February 8, 2017

Republican senators play a comic role in Elizabeth Warren's star turn in The Theater of Racial Justice.

The clowns don't know they are the clowns:



That would have been painful — I'd have felt a twinge of sympathy to see them used so cruelly — but it was too funny.

211 comments:

1 – 200 of 211   Newer›   Newest»
Big Mike said...

You really see it that way, Althouse? Interesting.

AllenS said...

Not only are you in violation of Rule 19, but you are speaking with forked tongue.

PB said...

I think the Democrats are acting like spoiled children. They've got the balled fist and shouting NO! thing going, they just need to close their eyes and stamp their feet a bit more.

The Drill SGT said...

Rules are Rules.

Without the interpretation of the rule 19 as it was done, a speaker could read any statement by any scurrilous writer with impunity.

Welcome to the bigs Liz...

MikeR said...

Anybody know anything about the case that Mrs. King's letter discusses? Is she describing something Sessions did that was bad, or is her presentation twisted?
I presume this was discussed at the hearings anyhow?

Unknown said...

she has sat next to this guy in the senate for the last 4 years, and now she claims he is disgrace once he is being nominated to justice dept. sessions has been a colleague of black congresspersons and held arms with the activists at marches honoring the civil rights movement. this is unbelievable.

MisterBuddwing said...

Rules are Rules.

And yet. Sen. Cruz accused Sen. McConnell of lying, and did not suffer any sanction for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weSK_AcCrjQ

LarsPorsena said...

Her Indian name is She-speaks-da-troof.

Mike Sylwester said...

It would have been awesome if Senator Mitchell had worn an Indian-chief eagle-feather hat while making his objection.

David Begley said...

The Harvard Law professor either didn't know the rules or she knows the rules and deliberately broke them to get attention with her liberal base.

pkay said...

Demagogue and Magog

Ann Althouse said...

There's a rule against criticizing a Senator. That rule is asking to get smacked in the face.

Also, that rule is leverage for a smart performer -- like, in this case, Warren. It sets up a star turn, like Al Pacino yelling "You're all out of order!"

Yeah, a rule was violated.

In America, where the people -- some of us, anyway -- believe in free speech.

The Senator was a foil. A foil and a fool. I'm laughing at him.

Quayle said...

So the Senate has a long-standing rule against speaking evil of your Senate neighbor while on the floor of the Senate.

Warren voluntarily sought a membership in that body knowing full well that the rule exists.

What's more, she herself is under the full protection of that rule while others speak of her.

But somehow it is supposed to be virtuous and honorable and "progressive" to flout that rule for her political ends.

And all she had to do was go outside the Senate and stand in front of a mic and say those exact things and she could talk all day long.

But she's too good and righteous for rules. She's saving the world, don't you know, from all the jackals, weasels, and knaves who surround us. (Clearly a person who has formed views on other people from her interactions in the faculty lounge.)

But right here you see the fatal flaw in the left's theories of government. Their cause, their idol, their sense of righteousness - self righteousness - are all greater than law and rules and democracy and the will of the people - even people who didn't teach at Haaavaaad.

And with thus, they'd lead us on a fast path to absolute chaos.

tcrosse said...

The Harvard Law professor either didn't know the rules or she knows the rules and deliberately broke them to get attention with her liberal base.
I think she knew exactly what she was doing. She was playing to the gallery. This was made much more effective for having been silenced.

Ann Althouse said...

It's ludicrous to say "rules are rules" in a situation where Martin Luther King is part of the discussion!

Know your history.

It's Black History Month!

Ann Althouse said...

"She was playing to the gallery."

The "gallery" is the People of the United States, and all of these Senators serve for our benefit. Not for themselves. Their insistence on politeness in service of their tender feeling is something for us to laugh at. They are playing to the "gallery" too and they seem not to realize that they are on stage. The stuff of nightmares. You suddenly turn around and see there's an audience and they are all laughing at you. You are naked.

Angel-Dyne said...

I thought the senators were quite droll here. Clown Warren seemed to be struggling to hold back the tears when the Coretta Scott King talisman she was waving around began to show signs of having lost some of the magical potency it had heretofore always emanated.

She was misrepresenting, well past the point of slander, Sessions' record. Boo hoo.

Big Mike said...

I'm sorry, Althouse, I thought it was you liberals who were running around saying "f**k history." Isn't that what the deconstruction movement was all about?

I'm just being cruelly neutral here.

AllenS said...

Ann Althouse said...
In America, where the people -- some of us, anyway -- believe in free speech.

Except when you want to shut people up. Evidently, you have your own rules. Which is fine, it's your blog, but you shouldn't criticize the Senate for their rules.

Big Mike said...

If anyone deserved a pie in the face it was Warren. No question about it.

Quayle said...

"In America, where the people -- some of us, anyway -- believe in free speech."

Ann, you're right.

I demand free speech at the opera!

I should be able to stand up and say anything I want with full impunity and be left entirely alone to do it, right?

But you know as well as I that the upper-westsiders would be the first to haughtily sniff and snort at me in disgust. And that is only an stinking opera.

Does free speech automatically mean there can never be comity?

Angel-Dyne said...

AA: It's ludicrous to say "rules are rules" in a situation where Martin Luther King is part of the discussion!

What a ludicrous comment.

rehajm said...

HAH!. No way Republicans get that tax cut now!

Liz showed you, by golly!!!

Brando said...

She may have spoken out of turn, but the end result is she's getting a lot more news out of this than she would have had if she just made the speech. Sort of a "Streisand Effect".

This won't stop his nomination, but it gives Warren some extra billing as the Left's big Senate star (competing with Al Franken for the title). This is about 2020.

MisterBuddwing said...

I'm sorry, Althouse, I thought it was you liberals

Big Mike, meet The Cap Times of Madison, Wisconsin:

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/roundup/state-debate-mayor-soglin-calls-out-conservative-blogger-for-dissing/article_041cfece-d6b2-11e6-8ac4-a306dc6a1e9d.html

MadisonMan said...

When you break rules, however stupid they might be, you pay a price. This being the US Senate, of course the rules are arcane, and of course everyone looks foolish.

I'm very over this, today's outrage. What should I be outraged about tomorrow?

Quayle said...

"It's ludicrous to say "rules are rules" in a situation where Martin Luther King is part of the discussion!

Know your history.

It's Black History Month!"

And this is exactly where you are wrong, Althouse.

MLK knew perfectly well the rules - the big rules - and he played them to his clearly righteous ends?

