fucking bed wetting xenophobes!
*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, February 8th, 2017 11:56am PST - promote requested by enoch.

Those who fear words fear them because they know they are wrong.

This is exactly why Obama, when faced with protestors at his rallies allowed the protestor to speak their piece, and only let security eject them if they continued being disruptive.

mcconnell is a turd; there's my free speech; I will not be silenced!

Is anyone else just baffled by this move?... this had to be one of the most politically stupid maneuvers I've ever seen.

Who really told McConnel to do this...

He, and MANY of his contemporaries are unbearable cowards but he isn't politically stupid.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, February 8th, 2017 4:49pm PST - promote requested by Januari.

*talks

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by ant.

A bold strategy of non-stop baffling stupidity worked wonders for trump though. . .

It seems republican voters are just in the mood for a brawl, and a demonstration of force like this is just the sort of thing that turns them on.

What exactly does "Rule 19" say?

@newtboy 's description:
"This means that now republicans have ended free speech in the senate, and any time they feel they have been insulted, they'll end the debate and silence the offenders. I find that treasonous, as it directly and horrendously effects how the senate works (or doesn't) and means the party in power can now enforce their un-American idea that they are the only one's allowed to speak."

I agree that it seems to have been used to stifle free speech in this instance. But it doesn't seem like it could be used that way "any time" -- only when the the content being read/spoken is a quote from previous senate sessions?

The reason that I think the full story is important is that the best way to put the kibosh on this would be to turn the tables and have Warren et al. use it on Republicans to demonstrate that it is a bullshit "rule". That sort of violates the whole "they go low, we go high" thing, but a disfunctional, ineffective legislature might be preferable to an actively evil/corrupt legislature. And more importantly, (ab)using the rule is likely the best way to get it removed ASAP so this shit can't happen again.

--edit--
OK, I guess that the "impugn" part is the key, rather than specifically referring to any previous senate session statements. But that just makes it more bullshit, because "impugn" (synonyms include "challenge", "criticize", etc.) is way to broad to be enforceable. I suggest that the moment any senator refers to anybody, dems should "take offense" and invoke Rule 19 themselves.

Rules are rules.
She was stopped for nor following the rules.

Pocahontas did not care to follow Rule 19. She was warned but decided to go forward and she failed.

Democrats are so out of tune with America.. Blinded by their self righteousness..

Rule 19 of the U.S. Senate states, “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

The rule goes on to state that if any Senator breaks the rules of the Senate, in the opinion of the Presiding Officer, they will be called to order and take their seat.


So it can only be abused by the majority party.

Thanks.

That definitely makes it worse, but I'd still muck up the works by issuing repeated "Rule 19" complaints, even though it is clear that the Presiding FascistOfficer would rule against them. But I'm a spiteful bastard like that.

I guess the only high-ground way to resist this is to vocally make note of it as loudly and frequently as possible. This video and other reporting on the incident are good steps in that line. But at this point I think we're too deep in the shit to expect to get out without getting a little dirty.

"No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

It's that balance between decent people and arseholes - it's always favourable to the arseholes.

In politics or any serious consideration, if an opportunist cheats there will be a small scandal - but it's to be expected of them, time passes and eventually they're credited for their ingenuity and resourcefulness. If a decent person cheats once, it can be held against them forever, a lifelong symbol of moral bankruptcy.

That's the difference between an arsehole and a decent person. Both types of people have some kind of moral balance, with "good" on one side of the see-saw and "bad" on the other side. The problem is, arseholes move the pivot closer to the "good" side when they're talking about someone virtuous - any bad counts double.

Before i get accused of insulting some group or other, the left and right and centre all have arseholes, it applies to every group. If someone wants to say that I'm biased, and "arseholes" say the exact same thing about me, only i'm the arsehole. Well i can certainly consider that, but if we were to search through all news items in the western world to see how the 'virtuous' are held to account compared to the 'non-virtuous', does anyone doubt which way that would go? For whatever agreed definition of virtuous.

I think it's about time the left started fighting dirty, personally. Go ahead and punch a nazi - i won't criticise you for violence. The little bastard wouldn't care if one of his mates punched me.

If something bad happens to them, they want you to moralise. If something bad happens to you, lol you're a fucking snowflake.

Except in this case the rule was created specifically to protect members of the senate from cries of racism.

When fascism and totalitarianism take over and the rules are written by bad people for bad purposes simply saying "rules are rules" is naive and dangerous.

Still waiting on some specific examples from you on how Obama "ruined" the country (or for you to admit you were wrong). Your words have no weight so long as you run away from the slightest hint of a counter argument. I can see why you like Mitch's move here, it's exactly the sort of thing you'd pull.

You fear words because you are wrong, Bob. If you stopped to pay attention you might actually have to reevaluate your position and you're too much of an intellectual coward to do that, aren't you? Prove me wrong, by the way, let's see an open discussion, rather than your usual drive-by commenting followed up by hiding in the basement from any cogent dissenting argument.

