Posted on 09/15/2009 1:27:21 PM PDT by kcvl
Per Drudge
House guidelines for Presidential put-downs
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.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/House_guidelines_for_Presidential_putdowns.html
How about “behaved stupidly?”
Read the comments at the end of the article on Politico.
There are some po’d people!
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That applies to congress itself I believe.
I wonder if “Manchurian” or “ineligible” is banned.
Nine years to late. The called Bush a liar eveyday for nearly eight years, among other things.
Can this be retroactive? Like calling in Hillary and the rest of the Rats?
If they are going to ban liars and hypocrites, there will be nary a Democrat left in the House!
Can you refer to him as “a socialist”?
how about saying the President “needs to release his records”?
is this a joke...
Is this satire? This cannot be real.
Wilson said “You lie,” not “liar.” So I guess he’s in the clear. I guess House rules don’t allow “Liar, Hypocrite and Intellectually Dishonest” because it all hits too close to home.
So how do we bring sedition charges against Obummer
if it is illegal to make truthful accusations?
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.”
Well... Those rules only apply to some people. Calling Bush a liar was perfectly acceptable. /sarcasm
Banning the nouns would be good. They ban they adjectives so the nouns can’t be portrayed honestly.
How ‘bout jackass?
Too late. CENSURE Harry Reid:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7371967/the_gunslinger/
The Gunslinger
Sen. Harry Reid is leading the charge against the GOP
ERIC BATESPosted Jun 02, 2005 12:00 AM
RS: You’ve called Bush a loser.
Harry Reid(D): And a liar.
RS: You apologized for the loser comment.
Harry Reid(D): But never for the liar, have I?
Wilson should take the floor and call all the Dems including Obama out as “a disgrace to the country”
No joke...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/House_guidelines_for_Presidential_putdowns.html
House guidelines for Presidential put-downs
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.”
******
While Rome burns!
Too bad the rules don’t ban liars, hypocrites and the intellectually dishonest instead.
“I don’t think there’s anybody back there.”
How about when Hillary, said that line about the willing suspension of disbelief, when screeching at Gen. Petraus. That was calling him a liar there in the Senate. The libtards are sick.
Commonly referred to the Monica clause.
Exactly! Then there would be no need to BAN WORDS!
they are all out of order
Ya know, in that letter, if it’s authentic, Obama says the art if effective “on a stop sign”.
He’s therefore on record supporting vandalizing public property.
LOL -- the halls of Congress would be empty.
OK. What if I just think those words? Now what are you libs going to do?
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. (Applause.)There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie!
The double standard can not be permitted to stand.
Yes, and the next election can't come too soon. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have lost their damn minds (that is if they ever had any). That just proves that Botox is harmful to your brain. We need an FDA warning.
bump
Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Momar Gaddafi all cheered the election of Barack Obama.
Only in the Clown Universe, is First Amendment speaking of facts and truth not allowed; Public representatives are nothing more than whiney little bitches unable to discern common sense. Let along, standing in between sneaks, cheats and liars to protect the American public, as their duty and oath of office requires.
But the question is, can you call him a liar when he is lying? It seems to me that that would merely be a statement of fact.
And he WAS lying.
I thought that self-defense was always allowed.
At the risk of sounding like a fourth grader: 0bama started it.
I'm almost positive "Sedition" and "Treason" are...
Apparently House rules prohibit telling the truth. Now THERE’S a shock!
Gee I wonder who inspired the sexual misconduct language.
Republicans should attach a reprimand for Pete Stark for what he said about Bush on the House floor. (He was never punished).
See if Democrats believe what they say.
Why come up with these guidelines now?
Some are downright odd: You can't call the president “a little bugger” or refer to any alleged sexual misconduct, for example. Others are more predictable: Don't call the president a liar or accuse him of lying.
Democrats initially cited the latter precedent in saying that Wilson's outburst was a violation.
But Congress was meeting in a special joint session for Obama’s speech on Wednesday, not under the House's normal rules of debate.
“It doesn't violate House rules because the House wasn't in (normal) session,” said Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.
Wolfensberger noted that under regular rules, House lawmakers wouldn't be allowed to stand and cheer as they frequently do at presidential speeches before Congress.
House Parliamentarian John Sullivan agreed that the House's rules on debate probably don't apply to the incident. But he and others said the House has wide latitude in interpreting its general code of conduct that says “a lawmaker shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.”
A lawmaker doesn't have to violate a specific rule to get scolded.
from msnbc.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.