As is 'You claim to be Christians and follow Christ. I don't see it. This is not the behavior of Christians.'

Was that Warren's message?

Or is MLK now her Christ?

Brando said...

"What a ludicrous comment."

I'm assuming Althouse is being sarcastic.

David Begley said...

This incident - and people's perception of it - defines the political divide in this country. The "Morning Joe" people backed Warren. Fox thought Mitch was right.

dbp said...

There are two "galleries" one loves Warren's heroic stand, the other loves that she got shut-down. If the vote for Sessions is anything less than 52/48 then maybe we can judge that Warren's play worked. Otherwise it is just both sides pandering to their base.

FullMoon said...

Ann Althouse said... [hush]​[hide comment]

It's ludicrous to say "rules are rules" in a situation where Martin Luther King is part of the discussion!

Know your history.

It's Black History Month!


I didn't hear nothin' about MLK?

MisterBuddwing said...

I demand free speech at the opera!

How often do you go to the opera?

rehajm said...

You suddenly turn around and see there's an audience and they are all laughing at you.

Only lefties are laughing at them. They would have been laughing at them regardless...

Everyone else was happy to see someone shut Warren up. Ends justify, and that other leftie stuff...

Charlie Currie said...

I don't believe there's one Trump voter laughing at the Senator for his point of order...I think they're cheering. Cheering the fact that a squishy Repub grew a back bone.

Angel-Dyne said...

Brando: I'm assuming Althouse is being sarcastic.

I certainly hope you're right.

FullMoon said...

Coretta may have changed her opinion over thirty years since she wrote the letter.

Comanche Voter said...

Ol Liawatha hasn't made many friends in the Senate; and Big Chief Rain In The Face told her to sit down and shut up. Now that incident may play well in Madison and Massachusetts but out here in a good part of the country, the clown in this scenario is Fauxcahontas.

Let's see if there are enough Massholes in Massachusetts to send her back for another comic turn come re-election time.

mockturtle said...

Minnehaha is grandstanding. She is hoping to rant her way to candidacy in 2020.

Ann: Black History Month? WTF?

Hagar said...

It is all right to insult your fellow senators, but there are rules for how to do it - or rather, not do it - so as to avoid further fisticuffs and brawls on the Senate floor.

Michael K said...

"The Senator was a foil. A foil and a fool. I'm laughing at him."

We, I'm sorry to say, are laughing at you.

Warren, as has been pointed out, could go outside the Senate and say the same thing all day long.

Martin Luther King;s Niece defended Sessions recently.

The 1986 nomination of Sessions was defeated by Democrats who controlled the Senate, He was subsequently elected to the Senate where he has served many years and many black politicians have said the 1986 accusations were wrong.

The rule concerns the Senate collegiality that requires Senators to avoid making accusations about others on the floor where they are immune to libel suits, for example.

Warren is playing to the people who are paying for this circus. It may help with the money raising but it will only increase the chances for a 2018 increase in the GOP majority.

Warren, herself, may be in trouble in Massachusetts.

exhelodrvr1 said...

If the Democratic Senators really care about blacks, they will work with Trump to address the inner city issues. Of course, when they don't, that won't be quite as humorous as Warren's attention-grab.

Brando said...

"I certainly hope you're right."

I have to admit with some of her posts I'm starting to wonder.

MisterBuddwing said...

Can we agree that Congressman Joe Wilson was a teeny bit out of line when he shouted "You lie!" while President Obama was addressing Congress? Because rules.

Roughcoat said...

I'm very over this, today's outrage. What should I be outraged about tomorrow?

Exactly.

Laslo Spatula said...

Sadly, I have come to believe most people who invoke the name of Martin Luther King Jr. really don't think twice about him or his words.

He has become just another face on a playing card, to be pulled out of one's favorite deck when needed at the Casino of Politics.

"I've got a Ten of Hearts and an MLK card: Blackjack!"

I am Laslo.



AReasonableMan said...

Althouse trolling the crowd. Well done.

holdfast said...

Sorry, not clear how Black History Month give special privileges to fake Injuns?

Quayle said...



My Dad (BM, Eastman, PhD NYU Musicology) had season tickets to the Met when I was growing up.

Front row, family circle.

I've been to a couple or more.

MisterBuddwing said...

Coretta may have changed her opinion over thirty years since she wrote the letter.

A little difficult, considering Mrs. King died 11 years ago.

Roughcoat said...

But Althouse is right: Warren and the progressive won this little skirmish.

Lefties know how to fight their corner and they're never reluctant to go full-tilt boogie when the situation suits them. Until Trump came along the GOP were MIA in this regard. Still are, really. Bitching about the rules is a sign of weakness. It's girlie. As our former president said, punch back twice as hard instead. Get in their face. The lefties aren't going to quit and they're not going to go soft.

Angel-Dyne said...

Charlie Currie: Cheering the fact that a squishy Repub grew a back bone.

I suppose that counts as some kind of miraculous osteoblast action, considering the invertebrates in question, but it would be nicer to see more, and more robust, counter-attacks than this against the Dems disgusting slander campaign.

MisterBuddwing said...

I've been to a couple or more.

I've been to several, but it's been a while.

mockturtle said...

Laslo, of course, has the definitive answer.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
steve uhr said...

Regardless of the rule the politically smart thing to do was let her speak. Sessions is certain to get confirmed so what is the harm. Now they look like they have something to hide.

mockturtle said...

Yes, in retrospect, I also think Ann may have been displaying some sarc. Hope so! :-)

MisterBuddwing said...

Sadly, I have come to believe most people who invoke the name of Martin Luther King Jr. really don't think twice about him or his words.

He has become just another face on a playing card, to be pulled out of one's favorite deck when needed at the Casino of Politics.


I like how conservatives routinely trot out Dr. King's famous line about people being "judged on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin," but then have nothing else positive to say about him.

Gaius Gracchus said...

Ms. King was wrong in her 1986 letter and it was defaming Sessions back then. Saint Teddy was wrong then and Saint Lizzy is wrong now.

This rule should have been used prior to this moment...

rehajm said...

There's evidence people motivated by invoking MLK are not necessarily people who show up to vote for sour scolding old white ladies at election time.

Liz- schedule a conference call with Hillary and Martha Coakley.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

Althouse is mean.

Sure it's comical to see that Mitch and friends are massively spreading the contents of this letter re the Alabama White Devil, but it's also a little Sad! to see how poorly their minds work.

Anywho, carry on.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Their insistence on politeness in service of their tender feeling is something for us to laugh at.

OK Ann, next time, caning it is. The pay-per-view would solve the national debt.

It's all right, we know you were just trolling. MLK gave it away, otherwise shmoov!

Kevin said...

So today leftists believe that hate speech is still free speech?

By this afternoon, not so much.

Quayle said...

The lefties aren't going to quit and they're not going to go soft.

Brit Hume is right: government is all they have - it is their raisin-dee-etra. They can't go gently into the night. They have no other life.


(And stepping back, I now see Althouse having some fun.

Well played, Ann.

You wouldn't, by any change, be a bit restless and bored on a Wednesday morning in retirement, would you?)

Curious George said...

Ann Althouse said...
Yeah, a rule was violated.

In America, where the people -- some of us, anyway -- believe in free speech."

What a dumb comment.

Fernandinande said...

Ann Althouse said...
It's Black History Month!


People should be judged by the color of their character rather than the content of their skin.

Laslo Spatula said...
Sadly, I have come to believe most people who invoke the name of Martin Luther King Jr. really don't think twice about him or his words.


Sadly? What words of his can you recall other than the childishly dick-simple ones mangled immediately above, which, being a standard-issue reparations/affirmative action racist, he didn't even believe?

Curious George said...

Ann Althouse said...
Yeah, a rule was violated.

In America, where the people -- some of us, anyway -- believe in free speech."

Wait, let me change that to" "Even MLK Jr. would think that's a dumb comment."

There, all good now.

Angel-Dyne said...

Brando: I have to admit with some of her posts I'm starting to wonder.

On any other topic I'd assume the troll switch was on. But our hostess does have form when it comes to weepy Civil-Rights-Era hagiography.

chickelit said...

Ann Althouse said...
It's ludicrous to say "rules are rules" in a situation where Martin Luther King is part of the discussion!

It was asked what Sen. Sessions did which so offended Coretta Scott King. That deserves a hearing. If not the Senate floor, then here. Otherwise, it can be seen as just another smokescreen by Warren to shut down the Sessions nomination by . I'd like to see Althouse address the alleged offending behavior by Sessions against King on its merits.

tola'at sfarim said...

Is it an opening volley related to this and gorsuch?
http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/07/heres-republicans-can-confirm-supreme-court-nominees-without-killing-filibuster/
" It is important because the Senate could confine the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to a single legislative day. By doing so, the Senate would effectively limit the number of speeches meant to obstruct a final vote to the number of obstructing senators times two. After each obstructing senator spoke twice, and assuming no supporting senators wished to debate the matter, debate would be automatically concluded, because obstructing senators would no longer be permitted to speak. Then, once debate on a matter is closed, a final vote on the matter — in this case the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee — would take place."

james conrad said...

First of all, it wasn't MLK, it was his widow, 20 years after his death or am i missing something?

chickelit said...

Ann Althouse said...
It's Black History Month!

Which around here, in the days of Crack EmCee, always devolved in Black Histrionics Month.

Local history -- live with it, Althouse!

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Althouse has a similar rule to the Senate: "don't make personal attacks on other commenters."

Rocketeer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

The senators cannot be sued for what they say from the Well of the Senate. Althouse would have a rule favoring free speech with no checks beyond the Senate rules she thinks should be changed.

Let's all think through how much libel and slander we want from our senators. Unchecked in any way, no less.

Rocketeer said...

Warren disregards rules regarding comity in the Senate.

You know what other Democratic legislator disregarded rules regarding comity in Congress? Preston Brooks.

Elizabeth Warren and Preston Brooks: Fellow Democrats and birds of a feather.

Angel-Dyne said...

Left Bank of the Charles: Althouse has a similar rule to the Senate: "don't make personal attacks on other commenters."

But she let's people flout it all the time, so her support for Warren here is consistent in that way.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Also my cousin, who was a congresswoman, tells me there is a great deal of cowardice hidden behind the shield of the Senate floor.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"Althouse has a similar rule to the Senate: "don't make personal attacks on other commenters.""

Althouse certainly is good at ignoring the enforcement of her own politeness rule.

Michael K said...

Can we agree that Congressman Joe Wilson was a teeny bit out of line when he shouted "You lie!" while President Obama was addressing Congress? Because rules.

Of course, Obama was lying at the time and it was true but he did apologize.

The full court press mobilized by Kennedy and the left back in 1986 when they still thought they were the future has turned out not so well for them once a real lefty like Obama got the power to put us on the path to Venezuela.

Without Obama, we would never have had Trump. I still think Romney could have accomplished much of this without the rancor but the left had to have it this way.

I'm probably wrong about that as the Bork lynching probably is still the seminal event of the present cold civil war.

Brando said...

"Althouse has a similar rule to the Senate: "don't make personal attacks on other commenters.""

If that's her rule, it's probably the most unenforced rule out there.

James Kahn said...

One can only imagine the response on the left if Republicans had violated this rule when Clinton and Kerry were being considered for Obama's cabinet.

Clearly Warren was doing the old lawyer trick of speaking in violation of a rule, knowing full well she'd be silenced, but only after she'd said it, so the damage was done. Plus now she gets to be a Twitter folk hero with #LetLizSpeak. As if she can't say whatever she wants outside of the floor of the Senate.

Brando said...

"On any other topic I'd assume the troll switch was on. But our hostess does have form when it comes to weepy Civil-Rights-Era hagiography."

That and the Lena Dunham defenses.

Sebastian said...

The Senate never allowed "free speech." It's a little late to complain about it now.

Maybe the Senate should have free speech. Just as soon as the left shows, for, oh, a decade or so, that they believe in it, too.

Coretta Scott King had no independent knowledge of anything Sessions ever did. She was a tool for lefty activists, up to and including warren.

Birkel said...

I think he should have objected, as he did.

Then a senator from a safe district not up for re-election should have immediately started in on Warren.

Then a Democrat could have objected.

And Althouse could have laughed all around.

Brando said...

"One can only imagine the response on the left if Republicans had violated this rule when Clinton and Kerry were being considered for Obama's cabinet."

They definitely went nuts when Ted Cruz apparently accused McConnel of lying on the Senate floor. Though when you read what Cruz said, it was hardly a blistering or unfair attack. It was played up as though he'd slapped him across the face with a glove.

mockturtle said...

Quayle muses: Brit Hume is right: government is all they have - it is their raisin-dee-etra. They can't go gently into the night. They have no other life.

Not quite so. They have Hollywood.

Birkel said...

What Ted Cruz said about McConnell was out of order, indeed. But who knows if another senator was even in the Chamber to object? Or would a Democrat have objected? Or was McConnell smart enough not to draw attention to the attack then?

A safe senator should have immediately started defaming Warren so that she could object.

Alinsky or Bust.

AReasonableMan said...

Angel-Dyne said...
our hostess does have form when it comes to weepy Civil-Rights-Era hagiography


If by form you meant indifferent or hostile then yes she does have form.

M Jordan said...

Harry Reid pooped three cubits deep in the Senate and the Repubs have finally quit trying to slog through it but to add to it. I like it! Poop on!

Thanks, Harry Reid! And thanks for the nuclear option, too!

BDNYC said...

Free speech is great and all, but a Senator plays by different rules. A Senator cannot be sued for slander for what she says on the Senate floor, unlike you or me. These Senate rules have their place.

MisterBuddwing said...

They definitely went nuts when Ted Cruz apparently accused McConnel of lying on the Senate floor. Though when you read what Cruz said, it was hardly a blistering or unfair attack. It was played up as though he'd slapped him across the face with a glove.

Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

steve uhr said...

Why isn't the senate rule a First Amedment violation? Has SCOTUS said that senate rules are nonreviewable?

Matthew Sablan said...

"I still think Romney could have accomplished much of this without the rancor but the left had to have it this way."

-- I doubt it. No matter what Republican won, they'd be the next coming of Hitler. Remember, they convinced people that Romney didn't pay taxes [gee, just like they did with Trump] and that Romney knowingly let a woman get cancer to save a few bucks.

No. This is the way of things from the left until they calm their collectively heads and realize that no, you can't hate your way back into a majority.

Birkel said...

steve uhr:

Non-justiciability. Separate but equal branch.
That question should be deleted, pending appropriate mockery.

TosaGuy said...

Senators grandstand all the time and most people ignore them and don't give two shits. Those overly interested in this would be wise to remember that.

damikesc said...

And yet. Sen. Cruz accused Sen. McConnell of lying, and did not suffer any sanction for it.

She didn't get any discipline for a first infraction. She was advised, repeatedly. Democrats do not like following rules. This shouldn't be news.

It's ludicrous to say "rules are rules" in a situation where Martin Luther King is part of the discussion!

But it's Coretta King who is the subject...her claim to fame in the movement is that MLK put his dick in her on occasion.

She may have spoken out of turn, but the end result is she's getting a lot more news out of this than she would have had if she just made the speech. Sort of a "Streisand Effect".

Not sure how a 30-plus year old letter is relevant to the issue today, but YMMV.

But, you're right, they shouldn't have silenced her.

Just as they shouldn't if every Republican refers to as "The Senator who used affirmative action to get tenure".

Mike said...

Time place and manner Steve.

steve uhr said...

Birkel - so no judicial review if the senate passed a rule that white senators may speak twice as long as black senators?

Mike said...

I don't know Steve. Was there judicial review when progressive hero Wilson re-segregated the federal workforce? When he re-segregated the military?

Amadeus 48 said...

Althouse, I love you, but you are wrong on this. This whole Senate scene is silly, but it isn't funny. Why are you laughing?

Elizabeth Warren may be mockable because she is so obviously such a dishonest, sanctimonious prig. The GOP boys got together and made her stop prattling her ridiculous virtue signaling. Mrs. MLK! Black History Month! Teddy "Marijo Kopechne" Kennedy! O-oo-h! This must be sacred!

Well, it isn't sacred. It was Mrs. MLK acting like a clueless Democratic hack, and the late Teddy "girl-sandwich" Kennedy throwing some shade at Jeff Sessions because he defended the rights of some black Democratic voters against the shenanigans of other black Democratic office-holders in Alabama in the 1980s. The case was about incumbents vs. challengers, all of whom were black.

Next, Warren'll get that tough Mr. Schumer from the principal's office, and he'll call the parents. He'll try to get that Mitch McConnell grounded for being mean to the smartest girl in the class.

I agree the Republicans look ridiculous, as do the Democrats. But it is not funny.

dbp said...

I enjoyed how Warren bleated that the Coretta Scott King letter was already in the Senate record, so why couldn't she read it?

It was entered into the record long before Sessions was a Senator. The rule being invoked was impugning the character of a Senator. One might think a Harvard Professor of law would understand these distinctions.

I know, I know: She was just playing dumb.

Birkel said...

steve uhr:

I know you want the courts to decide everything. But the courts do not get to interject themselves on every point.

Your disingenuous hypothetical is hilarious.

damikesc said...

Funny...her Senate bio, that her staff wrote, doesn't mention her being Native American.

Wonder why.

Pookie Number 2 said...

I agree with Althouse that the Republicans look a little silly for shutting this shrew up. On the other hand, the Democratic tactic of calling everyone a racist is losing a lot of its sting other than for true believers, so I doubt Warren's increased exposure helps her much.

jimbino said...

If read at his funeral, the Coretta Scott King letter would be considered by most Republicans a proper eulogy.

Birkel said...

Reuters has Trumps approval over 50%.
Rasmussen has had him there for a while.

Lefties just need to protest a little bit more violently. That should do the trick.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It's ludicrous to say "rules are rules" in a situation where Martin Luther King is part of the discussion

It started as the How You Got Trump File. Now it's expanded to the How You Got Trump Archive. Soon it will be the Library of How You Got Trump.

If the Senate has a rule that you can't talk about the character of a nominee on whose fitness for the job the Senate is required to pass, then it's a stupid rule. But it never occurs to Warren to make this obvious point; all she can do is repeat "Coretta Scott King!" like a Harry Potter spell and wonder why it doesn't work. It's a whole room full of clowns.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Yeah, a rule was violated.
In America, where the people -- some of us, anyway -- believe in free speech.
The Senator was a foil. A foil and a fool. I'm laughing at him.


Good. I thank you for your forthrightness, Professor.

Can manners and politeness be a tool of oppression? Yes. Does that mean all calls for politeness and following the rules are disingenuous? No.
Everyone who breaks a rule thinks they're doing it for a noble cause; everyone who breaks a rule thinks their rulebreaking is justified or required. "Sure I broke the rule, but I was following the LARGER rule/ethical mandate!" etc.

I note many of the same Leftists types who seem to love Warren are lately not too interested in maintaining the rule/norm that outright violence for political causes is ok. Lots of "it's good and necessary to punch a Nazi" combined with defining pretty much all political opponents as Nazis. But hey, it's just another rule ("violence as a tool for political expression/gains is wrong"), right?

