ELIZABETH WARREN - Only the 2nd Senator in U.S. History To be Barred From Speaking.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Warren = wicked witch of Massachusetts. Burn her!

a reply to: Noncents

I came of age with Nixon in the White House.

a reply to: Phage
Would you think you are wiser now because of that? Nixon was before my time but I'd think living through that would make one more suspicious going forward and likely more keen to eye anything potentially condemning.

The first thing about real politics I remember was the classic, "Read my lips: No new taxes". I think I was / am more suspicious of presidential honesty because of that. All of them lie for one reason or another.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AboveBoard

Is it truly obstructionism if the opposition party is in control of the Senate and the House?

'cause I seem to recall a whole lot of Senate Minority Leader Reid (D-Nevada) leading a lot of obstructionism, too??

Can't have it both ways...or can you?

I can have it both ways at once.

One person's "obstructionism" is ALWAYS another person's "checks and balances!"

It's a game of tug o war.

a reply to: Grambler

Then we agree. I also think that it should not apply at all.

This wasn't about Sessions in a normal Senate floor discussion, this was about him outside of his role as Senator.

Mitch just wanted to shut the loud woman up. Shameful.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Fair enough. Asked and answered!

2/12/2017

Now there are busty Elizabeth Warren T-shirts for sale.

www.boston.com...

Encouraging people to "PERSIST" even when legal authority says that you're in the wrong, is setting a great example for our children isn't it?

a reply to: carewemust

Yes very interesting indeed.

According to Reebok’s website, the company will donate $20 toWomen’s March for every shirt sold, the group behind the widespread protests following President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

A lot of companies, and celebrities, and whatevers, have become very outspoken in their political leanings ever since the frenzied buildup in the months leading up to Trump's election.

I wonder if any of these wealthy, influential super-"entities" will ever be effected in any way by political boycotts, if certain people are persistent enough in spreading information to those who might appreciate and utilize and share that information... Or, are they impervious to the 1,000 tiny economic cuts from mere mortals and will marching on into history with their cultural legacy intact and furthermore imbued with a Godlike sense of integrity and morality over all the filthy masses, oblivious to any of their puny attempts to be reckoned with?

Companies like Reebok, which profit from free advertising* by taking part in, and taking sides of, these ongoing political outbursts which are covered by the media, especially in social media. Or celebrities who took the spotlight to make dramatic declarations (fairytales) of "leaving the country". Will there ever be any economic price to pay, as the capitalistic system naturally works it's course, for outspoken stances they have taken during controversial political discussions?

For the record, I fully agree with any person or company (owned by a person with rights) to have the right to do this sort of thing if they choose to be meddling in a nation's politics. Just as I fully support the right of all people to choose where they want to, and do not want to, spend their money. That is what my whole post is about: "can and will the act of people choosing to spend or not spend their money in certain ways ever have any noticeable effect on any of these hugely wealthy individuals/corporations/etc?"

I'm curious if anyone, after a few more years, will begin to think to themselves that it would have probably been better if they had just stayed out of the politics...?



* The actual money from shirt sales will presumably be donated...to a politically motivated Anti-Trump-leaning protest group, in a sense, rewarding them for going on the offense against their political rival, Trump, and also, increasing their own brand's [an athletic clothing/gear brand] populatity amongst the feminists, who we all know are stereotypically "into fitness" or are "athletic", I guess someone must have calculated that it was a no-brainer for Reebok to seize this moment to become (further?**) involved in the current political environment.


**I haven't owned a pair of Reeboks (mens shoes) in a very long time. I have absolutely no idea what, if any, politically inspired maneuverings they have been a part of in recent times.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. advised Warren that she was out of order under Rule XIX of the Senate, which states that "no Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."

Seems somewhat subjective.

I wonder, was King's letter part of the public record? Is citing public record out of order?

(as posted in that other thread)

The key phrase seems to be "by any form of words". That would, from a legal standpoint, seem that "public record" or not doesn't have anything to do with it. Besides, how hard would it be to get some letter or statement on "public record" just so you could pull it out later as a way to skirt the rules, specifically Rule XIX. That would still be a rediculous argument either way "oh, but, its on Public Record, therefore I can say any nasty mean opionated thing I want".

I guess whoever made these "Rules of Senate" really didn't want anyone wasting everyone's time with slinging mud at their rivals, when they Ought To Be discussing the ISSUES.

A little bit like our basic standard of decorum we have here at ATS, it's almost like someone realized that, if we are going to get Anywhere at all, we need to focus on the issues, not on each other, when having discussions and debates on topics of importance (to us and the groups we are a part of whether that be an internet forum or the Senate floor).

It's a very good rule, and very important that it be upheld. Lest the whole branch of government descend into utter madness and undecipherable chaos...

It's very plain English there: "any form of words". It doesn't matter if they were spoken or written by someone else, it doesn't matter whether it refers to another Senator in present or past tense, or at what stage of their life or career they were at when the words written or said by another person were written or uttered... Its still: a form of words being used to impute another Senator.