It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Rule Ban's Use of Words Such as "Liar"

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucentenigma

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by whitewave
 


I propose they use "bunghole" instead of "liar".
Would liven things up.



I prefer a$$ clown.



Did they have time to read the health care bill, yet?

I wonder.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
just because a corrupt house has the ability to change its rules and still abide my constitutional law (sort of a loop hole in this case) does that make it right?


You fail to see the point of Congressional Rule. The Constitution of the United States REQUIRES Congressional Rule. The Constitution of the United States DEMANDS Congressional self-regulation.

While Congress is in session, each Congressperson is ethically required to abide by Congressional Rule according to the Constitution of the United States.

A Congressperson can do all of those things that you listed as a Private Citizen, so long as they are not doing it on the Congressional Floor while Congress is in Session.

The things you have listed do not pertain to any Private Citizens, even if addressing or testifying before Congress.

There are no legal loopholes being exploited here. This is something our Forefathers, the Framers of our Constitution, intended from the beginning.

In modern vernacular: Lest our Branches of Government resort to the lowest-common denominator and turn into WWF Smackdown Matches, Congressional Rules were required to ensure that our Elected Officials didn't throw Temper-Tantrums in the Congressional Chamber and instead actually acted like Professionals befitting a Government Official rather than douches and grown children with a chip on their shoulders trying to utterly pwn the opposition by getting the most beotch-slaps in.

As a U.S. Congressperson you have the Right to Free Speech, so long as you do not violate the Rules of Conduct while in the the Congressional Chamber.

Perhaps another example might make it more clear:

What do you think would happen if you walked into Traffic Court and exercised your Right to Free Speech before a US Circuit Court Judge by calling him a "liar", "hypocrite", and a "disgrace to our country"? You'd be penalized by being found in Contempt and if you didn't shut your trap, you'd be facing Jail Time instead of just a Fine and Community Service!

Why do you think it would (or should) be any different for one Congressperson to act that way in front of other Congresspersons in Congress? Congresspersons are not above the laws, and exempt! Congress as a whole has the right to censure and expel an individual Congressperson for Contempt of Congress, just as a Judge has the right to censure and arrest an individual Citizen for Contempt of Court.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
removed.


[edit on 9/15/2009 by Alaskan Man]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


I understand what you are saying, however they are just banning negative things. If what he did was out of order, then there is probably already a rule for it. And if not, then the rule itself should apply to an act that is out of order, rather than a word.

In your example with the judge, do they need to ban the word liar from the courtroom before that is done? No, because the action itself is out of order, and it is on that basis in which it is handled, thus the contempt charge.

They basically outlawed things from being presented negatively, and as these are people elected to represent the people, to impede on their speech in such a way is no different than censoring the people themselves.

Your example and rebuttal doesn't really address all that is being done, or even the manner in which it is all being done.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Hopefully never in the same category with these two morons.......



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beach Bum
I personally enjoyed watching that man throwing the shoe at Bush. I would've done the same thing. Of course I'd probably of used both shoes to make sure one actually hit him.


He did throw both shoes, maybe he should've grown an extra leg



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
This rule is violation of the constitution.

No more need be said really.


But I shall say more anyways.

The congress in assembly is supposed to have the most protected free speech even unto the point of yelling fire. The reason being is that one never knows why they may do such a thing but their may be a point... for example proving that the fire evacuation system of the House is inadequate or that the sprinkler systems dont work... I do not know but the point of rule being is that if those in congress can not use words like liar then they can not debate. If some one is lying and one can not say 'THAT IS A LIE" then their is no debate and no republic.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by whitewave
 


I propose they use "bunghole" instead of "liar".
Would liven things up.


All in favor say, "Aye".



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I read it and, thank God.

At the appropriate time, you can still yell out "Boulschitt!"

I have it on good information that this Nepalese slang word has something to do with bovine shiznit, but among English-speaking people it can be misunderstood for another word since they are phonetically identical.

God forbid that happen!




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join