Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:I have no evidence besides uncorroborated allegations on that last one, but it looks like the rest of this list prohibits We the People's representatives from speaking the truth.
* 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.” [More]
Not that there's generally much danger of that anyway.
Still, it's always interesting watching how unrestrained Marxists operate.
17 comments:
I was raised that the office of POTUS should be respected even if one does not respect the person themselves. Thats just good manners. But if we are going to legislate behavior in the legislation why don't we tack on some proper behavior and respect for the american flag while we are at it? I recall our past congress is unwilling to set rules for artists or political radicals that have burned the flag or used it for a floor mat to attract publicity. Freedom of speech and expression has been stated by senators and representatives that refused to protect the nations flag.
Respect for the office begins with whoever is President.
Obama says and does things that breeds disrespect for the office and our country.
Describing Barack for what he is ...
that is patriotic.
And you just know that the bastards and bitches who wrote this garbage will be the first ones to defy it when a Republican is Prsident.
Maybe Wilson should have shouted:
"That is a LIE" rather than "Liar".
I too was raised to respect the office of president. I was raised to respect police officers too. The problem is when they don't respect their office sufficiently to uphold the standards of that office.
If the person "misrepresents", "deceives", or otherwise "lies"... call them out as a liar.
I support Wilson's behaviour. It is time for things to get a bit unruly. It reflects the overall sentiment of the nation.
What's next, Papal infallibility?
Wilson should apologize for apologizing.
Crotalus,
The rules are only one directional.
Democrats broke decorum when they booed and heckled George W. Bush during the 2005 State of the Union address.
Don't get me wrong - most of the time he deserved it - but not this time. During this speech he was delivering the message that the socialist programs were going bankrupt.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/10/flashback_democrats_boo_bush_at_2005_state_of_the_union.html
Wilson should apologize for using mere words.
He should have caned the liar.
Yes, Santander, that's my point. As you confirm, we have seen this behavior from the Democrats before, ergo, we will see it again. It's just that now, we will see an added degree of hypocrisy.
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
Someone said that....
I have lost my sister's email address and this is something I had hoped to send her,she being a doctor of education and all.
She had asked did I think Wilson should have called the president a liar. Which he actually didn't, he said "you lie". Same thing, but let's get it right.
I had only time to give a partial answer which was, "Yes, he was lying." I didn't get to say more as my sister is your typical liberal. Here is what I would have sent her if I still had her address. I won't call her simply because I don't want to talk to her anymore.:
Well Sis, you didn't let me finish my answer. Joe Wilson told the truth and Obama was lying. Morally Wilson was justified in doing what he did. Technically he was in violation of House rules. However, we as the main movers post WWII established that moral imperatives take precedence over law, "orders", or policy. We hanged people who had not observed that tenet of humanity. So yes, Wilson was justified in saying what he did.
However, I didn't get to tell you anything beyond "Yes, Obama was lying." because you fell back on the liberal modus operandi of all liberals. You shouted and talked and screamed and denigrated me and accused me of unspeakable motives. In the two or three items you brought up, you did that every time there was a disagreement. Yet, when I quoted you facts that were verifiable that refuted your position you merely claimed you didn't believe them. When told where to verify them, you stated you were too busy to research all that.
Why on God's green earth do you think your opinion based on admitted ignorance should be the basis of law or policy in this country? Laws and policies that would affect every man, woman, and child because people like you are "too busy" to learn about that which they opine.
As is usual for your kind, you have somehow managed to convince yourself that shrillness and quantity of verbiage is interchangeable with quality of thought. It is not.::END
Since she isn't contactable by me in any manner I am willing to undertake, I hope she reads this here. However, I know she won't. She "doesn't have time" to learn anything she is "too busy" teaching college students shit she knows nothing about.
If you can't do anything on that list, why even bother to convene congress anymore? Of course, that is the best idea of all. "Congress shall make no law...."
SA, That's a tough go when one believes it's right to call someone on a lie, and one's sibling turns around and uses all manner of invective for daring to challenge "The One", without even debating the issue honestly.
Yes, Obama is lying about his plan, among other things. The problem is Joe Wilson gave the Dems a convenient target to for distraction. Time and a place, and all that.
Methinks they doth protest too much...
The hypocracy of that group of clowns is astounding. To think that they deserve respect for the way they've disregarded the rights of the People leads me to believe that they all should be tarred and feathered and then hanged from the nearest trees.
I’ve heard this all my life: “We should respect the office of the president”
For most of my adult life I bought into that concept “hook, line and sinker”. But in recent times, as I have read more and more about the internal threats that face this nation, and about what the Founders envisioned, I am less willing to write a blank check for “respect”.
First of all, “The Office” is nothing, nada, zip. It is defined by the individual that resides there, and the traditions of the past. Well those traditions aren’t setting policy that shapes the direction of this country! But the man in the Oval Office most certainly is.
The Founders (aside from that maniac Hamilton) had no desire for an all-powerful executive. But in the last hundred years or so, we’ve had a series of presidents who have continuously pushed the envelope of power – always with the intent of expansion and centralization. We’ve moved far from the place where a constitution could restrain the federal leviathan’s unquenchable thirst for control, and Americans granting carte-blanch support for “The Office” in no way dovetails with the idea that government NEEDS to be put back in its place.
I will NOT just automatically respect the office, and I will encourage everyone I meet to stop looking at “the office” and look ever harder at The Man who works there. Tradition has its place, but now ain’t the time to hold back because of some nebulous concept of “the office”.
"alledged sexual misconduct on the president's part"
Is there something she knows about the President that hasn't become common knowledge yet?
Post a Comment