Actually, it was created because a horrendously racist senator that advocated lynching from the Senate floor was maligning a Jr. senator for considering the annexation of the Philippines. The Jr. Senator heard, rushed to the floor, and accused the Sr Senator of telling "willful, malicious, and deliberate lies", and the Sr, Tillman, rose and attacked the younger Jr Senator violently ending in a brawl on the Senate floor.

..so technically, it was created to protect senators from the lies of racists....but it's now being used to protect and hide the racists' lies and actions.

Another rule that's a rule, when a law is routinely not enforced, it becomes legally invalid. This rule has been used once in over 100 years, and consistently ignored for the remainder of it's existence....so if the rules of the Senate are law, and I think they qualify, this one is no longer valid.

Ahhh, the boot on the neck isn't quite as comfortable when its YOUR neck. I think I enjoy all this liberal whining.

I'm just waiting now for the, "Elections have consequences" speech and a fist-full of bills we can pass (hopefully even bills pertaining to a massive 1/5th of our entire economy!) while collectively ignoring the minority party. Wow that sounds... familiar. Have we payed this game before?

I love how nazis use violent imagery and talk up the brutality all the time, but when they get punched in the face it's less boots on necks and more piss in pants.

Honestly, richard spencer helped dispel the illusion that these new nazis are anything to worry about when he bitched out after tasting some of the violence he enables. Reminds me of the Big Lebowski.

Donny: "Are they gonna hurt us Walter?"
Walter: "No Donny, these men are cowards."

Oh, I'm glad you cleared that up. I had completely forgotten liberals don't use violent imagery, like calling pretty much everyone they disagree with some form of Hitler... or a nazi if Hitler gets old.

In any case, my point is still the same. Use "the shoe is on the other foot" or "turn-about is fair play" or even "what comes around goes around" if it makes you FEEEEEEEEL better.

Whine on! I'm loving it!

@worm
ha! touche'

i come from a different perspective.
i am the dude sitting on the bench watching the ultra left and ultra right collectively pee themselves,but over such inane,and partisan of political perfunctory reasons.

the ultra left are a gaggle of cry-babies who see racism,sexism and misogyny everywhere,and they openly seek to shut down conversations and discussions by accusation of the very thing they are supposedly fighting for.

the ultra right..however...

are equally detestable in their faux hyper-nationalism,super patriotism authoritarianism.jesus came to earth so you could drive a beamer...but ONLY if your american.

who wet their wee panties at even the slightest thought of a brown person coming to take away their god given right to be a gun toting,cheetos flavored,ignorant twat.

they just LOVE to take credit for accomplishments that they never had a part in,nor had the balls to even attempt.

i am ex-military,and every right winger..and i mean EVERY right winger i know..never served a day.

so i get your point mate.
it is rather hilarious in an existential way,how both the right and left and so unabashedly unaware of their own hypocrisy.

the ultra left have chosen to fight racism,sexism and misogyny by..../drum roll....

shutting down free speech by not only calling everyone who disagrees a :racist,sexist and misogynist,but by also attempting to legislate the very language we use...you know..to communicate.

whereas the ultra right have become such boot lickers due to their own xenophobic fears of everything:different,other and strange that they literally piss themselves at even the mention of brown people,and appear to be willing to sacrifice every civil right,just so they can feel "safe".

they hide behind the flag and hyper-patriotism but thats all bullshit...they are simply trying to hide the pee stains on their camos.they hate brown people with the same viciousness that they hate the godless liberals.

they band together under the banner of jesus,god and country and state..quite loudly..that they will FIGHT sharia law in america.

while seemingly noble,it belies the fact that nobody is trying to impose sharia law in the USA,but holy jesus on a fuck stick,do they drool over the thought of having a "christian" nation,with "christian" values and "christian" laws.

so DOWN with sharia law (which there is no evidence)
and UP with christian theocracy! (which there is AMPLE evidence of).

the hyper ultra political extensions have taken control of my countries political discussion.

a gaggle of bed wetting cry-babies who dominate this hyper-partisan narrative.

and i am just sitting over here laughing my ass off at the almost surreal absurdity of what has become of my nation.

if you still think the fight is between liberal vs conservative,then i submit you have not been paying attention.

you been taken.
you been had.
you have been sold a bill of bullshit goods that has more place on a daily soap opera than in our political discussion.

the simple fact is this:
liberals WON the moral argument,but they never got the memo.
and the conservatives forgot who they were and sought solace in the arms of a corporate jesus with the face of joel olsteen.

my country has now entered the stage of farce.
we are a fucking joke.

but feel free to keep on poking liberals..

and liberals..

keep on poking conservatives.

and i shall sit here feeding the pidgeons laughing my ass off at both of you.

@enoch

No, are you are saying when you get to the far fringes of beliefs that ideas and beliefs get more... "far fringe-ish"? Tell me that isn't true! lol

I identify as a Conservative. I'm no bible thumping, gun wielding, racist lunatic though the media and liberals spew that far fringe as the "norm". Oddly enough, other than my acceptance of the idea of there being a God and that my rights come from Him and NOT Government, my beliefs have very little to do with religion.

