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?”
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.
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”?
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.
Banning the nouns would be good. They ban they adjectives so the nouns can’t be portrayed honestly.
How ‘bout jackass?
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.
OK. What if I just think those words? Now what are you libs going to do?
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.
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.