ELIZABETH WARREN - Only the 2nd Senator in U.S. History To be Barred From Speaking.

a reply to: Abysha

You need to understand that the letter was a political opinion.

With that say it was to incited a response, Warren got what she was asking for, so she can now comeback and show how her freedom of speech is been taken away by a majority Republican congress.

If you can not see that then sorry.

a reply to: JinMI

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to ask. You may have just broken the age old rule, that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Do you honestly believe that time changes the value of a life lesson? Do you honestly believe that time changes the meaning of a thing? Because if so, then you are WHOLLY mistaken, entirely so. If the value of a lesson changes or lessens with time, then you had better give up on walking around, because that is a trick we learned back in the mists of pre-history. Should we all stop using vaccines because we forgot how well they work? Should we all stop going to the doctors because many medical procedures have not changed in a fundamental fashion for a hundred or more years? Should we stop driving on the correct side of the street, because the rules are old? Should we just kill one another because the instruction not to came from a book which is many thousands of years of age?

What kind of logic makes possible the asking of a question such as yours? I want to know where you got the idea that the value of a lesson depends on how many years ago it got learned, because from where I sit, that is perhaps the most dangerously anti-intellectual proposition I have EVER heard.

a reply to: TrueBrit

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to ask. You may have just broken the age old rule, that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Well a big hairy digitus medius to you too buddy.

Ever heard of Senator Byrd, former KKK member? I do and all his racist past need not matter anymore because..reasons.

Do you still light your hearth with flint and steel by necessity?
Do you still drink water directly from the closest river?

Good gawd Brit!

originally posted by: muse7
Says a lot about our current state of affairs when a man who was deemed too racist in 1986 to become a federal judge that even Coretta Scott King wrote a letter admonishing him , is now on the verge of being confirmed as the Attorney General.

Then why didn't read the plethora of crap said by Robert Byrd.

The only KKK memeber ever elected to congress and to Warrens own party.

ALL of them 'cried' when the guy died.

Warren is a FRAUD just like that entire party.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Abysha

You need to understand that the letter was a political opinion.

With that say it was to incited a response, Warren got what she was asking for, so she can now comeback and show how her freedom of speech is been taken away by a majority Republican congress.

If you can not see that then sorry.

That describes about half of these hearings. If reading a letter detailing the political opinion of a legendary civil rights figure "impugns" Sessions, isn't that alarming in and of itself?

If you cannot see that she was singled out because of the "political opinions" of others, then sorry.

Aaahhh! Now that was relieving. This seems like a good point to share more information (read my previous post).

This is the reason why rule XIX was instituted for anyone who is curious.

Senate witnesses a fistfight Feb. 22, 1902

From the article...

On this day in 1902, Sen. John McLaurin (D-S.C.) accused the state’s senior senator, Ben Tillman, of “a willful, malicious and deliberate lie.” Standing nearby, Tillman spun around and punched McLaurin in the jaw. Fists flew. Members were stunned by this stunning breech of Senate decorum.

a reply to: Abysha

And we will never agree see, the dilemma? But I tell you what, Warren now have political fuel to keep igniting the fire.

Very smart for the old hag.

a reply to: Abysha

A proven false witchhunt thirty years ago? I don't even like trumps pick but don't be a sheep to Warren and the media.

Or she's really stupid thinking she can read a thirty year old opinion piece on the Senate floor.

I'm still leaning towards political move

a reply to: JinMI

No! But I do not forget at any time that this is how things were done, that this is what used to happen, that this is how we lived. You know why? There are two very good reasons:

1) There are some things about history that you never want to happen again, and the best way to ensure that they do not, is to remember them, even if you were not around to see them. You study them, you pick them apart, you commit them to memory, and you stand beside your line in the sand, waiting to see who dares to cross it in ignorance, ready to prevent them from doing so with your last breath.

2) And there are some lessons from history that you have to remember because they DO need repeating, whether thirty years have passed, three hundred, or three thousand. The only reason it is necessary for people to continue to remind people of what has passed before, is that some people think it prudent to behave as if the moment is all there is, as if they have no history of their own, no ancestors, no past, and probably no future. Behaving as if the past has no meaning in the present ensures that the future will be shorter than the past, not as long or longer, and THAT is a lesson that no human being has permission to forget.

Let's play the race card

This was not about her reading a letter from MLK's wife. That is a nice narrative but she spoke for over 50 minutes and multiple times broke the rules. Tie it to Sessions and it is race baiting 101.

He made derogatory and racist comments that should have no place in our justice system,” she said. “To put Sen. Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is an insult to African-Americans.” Warren quoted a 1986 speech from the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who referred to Sessions as a “throwback to a shameful era” and a “disgrace” to the Justice Department.

Listen to the first few minutes. This is nothing but an attack on Trump. Like Holder and Lynch were great people...please!

She had been warned MULTIPLE times by Daines to take it back a bit and she did not. The only thing you will see in the media is a Democrat being told she cannot read a letter from a black historical figures wife. BS. Lets make it racial per usual.

She needs to head home to her tee-pee and get ready for an election she may not win.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Even if they are decontextualized? Her letter was a matter of opinion and from what I have been reading, a not very accurate one. Did you read it? I linked it on page 1.

She took the letter and paraphrased it to somewhat slander the Sessions? Do I agree that she should have been silenced? Probably not, was a slimy political move.

You can tout your moral standing until your dying day (which I'm sure you will) but keep in mind this is American politics. No hands are clean and morals are in short supply.

Playing the race card unfairly for political expediency should never be acceptable in any context.

That said, silencing her only gives liberals more ground to make their case in public.

I dislike that woman, but silencing her like this was a mistake.

imo

a reply to: Phage

Real simple, Rule 19 says a Senator may not impugn another Senator directly or indirectly.

Warren did it indirectly.

There's no subjectivity to it at all.

Add,

This is probably why you don't hear about Warrens claimed pedigree on senate floor

The old hag knew exactly how to hit the racial spot within those that still think we are back in the 60s

It is sad that many seems to ignore what she is up to, actually what her entire party is up to.

Democrats Vow To Stall Trump’s Appointees For As Long As Possible

thelibertarianrepublic.com...

And that is a fact, that is what Warren and her bunch are up to how can anybody argue with that.

a reply to: Phage

I wonder, was King's letter part of the public record? Is citing public record out of order?

They are out of order when they go against the wishes of the Donald.

a reply to: JinMI

So, to understand you fully, you are suggesting that a) the context of what was written, was taken out of the piece by the choices of passages read by Warren? How so, please explain.

Also, b) if there are no clean hands in your politics, then why pick a side?

So at the end, congress have laws.

They enforce the laws.

Warren break laws.

She bot busted!!!!!!!!!

End of the debate.

a reply to: marg6043

But laws are for lesser people, and Trump.

He sucks.

So Warren should be allowed to violate Senate rules because. . . Trump.

This is not about Emperor Trump. If that was the case she would not even be speaking and he would have a full cabinet. People still talk about him like he can do anyting but as we see a 'judge' now has the ability to stop the PResident. WTF was this guy when the ACA was passed? Thats right they were told to pass it and we would read it later.

It is shameful. I do not care which side as they both have done it in the past but they look like school kids fighting over a cookie.

lets hope all the democrats in congress learned a valuable lesson from this.
The halls of congress is not the place for vile slanderous butt hurt rants if you want to do that then go join the protestors in the streets or have the MSM interview you.

without decorum, congress would have no more credibility than the mobs rioting and protesting in the streets.