And I doubt every Democrat is a anti-God, rioting, anti-white racist either. Although I do believe that currently the fringe left of the Democrat part is much more in power than the more moderate Democrats. In fact, I dare say the current Republican party is more like the old Democrat party of 20 years ago and the Conservatives like myself were left pretty much without a party at all.

And at the core, what is my personal belief? My belief is that big government is BAD for a free people. Smaller, more localized Government is better for a free people.

I see the US Constitution as a great guide toward what I would like the Government/State relationship to be. We should be 50 quasi-nations, loosely bound together by a common defense, common currency, and inter-state laws. Other than that, the Federal Government should be staying out of the way of the States.

Let California and New York embrace partial-birth abortions and let Texas ban abortions except in cases of life/death or whatever other reason they see as being reasonable. I don't care, I just don't want it in the hands of the Federal Government . There is no NEED for most of the crap we deal with every day to be a NATIONAL issue...

@newtboy

Tillman's words incited the incident, but it was his colleague's response, calling him a malicious liar, that started the fight and it was Tillman's ally in the senate who proposed the rule to protect him in the future.

The rule was made to protect Ben Tillman, who, among other things said:

"[We] agreed on on the policy of terrorizing the Negroes at the first opportunity by letting them provoke trouble and then having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable."

"The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they learn their place again."

"We of the South have never recognized the right of the Negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him. I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores."

^--- This, I'd like to point out, is the guy @bobknight33 is effectively siding with. Rules that protect men like that should be followed, according to Bob.

It seems to me that the fringes have become the loudest voices in both parties, but it's the right who is legislating based on their fringe (no more global warming according to the soon to be defunded epa is just one good example of that). Fortunately, the far left can't implement their banning of words (legally) in the U.S.....our constitution makes that impossible.

Big government is bad, but then you need to actually look into which party grew government and spending, you'll find that they both are near equal these days, no matter what rhetoric they spout.

The civil war pushed us to think that the state's deciding everything with no federal protections for human rights leads to trouble....but I do agree there should be less interference from on high. Consider, if the state's were allowed to be self deterministic, Calexit or Wexit (what I call the plan for all West coast states to form a new country) would be a serious consideration for us and a likelihood.

I would say you seem to have it backwards, the left of today is actually implementing the plans of the right from 20+ years ago, not the other way around.

@worm
thanks for your input ron swanson!

your comment exemplifies that our own,personal politics tend to reside somewhere in the middle.
that is where the majority of us reside,and your comment is a literal macrocosm of the federalist papers.

federal vs state power.

which is a great discussion.

but that's not what we get ..is it?

we get a circus of buffoonery,cult of celebrity,and all conversation occur in this weird "twitter speak".

the art of discussion and debate has been traded for faux outrage and sanctimonious moralizing.to even admit that an opposing political philosophy has a good idea is tantamount to treason.

compromise is now viewed as weakness,and not common sense.

the extreme left and right have hi-jacked this countries national discussion,NOT because they both have put forth such amazing ideas,but rather it makes for good television.

and i say this as a person who holds many "left" ideals.i am a fucking anarchist for fuck sakes!

donald trump winning this years surreal election cycle is only a symptom of the disease eating away at our republic.

in my opinion?
both the democrats and republicans have become monolithic institutions that no longer represent their core ideals,having sold their soul to their corporate masters.

and while i can respect the republicans for being open on who they prostituted themselves to,the democrats STILL play the "feel your pain" tripe while simultaneously giving exxon a tugjob under the table.

the extreme left and right do not represent the majority.
and they should be ridiculed and shamed for their utter lack of anything resembling a good idea.

let's kill them.

Ummm.....so Tillman slandering his colleague and Tillman throwing the first punch...ignore that and blame the victim who called Tillman a liar for spreading lies on the senate floor and on the record about his fellow senator while they weren't present to defend themselves? I don't get that at all, both verbally and physically, Tillman was the clear instigator (and a piece of shit).
The rule had nothing to do with his blatant racism and everything to do with the personal insults and the fist fight on the Senate floor that involved numerous senators when it was done. It was to stop Tillman from repeating his personal attacks, not to stop his colleague from defending his own reputation from Tillman's slanderous lies by calling them lies, as I read the record.
Edit: don't take me wrong, I'm not arguing against your contention that some may have said protecting Tillman was the reason for the rule, or even that they meant it, just that, logically, it doesn't make a bit of sense.
I think the rule is proper if they change it to slander, not just apt but unbecoming description, and certainly not a reasonable interpretation of their actions as a public servant. Lies shouldn't be accepted, no matter what lies or about whom....imo.

All that said, I like the idea of calling it the Tillman rule and claiming it was created with the intent of protecting racists from having their public records made public.

Wow, I'm so excited for the next four years... Trump is a complete waste of time. But, we are all going to have to come together at our local levels on a weekly basis and make some noise. The quicker & stronger the opposition grows, at all levels, the better. It's gotta be ooge and believe me, I know "ooge" better than anyone....