, rather than chaos ruling.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

BTW Targus, your thread title is a lie. The rules predate President Obama's arrival on the scene, as has been shown.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Those of you who say this is restriction of free speech also think it is fine if I come to your church and stand up in the assembly and call the pastor a liar, generally make a nuisance of myself, and refuse to let him speak? If you throw me out, is that violating my right to free speech? Be consistent here.

 

[Revmitchell]

Those of you who say this is restriction of free speech also think it is fine if I come to your church and stand up in the assembly and call the pastor a liar, generally make a nuisance of myself, and refuse to let him speak? If you throw me out, is that violating my right to free speech? Be consistent here.

Moot point never happened

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Every conservative on the floor should chant "Obama lies!" en masse during the entire session.

Can four or five be counted as a mass?

Wow, never thought I'd agree with Aaron.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It's big government folks. When they can tell you how to wipe your butt, they will form comittees, levy taxes, and pass laws on it. :smilewinkgrin: