Cen·sure (noun): a judgment involving condemnation of Democrats

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Yesterday during debate over_HR-4818_(a bill that_would provide international monitoring of the November presidential election) Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-Jacksonville) was censured by the US House of Representatives for this remark:

_

"I come from Florida, where you [the GOP leadership] and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No we're not going to get over it and we want verification from the world."_



If she would have just told the House leadership to go fvck themselves it would have been OK.



Original Remarks



Atrios

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    Perhaps someone could give a reason WHY, there should be any objection to an independent overviewer.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I saw her on the news last night. The way Florida deals with felons is really ridiculous. First, I don't think you should be prevented from voting if you've already served your time. Second, if they are going to prevent them from voting, they should have some more, uh, accurate way of determining who shouldn't vote. Just living in a particular county and having the name "Tyrone Smith" shouldn't be enough. Third, they should single out blacks and ignore Hispanics when they do their purging.
  • Reply 3 of 5
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    That would be a great argument, wouldn't it?



    Unfortunately our current government is too busy suppressing dissent. They're too busy cutting down Howard Stern. They're too busy arresting American citizens who wear anti-Bush t-shirts. They're too busy adding hate to the constitution. They're too busy firing Whoopi Goldberg. They're too busy crying foul over John Kerry's foul mouth while systematically ignoring Cheney's.



    How can we have constructive argument if the opposite side is muzzled?
  • Reply 4 of 5
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    That would be a great argument, wouldn't it?



    Unfortunately our current government is too busy suppressing dissent. They're too busy cutting down Howard Stern. They're too busy arresting American citizens who wear anti-Bush t-shirts. They're too busy adding hate to the constitution. They're too busy firing Whoopi Goldberg. They're too busy crying foul over John Kerry's foul mouth while systematically ignoring Cheney's.



    How can we have constructive argument if the opposite side is muzzled?




    You forgot /rant off at the end. Unless of course you consider that the tone of your discussion.



    If someone had claimed I participated in a violent overthrow of our government, I would probably vote to rebuke them as well. That isn't discussion. It borders on hate speech since she is associating a side with violence. (You are welcome to spend countless posts arguing that most people DON'T associate coups with violence, but I'll let you live with that delusion rather than argue out of it.)



    As for your rant.



    Stern was fined during the Clinton years as well.

    The couple with the t-shirts had the charges dropped.

    The amendment failed to muster a majority of even Republican support.

    Whoopi Goldberg was fired by a company that is in no way associated with Republicans. It is Dutch owned. And as for Kerry and Cheney, they can say f*ck all they want.



    Nick
  • Reply 5 of 5
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I saw her on the news last night. The way Florida deals with felons is really ridiculous. First, I don't think you should be prevented from voting if you've already served your time. Second, if they are going to prevent them from voting, they should have some more, uh, accurate way of determining who shouldn't vote. Just living in a particular county and having the name "Tyrone Smith" shouldn't be enough. Third, they should single out blacks and ignore Hispanics when they do their purging.



    Actually it is about as accurate as government is with anything. I posted on here about basically being arrested because someone with my name in the same county (but who was seven+ years older than me) had a warrent for their arrest out.



    I've also posted about default paternity judgements and how totally inaccurate they are with them as well. If you are in the same county, within 10 years of the same age, and they have an old address for you, you could be a daddy and not even know until your tax refund is garnished.



    Why would we expect government to be anymore accurate than in these areas?



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.