It's funny when Warren breaks a rule in the Senate and thereby "destroys" a political opponent. It's funny when some masked Leftists sucker punches someone the Left says is a Nazi on camera, "destroying" that Nazi. Ha-ha-ha, right?

MLK broke laws and rules as part of his fight for civil rights, so it's therefore fine and praiseworthy for others to break laws and rules and violate norms to score political points when MLK is part of the discussion, or when it's Black History Month, or whenever we feel like it.

What is it that distinguishes the Senate as a body, again? Norms and traditions, right? I mean, Reid did his absolute best to stamp out any residual care for comity, concord, or bipartisanship that might have still existed there, but how smart of an idea is it to lean into that--to cheer on turning the Senate into little more than the House w/fewer members? Do you think that's good for the nation/our government long-term? Ah, but you're right, somebody got off a monumental diss--a real sick burn, so it's totally worth it.

Laugh it up (fuzzball).

steve uhr said...

Birkel. So I take it you do not think the black/white hypothetical is reviewable? Yes or no? Simple question.

Birkel said...

The courts do not review hypotheticals.
Do you understand that?
Yes or no?

Do you think courts can review everything? Yes or no. Simple question.

Chuck said...


I guess it would also be a Rule XIX violation, to stand on the floor of the Senate and read Ann Coulter's 2012 column about Elizabeth Warren, in which Coulter noted that the Massachusetts senator sometimes goes by her Indian name, "Lies on Race Box."

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-05-09.html

Birkel said...

In which Chuck, so called, makes exactly the same point I made above.

Pookie Number 2 said...

I guess it would also be a Rule XIX violation, to stand on the floor of the Senate and read Ann Coulter's 2012 column about Elizabeth Warren, in which Coulter noted that the Massachusetts senator sometimes goes by her Indian name, "Lies on Race Box."

Yes, it would.

Weird Senate rules don't change the fact that Jeff Sessions is a good person or the fact that Elizabeth Warren is a bad person.

n.n said...

"Racial justice" has progressed as a reconstitution of institutional racism under the principle of [class] diversity [re]normalized by the Pro-Choice doctrine.

Amadeus 48 said...

Keep it up Jimbino. My day isn't complete until the GOP has been called racists by some ignorant Democratic hack. The Democrats haven't been this angry since the Republicans freed their slaves. The Dems still think they own black people.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

But, honestly, let's go. No whining from me. The Senate rules about attacking Senators aren't important anymore. so fuck it. Call Warren a lying bitch at the next opportunity, in the Senate. Fuck 'em.
Let them play their race cards, and their lady part cards, all of it. Attack them mercilessly. Use the full power of the government to personally go after political opponents. Stay within the law, of course, but let's go, get it on. Use your majority status to fuck the other party over--fuck up their committees, change the rules to benefit yourself, fuck them up.

If we're not all going to be polite, and aren't going to pretend to be polite, and don't pay any price w/nice people like Professor Althouse for breaking the rules, let's accept that and disregard the rules. What use are the rules when only one side follows them, to their detriment?

Harry Reid was one of the biggest assholes around and he acted like an asshole towards Mitt Romney. Reid paid no price for that, and polite Romney lost. Fine. You nice polite people want to caterwaul about how awful vulgar, impolite Trump is setting a bad example, but it's a pure incentive effect--you get more of what you encourage.

The Professor is laughing and cheering this particular example of rule breaking. That, of course, encourages rule breaking. Fine, let's go, screw the rules.

steve uhr said...

Birkel. Seriously is that the best you can do? Refuse to answer a hypothetical question? You would make a great politician.

Birkel said...

I asked you a substantive question, steve uhr.

Can the courts review everything under the sun? Yes or no?

steve uhr said...

Of course not. There must be standing and a case or controversy. And damages. Among other things. So now answer my question.

The Godfather said...

If the Senate hadn't shut her up, nobody would have heard what she had to say except Senators, who know it's BS. Instead, the morning news has broadcast the canard to Mr. & Mrs. America and all the ships at sea. Good going Mitch!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"They go low, we go high." What utter bullshit. Fuck it: war. Forget about the long term consequences, forget about the fact that the nice people will 100% find it "ugly" when some Republican does the same thing...let's get going, let's burn this bitch down.

Why is anyone surprised we "got Trump?!"

Birkel said...

So there are some things beyond the purview of a court. Good.

Now the onus is on you to provide an explanation why a court has jurisdiction over internal Senate rules, in which the Senate is a co-equal branch of government.

Point to any precedent on this point.

NOTE: If the Senate has passed a law, such as non-discrimination, then it has bound ITSELF to follow that point. This a court can review because the Legislative Branch has granted permission to the court through its actions.

Your hypothetical is now answered, fully.

AReasonableMan said...

steve uhr said...
Birkel. Seriously is that the best you can do?


Leave Birkel alone.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I have a dream that letters from Coretta Scott King will one day not be judged by the color of their author's skin, but by the content of their remarks about Jeff Sessions' character.

Mattman26 said...

I certainly get the "free speech" angle, and I'm sympathetic that the senators, who ostensibly work for us, shouldn't lead too "clubby" an existence.

But in an age when many of us bemoan the politicization of everything and everybody, and when even the notion of decorum seems like something from a bygone era, I kind of like that throwback rule. You can demonize your colleagues on the campaign trail or a press conference or the Sunday morning shows; don't do it on the Senate floor.

Plus her claims of racism are supreme bullshit and I bet she knows better. She is a repellent woman, and I hope she runs for president.

mccullough said...

This stuff will make it easier for McConnell to get rid of the filibuster. Warren bad-mouthing a fellow senator, Booker testifying against a fellow senator. McConnell plays the long con. Warren, Booker, Sanders play the short con.

steve uhr said...

Birkel. Guess you can't or won't answer my original yes or no question.

I have decided not to waste anymore time commenting or reading comments on this blog. You win. Congratulations.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Mattman26 said...But in an age when many of us bemoan the politicization of everything and everybody, and when even the notion of decorum seems like something from a bygone era, I kind of like that throwback rule. You can demonize your colleagues on the campaign trail or a press conference or the Sunday morning shows; don't do it on the Senate floor.

That sounds reasonable, Mattman26, but it's wrong. Professor Althouse shows that it's wrong, that's her point! It seems like a nice rule, but Warren broke it in such a funny way, the rule and rulebreaking don't matter. See? So since that's the case it must be one of those rules that only have to be followed when it doesn't benefit you...which means it's not a rule. If a rule doesn't constrain your behavior when that behavior would be to your benefit, then it's not really a rule at all, is it? I don't need a rule against punching myself in the face--I'm not going to do that anyway. I may need a rule against punching people I don't like in their faces, since that's something I might otherwise do. But hey, if me punching someone I don't like is funny enough, or is in some tangential way related to a just cause (like "MLK" or Black History Month) then that rule shouldn't constrain my actions...in which case there's not really a rule.

Decorum? Doesn't matter, apparently. A rule that only one side follows isn't a rule. A rule that you only follow when you find it convenient isn't a rule. IF that's reality, fine, let's accept that and act accordingly.

Birkel said...

I did answer your question, steve uhr.

Did you not see the answer?

You lose.

Amadeus 48 said...

steve uhr-"I have decided not to waste anymore time commenting or reading comments on this blog. You win. Congratulations."

But the cat came back the very next day.
The cat came back, we thought he was a goner
But the cat came back, it just couldn't stay away.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

mccullough said...This stuff will make it easier for McConnell to get rid of the filibuster. Warren bad-mouthing a fellow senator, Booker testifying against a fellow senator. McConnell plays the long con. Warren, Booker, Sanders play the short con.

Yuuuup! mccullough's got it. The filibuster is/was one of the characteristics of the Senate as an institution that made it special/different. Do we think getting rid of the filibuster is good for the nation in the long term? I don't, but that's where we're going--and we're going there precisely because politicians put their own political gain ahead of concern for following rules and norms. Scoring those political points--making Professor Althouse et al. laugh at your political opponents--was more important than following the rules. That's what I'm talking about: if Warren and her fans aren't obligated to follow the rules any more then neither are others, at which point there isn't a rule, at which point the Senate is a different place.

Overall, for the country, it's a bad, bad thing. Oh well. Overall playing the race card and making every disagreement into an identity-politics battle (over race, sex, sexual orientation, etc) is a bad thing, but if one side prospers by doing it (pays no price for it) then that's what we'll get. This shit won't be one-way forever...as Trump's election shows.

Keep laughing, geniuses.

Birkel said...

Amadeus:

And the claim that I didn't answer is just plain wrong.

@9:49AM
"NOTE: If the Senate has passed a law, such as non-discrimination, then it has bound ITSELF to follow that point. This a court can review because the Legislative Branch has granted permission to the court through its actions."

Bad Lieutenant said...

steve uhr said...
Birkel. Guess you can't or won't answer my original yes or no question.

I have decided not to waste anymore time commenting or reading comments on this blog. You win. Congratulations.

2/8/17, 9:59 AM


Door, ass, out. Your mind is inferior. I'm ashamed that you claim Jewish identity with your low quality posts.

Drago said...

BL: "Door, ass, out. Your mind is inferior. I'm ashamed that you claim Jewish identity with your low quality posts."

Next up: Steve Uhr, in his own defense, quotes a letter from a descendent of Captain Dreyfus in favor of posters making inferior comments on Althouse blog.

Birkel offers an objection, with Bad Lieutenant concurrence, to said posting and Althouse/Meade review for acceptability.

Behind the scenes Meade argues for enforcement of civility rules while Althouse notes we are awfully close to Bastille Day!! Plus it is observed the Althouse household is low on cheese and French wine.

Althouse eventually decides that simply moving up the publishing timeline for 17 additional posts should "solve" the dispute.

mockturtle said...

Hoodlum says: Harry Reid was one of the biggest assholes around and he acted like an asshole towards Mitt Romney. Reid paid no price for that, and polite Romney lost. Fine. You nice polite people want to caterwaul about how awful vulgar, impolite Trump is setting a bad example, but it's a pure incentive effect--you get more of what you encourage.

There is a time for a Statesman and there is a time for a Sonofabitch. Guess what time it is?

mockturtle said...

Steve uhr whines: I have decided not to waste anymore time commenting or reading comments on this blog. You win. Congratulations.

Ta-da!!!

richlb said...

She should vote to confirm him. Then she could talk smack about him all day long.

walter said...

The Drill SGT said...Rules are Rules. Without the interpretation of the rule 19 as it was done, a speaker could read any statement by any scurrilous writer with impunity.
--
I've heard other excerpts from this exchange that include explanation of this.
Somehow..not in this edit.

CR said...

Maybe Warren played them and made them look like clowns. Ok, she wins.

But what she is doing really is despicable. She is hiding behind words from MLK's widow in order to smear a nominee as a racist. It's like Franken smearing another nominee as an idiot too dumb for the job. So much smearing out of spite for Trump. It is a sad spectacle to watch, and it makes me want to avert my eyes from politics altogether.

It's such an ugly business. Civility Bullshit indeed.

PoNyman said...

First, I love it when Althouse stirs the pot in the comment section.
Second, Althouse has it right on this. I don't agree with everything this guy says in this post, but I think he tracks pretty closely to my thoughts:

Second, the censure last night of Elizabeth Warren was ridiculous. I actually think the criticisms of racism of Sessions are dated and overblown, but so what? They are perfectly reasonable criticisms to bring up in a confirmation hearing. Just because Sessions is a Senator should not make him immune to criticism in confirmation hearings. The Senate should recognize in their rules that criticizing a Senator in a confirmation debate is way different than criticizing a Senator in the normal course of Senate business. Of course, these Senate rules are exactly why Presidents love to nominate Senators for the Cabinet, because they tend to get a pass from their old colleagues. Well, no more.

WillRobinson said...

So, when a Senator is being discussed on the Senate floor, because he was nominated for Attorney General or some other cabinet position, fellow Senators cannot say anything that may be insulting to that nominee? Does no one think this might be used to censor those seeking to evaluate the cabinet nominee? No one sees a problem with this? Is this Trump's influence? Or are Republicans fascists?

tcrosse said...

Back in the 1930s Lenin's Widow said a few things critical of Stalin. Uncle Joe suggested that maybe it was time they found another Lenin's Widow.

WillRobinson said...

"Steve uhr whines: I have decided not to waste anymore time commenting or reading comments on this blog. You win. Congratulations.

Ta-da!!!"

Lady, you need to take a look at yourself. You think it reflects well on yourself that you want to turn this place in to an echo chamber? You like having no opposing voices in your midst? Trumpism? Or have you been an asshole all your life?

walter said...

I don't know Will..did Trump or Republicans enact that rule somehow? Is this the forst time it's been invoked or is this a along the lines of the Biden rule and Reid's nuclear option?

WillRobinson said...

"But what she is doing really is despicable. She is hiding behind words from MLK's widow in order to smear a nominee as a racist."

"Hiding behind"? Are you serious? Warren read the letter from King to give evidence that Sessions has acted in a racist manner in the past. That should be taken into consideration when voting on someone for the position of Attorney General.

WillRobinson said...

Steve Uhr,
Birkel is a known asshole, it's not worth answering any of his inane questions, or engaging him. Birkel sees himself as someone who can catch a liberal commenters in some "gotcha" moment, not realizing he ususally gets himself.

Known Unknown said...

reciting a 1986 letter from Mrs. King that criticized Mr. Sessions’s record on civil rights.

Timely.

Known Unknown said...

Danger Will Robinson.

You have no profile.

See you tomorrow, but probably not. You'll be someone else.

WillRobinson said...

Known Unknown,
You may be right! You are so smart you deserve a cookie!

Known Unknown said...

s this Trump's influence? Or are Republicans fascists?

Yeah, it's Trump. He designed and wrote the Senate rules. Or maybe all of his supporters did. They were all Senators at one time or another, right?

McConnell is an asshat, but the objection isn't to criticism, it's USING SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS WHO IS NOT A SENATOR WHO WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN THE CONFIRMATION as the cudgel.

james conrad said...

From a PR standpoint, AA might be correct, a disaster as it gave Warren the chance to play the victim.
From where i sit, I LOVED every second of it, this phony bitch got MITCHSLAPPED!

Laslo Spatula said...

Steve Uhr leaves in a dramatic snit at 9:59.

"WillRobinson" then appears at 11:01, no profile, and continues Uhr's arguments. Even addresses Uhr in commiseration of Uhr's travails with Birkel.

I guess the only way to tell if WillRobinson is Uhr or not is to post something relating to Jewishness: Uhr cannot resist labeling something as anti-Semitic, regardless of the screen name.

Could be wrong.

So: a Jew and a Nazi enter a bar....

I am Laslo.



Known Unknown said...

"MITCHSLAPPED!"

I can imagine an actual Mitchslap would be a fey, kind-of wrist flick in which 3 fingers land on your cheek, and kind of slide down the mandible with a wet noodly sound.

khesanh0802 said...

Warren is going to become the poster girl for the shrill bitch that "I used to be married to" or "I was lucky enough not to marry". She may be playing well to her rabid left wing audience be she looks more and more like an ass to the rest of us. They may love her in Cambridge and Manhattan, but look what that did for Hillary.

In this case I think Ann is wrong to lean on her First Amendment argument. Do Robert's Rules of Order conform to a strict reading of the First Amendment? I doubt it. Warren signed one to the Senate rules. I think it was a master stroke by McConnell to make her abide by them. Most ordinary people - especially those who have been to a town meeting - will understand the requirement for basic civility which in a town meeting is enforced by the moderator.

SandiC said...

I'm curious why the rule wasn't used when Ted Cruz called Mitch McConnell a liar?

SandiC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SandiC said...

Why were the male Senators who went on to read Mrs. King's letter this AM, not subject to rule 19?

Pookie Number 2 said...

I'm curious why the rule wasn't used when Ted Cruz called Mitch McConnell a liar?

Because politicians are hypocrites. Yet another reason to limit their power.

Known Unknown said...

"Why were the male Senators who went on to read Mrs. King's letter this AM, not subject to rule 19?"

Because women are stupid and don't belong in the Senate. Duh.

Amadeus 48 said...

WillRobinson--The case that Mrs. King was referring to related to activities by several individuals, including some who had worked with Dr. King, who allegedly had marked absentee ballots for black voters in a Democratic local primary in Alabama. The alleged activities were on behalf of incumbent black local officials. The defendants said they were assisting illiterate voters who wanted to vote absentee. The complainants were black candidates who lost in the Democratic primary and their supporters, some of whom said the defendants intercepted their absentee ballots and voted them. Sessions's office undertook the case, and the accused were acquitted in a jury trial. Mrs. King's letter is understandable because some of the accused had worked closely with her husband.
Whether this was an appropriate case to bring is a reasonable question (although I suspect it would be in most jurisdictions), but Alabama was too close to the Jim Crow era for it to pass as routine. Also, at least one of the defendants was a senior figure in a local civil rights organization. His son has said that the son has no animus against Sessions for bringing the case against his father, but that can mean a lot of things.
That is what we are tlking about here.

Known Unknown said...

And Pookie comes through with the logical libertarian response. Good work.

readering said...

Meanwhile POTUS tweeting a department store has been mean to his daughter. At least one man in Washington sticks up for girls.

khesanh0802 said...

It's fun watching some of these previously powderpuff republicans learn how to play hardball. Kick ass and take names!

Pookie Number 2 said...

And Pookie comes through with the logical libertarian response. Good work.

Grazie!

SandiC said...

"Because politicians are hypocrites. Yet another reason to limit their power."

Well, duh. But why are they only censuring Elizabeth Warren?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Well, duh. But why are they only censuring Elizabeth Warren?

It's easier to oppose fundamentally unlikeable people.

WillRobinson said...

"Because politicians are hypocrites. Yet another reason to limit their power."

Yes indeed! Start with Trump, the man is not worthy of the Office.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Yes indeed! Start with Trump, the man is not worthy of the Office.

Start what, exactly?

WillRobinson said...

It's easier to oppose fundamentally unlikeable people."

So we want our Senate to emulate middle school?

WillRobinson said...

"Start what, exactly?"

"Yet another reason to limit their power."

Pookie did you so quickly forget what you said?

Pookie Number 2 said...

So we want our Senate to emulate middle school?

I don't, myself. Including the Democrats campaign of name-calling.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Pookie did you so quickly forget what you said?

I guess. But some of the stuff Trump is doing actually limits governmental power, which is a good thing, even if he's almost as despicable a person as, say, Bill Clinton.

WillRobinson said...

"So we want our Senate to emulate middle school?"

"I don't, myself. Including the Democrats campaign of name-calling."

Oh Pookie, how dissapointing,

You're a partisan. I thought so. Some "libertarian", hahahaha!

mockturtle said...

I guess WillRobinson is Steve uhr reincarnated.

