It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


House guidelines for Presidential put-downs

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:19 PM

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.

Especially useful: The section on how to properly insult the executive branch in the in the chamber.

"Disgrace" and "nitwits" -- okay.

"Liar" or "sexual misconduct" -- ixnay.

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.”

House guidelines for Presidential put-downs

How "Alice in Wonderland" do things need to get before most of us can agree this nation has plain lost its mind?

This is the land of free speech?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by loam]

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:53 PM
Free Speech is alive and well here in the good old US of A. Don't let any one convince you otherwise. You are completely free to say any thing you want, any place you want, any time you want.

Just do not let any one hear you is the trick.

Too many people in this day and age have had such a soft life without any true concept of personal suffering, strenuous labor for a true pittance of a wage and the grand benefit of having a vague idea of not only their next meal but of how much they will eat of it.

Those people miss the hardships of life so if they happen to hear something that doesn't make them feel 100% good, then it is a grievous harm and is therefore unacceptable. And of course "unacceptable" is a codeword for "Absolutely forbidden and highly illegal...Manditory Death Penalty if we had to stones to actually kill anyone." Of course actually killing someone might force some sort of hardship on a person (like doing something) and would naturally be illegal as well.

So in short, you can have free speech so long as no one hears you.

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:21 PM
The rules are ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is that they took up time to even address this issue.

IMO, Congress should either deal with some meaningful legislation or just go home.

Enough of the BS from both sides.


log in