Did Leahy call Cheney a motherfucker before or after Cheney told him to go fuck himself?
Two words:
Tazer Chairs!
Paid By Lobbyists Man
Knows What Is Best For You Man
Tax and Spend Boy
You got it figured out again. Applause for your president and the leader of your party are exactly the same as yelling “you Lie” , in the middle of a nationally televised speech. Why don’t more people understand that. It seems so obvious.
If a right winger does it, it must be good. That is a simple world you live in.
I agree. I would say throw him out only if he disrupts the speech for a prolonged period of time and refuses to stop when asked to.
( by Chimera )
Nope.
This causes a much bigger disruption than the actual event.
It’s true a given eviction causes more disruption, but I believe it would set a disciplinary precedent that would dragoon boors into some modicum of more appropriate behaviour going forward.
My concern is with establishing a precedent for disruption (or maintaining the existing tradition, depending on how much you buy into the notion that this sort of thing is common).
I am deeply concerned with the polarization in this country already. It makes for sloppy debate here on the Dope, but at least this is a casual conversation board. At the level of the US Congress, the polarization is often openly hostile. I am concerned that hostility will segue into catcalling and verbal interruptions during a Congressional speeches and hearings in general. Given the current level of polarization, I worry that uncivil behaviour will only escalate and that the escalation will only worsen the polarity.
If we do not remove disruptive members, we will create an environment where we weaponize those disruptions. We give them protection each time we allow them to occur, and if the sanction is not immediate removal, I fear we risk a gradual deterioration into a disorderly mess. A half-assed apology after the fact from the first twit who gets by with it will simply embolden the next one the next time.
It’s a question of taste, perhaps. I originally posted this thread in IMHO for just that reason. I’m not sure the topic rises to the level of a Great Debate…
Who gets to decide who is disruptive, and before what vote? That itself is a darned dangerous precedent.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m equating. The amount of cheering during these stage productions is childish nonsense. Pelosi might as well have used pom poms. This isn’t limited to one side of the political fense. Bush received a substantial amount of staged cheering and moaning in some of his addresses. What Wilson did was verbalize his displeasure instead of vocalizing it.
Speeches don’t require a Congressional sound track which is what this was. Oh, and you can go delete yourself if you can’t be civil in a discussion about civility.
I’m a Democrat and must agree with you. What is needed are not statements such as “It is time for Democrats and Republicans to forget our differences and work together”, but meetings in smoke filled rooms to form some compromise. Compromise being defined as “a solution no one likes, but everyone can live with.”
Generally, the person chairing the meeting is responsible for keeping order. The Chair has various options like telling the member they are not recognized to speak. telling them that a motion is not in order, up to ordering them to be seated or to ordering the sergeant to remove them from the floor.
But of course, in all of these that member, or any other member, could challenge the ruling of the Chair, which means the whole body would vote to either uphold or overrule the Chair’s decision. So ultimately, the deciding on this is done by the whole body of voting members.
(That’s the procedure under Roberts’ Rules. Congress has their own rules, but I believe they are largely similar to Robert’s Rules in most things.)
In the case at hand, I’d like to see a President take enough initiative to boot someone out on their ass on the spot.
There’d be some shocked…SHOCKED…responses. Even some hysteria around such a “darned dangerous precedent.” Perhaps a little hootin’ and hollerin’ and hand-wringing and even a sanctimonious editorial somewhere.
And when the dust had settled, the next time…well, there wouldn’t be a next time.
Try a little cheerleading in the Supreme Court–or even your local court–next time you visit before you attempt to go down some Constitutional Rights argument, by the way. The judges don’t think a whole lot of self-aggrandizing polloi grandstanding while they have the stage. Neither should the President.
Now if a belligerant Congressman had any sense, he’d get himself a fake diagnosis of Tourette’s and just let loose at will under some sort of disability crapola, but that’s another thread…
Applauding during a presidential address is typical behavior. It has been going on for decades. Yelling “you lie” is not acceptable . They are not equivalent.
Republican here who felt Wilson’s outburst beyond embarrassing…
Go ahead, pass a rule to toss someone out for being disruptive. Just don’t bitch when members of the Democrat party get thrown out on their ass in the future. The Republicans will triple the number of bailiffs and every “boo” will result in a Democrat being removed from chambers. They will toss someone for not rising for the Pledge, or for lacking a flag pin.
Go ahead - make the rule. See if it helps.
Or even when someone uses the phrase “Democrat Party”. :dubious:
Sorry - Democratic Party.
Hear him, hear him!
Thanks.
Well, that’s patent nonsense. Applauding when applause is indicated is in no way similar to yelling while the President is addressing you.
That right there is a pathetic jumble of unthinking partisan shit.
Wilson is an asshole for disrupting the proceedings. Wilson is an idiot for being wrong about the disruption. If you are okay with the Republicans being fronted by idiots and assholes then… well I guess you’re in luck. 
Sorry, you’ve lost me.
Could you explain the difference between verbalizing and vocalizing?