Will, there are plenty of opposing voices. 'Steve' screwed himself by calling Laslo an antisemite. Steve is a troll, and not a very good one.

Pookie Number 2 said...

You're a partisan. I thought so. Some "libertarian", hahahaha!

Well, you're a leftist, so it's hardly news that what you think is incorrect.

But the fact remains that I'm happy to criticize both the Republicans' hypocrisy and the Democrats' idiocy.

WillRobinson said...

"I guess WillRobinson is Steve uhr reincarnated."

Yeah, I admit it! You got me! I'm Steve Uhr, hanging head in shame and humiliation. I'm also laughing at you dummies.

WillRobinson said...

Pookie, you like to think you are bipartisan in your contempt, but it's obvious you're only fooling yourself.

Achilles said...

SandiC said...
"Because politicians are hypocrites. Yet another reason to limit their power."

Well, duh. But why are they only censuring Elizabeth Warren?

Because she broke the rules of the senate and other senators didn't. You must be dumb if you couldn't figure that out.

Angel-Dyne said...

I see the crack Teen Vogue patrol is out in force today.


SandiC, aka at least a dozen other sock-puppet identities, said...

WillRobinson, aka at least a dozen other socket-poppet identities, said...

WillRobinson said...

Achilles, you dummy, Ted Cruz called McConnell a liar. That was also a violation of rule 19. Boy, are you folks really this slow?

WillRobinson said...

That's right Angeldumb,
And don't forget, I'm Steve Uhr.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Pookie, you like to think you are bipartisan in your contempt, but it's obvious you're only fooling yourself.

Well, I know I'm bipartisan in my contempt, and it's obvious that you're not quite smart enough to understand what you read.

WillRobinson said...

Pookie, it's obvious that you aren't as a smart as you think. Sorry, but that's obvious. I caught you in several slip ups, that was too easy.

Pookie Number 2 said...

I caught you in several slip ups, that was too easy.

The "slip up" you "caught" me in was criticizing the Democrats after criticizing the Republicans, which somehow proves to you that I'm partisan.

I find myself unconvinced.

Angel-Dyne said...

WillR aka a dozen other sock-puppet identities:

And don't forget, I'm Steve Uhr.

No, you're not. Uhr has been a regular if not prolific individual commenter for years. You, on the other hand, are part of an easily identifiable and trackable swarm of lefty morons, sourced from the same hive.

Known Unknown said...

"So we want our Senate to emulate middle school?"

NEWS FLASH: They already emulate middle school. And have, for a long time.

Kevin said...

What about when Senator X said something about Senator Y? Perhaps the answer can be found here:

"Sen. Warren was giving a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation," he said after the vote. "Nevertheless, she persisted."

It's not just break the rule and be shut down. There are reminders and warnings. Then the rule is invoked. And then the Senate votes on whether to uphold it or not. And if you lose the vote of the entire chamber then you are shut down for violating the rules.

"By a vote of 49-43, Senator Warren was then barred from speaking on the floor until Senator Sessions nomination debate is complete."

Repeated warnings. Votes of the full Senate. These things seem to be missing from the narrative the media is presenting.

Is it time for Trump to note the kerfuffle is being "underreported"?

SandiC said...

Why wasn't Cruz given a warning? Was he?

SandiC said...

Also the vote to censur waso along party lines.

SandiC said...

Cruz was not censured.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/cruz-senate-mcconnell-lied/

"(CNN)Several senior Republican senators strongly rebuked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Sunday for his controversial floor speech charging Senate Majority Mitch McConnell with lying about whether the Senate would vote to revive the Export-Import Bank.

"I think it was outside the realm of Senate behavior," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who has clashed with Cruz in the past. "I would never contemplate going to the floor of the Senate and impugning the integrity of another senator. Just not something we do here. I really think it was a very wrong thing to do."

Despite the heavy criticism, Cruz didn't back down.
"I do not believe speaking the truth is anything other than in the very best tradition of the United States Senate," Cruz told reporters after the vote when he was asked if he regretted going too far in calling McConnell a liar
."

Birkel said...

WillRobinson, aka Ole #55.
Do not engage.

AllenS said...

Well, SandiC, it was probably because nobody made an objection. That is, Democrats or Republicans. So, your guess is as good as mine.

Brando said...

The rule itself is pretty stupid--and lends itself to interpretation. Who's to say whether you've impugned another Senator? And why shouldn't you be able to talk frankly about a senator who is a nominee that you are about to vote on?

Mitch and Co. would have been better off simply refuting whatever nonsense Warren was going to say--at the very least she wouldn't have gotten so much press out of it. She's aiming to be the Ted Cruz of her party, and is so far becoming that.

Birkel said...

They should have objected and then immediately started railing against all things Elizabeth Warren in the most provocative ways possible.

Alinsky.

Bad Lieutenant said...

WillRobinson said...
You like having no opposing voices in your midst? Trumpism? Or have you been an asshole all your life?

2/8/17, 11:06 AM


Voices? Assholes? There are decent/honorable/viable lefties here but you recent trolls are worthless! You're not voices, you're assholes who have learned to modulate flatus to sound like speech! You are talking farts! Some of you are verbal diarrhea!

---

Laslo, no, this spray of liquid poo is Jon Ericson's #55. I imagine steve uhr is human, though bad.

---


readering said...
Meanwhile POTUS tweeting a department store has been mean to his daughter. At least one man in Washington sticks up for girls.

2/8/17, 11:44 AM


Bet you ate it up when Truman told the music critic to STFD and STFU.

Your responses are, literally, not human.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Brando said...
The rule itself is pretty stupid--and lends itself to interpretation. Who's to say whether you've impugned another Senator?
2/8/17, 1:06 PM


In this case, 49 other Senators. There WAS process, you know.

Brando said...

"In this case, 49 other Senators. There WAS process, you know."

That's true.

walter said...

NAACP..loved Sessions before they were against him.
Does Warren do anything other than this whiny schtick?

rhhardin said...

Klavan suggests the name Chief Spreading Bull for Warren.

Mr. Fabulous said...

(World Famous Lurker says....)

The Professor wrote "It's ludicrous to say "rules are rules" in a situation where Martin Luther King is part of the discussion!

Know your history.

It's Black History Month!"

Reminds me of the scene in "Blazing Saddles", when the (black) sheriff says to the assembled townsfolk "You'd do it for Randolph Scott!", and of course, just invoking the name of this folk hero ends all discussion.

Both situations are pretty silly, which perhaps was the Professor's point.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 211   Newer› Newest»