Greene banned from (Page 3): Oh your favorite flavor.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

dirtpusher wrote:

Means piss in haters mouth

Oh your favorite flavor.

btbg

Wyantry wrote:

Nawh, they just shut her up for a little bit.
In ONE committee-hearing.
For calling Mayorkas a liar.
And refusing to ‘withdraw’ her remarks.

https://www.google.com/search?q=M.+T.+Greene+shut+down+2023&rlz=

“Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene on Wednesday was blocked from further participation in a House Homeland Security Committee hearing after she broke House rules by calling Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a “liar” while questioning him on the Biden administration’s border policies.

. . . she laid into Mr Mayorkas with a series of accusations about his purported responsibility for fentanyl overdoses among American youth.

After she asked him “how long” he would “continue this outrage,” the former prosecutor turned Cabinet secretary attempted to defend his department’s performance. He told Ms Greene that he could “assure” her that the department is “not letting it go on” and is “fighting” the trafficking.

Before he could finish, Ms Greene interjected again, shouting at the top of her lungs:
“You’re a liar. You are letting this go on (and) the numbers prove it. You can’t lie about the fact, Secretary Mayorkas, while you live in denial and sit over there with this attitude that you’re doing everything right ... you are killing Americans with your policies . . .”

When the panel’s chairman, Tennessee Republican Mark Green, asked if Ms Greene would withdraw her statement, she refused.

He immediately ruled that she’d violated the rules and ordered [her] words stricken from the record.

“It’s pretty clear that the rules state you can’t impugn someone’s character, identifying or calling someone a liar is unacceptable in this committee, and I make the ruling that we strike those words,” he said.

He added that Ms Greene was “no longer recognised,” meaning she could not finish her questioning of Mr Mayorkas. Under House rules, she would be barred from any subsequent rounds of questioning during the Wednesday hearing.”
[ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-gop-homeland-security-b2322874.html ]

b Nawh, they just shut her up for a little bit. ... (show quote)

Of course, she is right that Mayorkas is a liar, but you can't say that in congress it violates the decorum rules.

btbg

SteveR wrote:

She may be right, but you can't use libelous terms like she did. She should have said, "I DO question the reliability of your statement." That would not have been stricken. There are so many ways to say the same thing.

It's not libelous if its true. She violated the rules of decorum, she did not libel.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

dirtpusher wrote:

Means piss in haters mouth

Now here is (yet another) example of “Artificial Stupidity”:

Quote by dirtpusher: “Means piss in haters mouth”

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Racmanaz wrote:

Oh your favorite flavor.

No it urze

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Wyantry wrote:

Now here is (yet another) example of “Artificial Stupidity”:

Quote by dirtpusher: “Means piss in haters mouth”

It your mouth keep it running

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

dirtpusher wrote:

It your mouth keep it running

More “artificial stupidity”?

You may have meant: “It’s your mouth, keep running it” but evidently did not comprehend how to actually phrase it.

And I will continue to “run my mouth” and gleefully point out insensible statements and poor grammatical choices.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Wyantry wrote:

More “artificial stupidity”?

You may have meant: “It’s your mouth, keep running it” but evidently did not comprehend how to actually phrase it.

And I will continue to “run my mouth” and gleefully point out insensible statements and poor grammatical choices.

Thàt what you have

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

dirtpusher wrote:

Thàt what you have

Hey! I admit I may be stupid about many things — but at least I can express myself employing proper English grammar and sentences.

If people are intent on proving their ignorance, that is not a point in their favor.

Fewer people pay attention to postings they cannot understand. Or that are deliberately misspelled or exhibit poor language skills.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Wyantry wrote:

Hey! I admit I may be stupid about many things — but at least I can express myself employing proper English grammar and sentences.

If people are intent on proving their ignorance, that is not a point in their favor.

Fewer people pay attention to postings they cannot understand. Or that are deliberately misspelled or exhibit poor language skills.

No you can't you don't know what proper is in anything

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

Wyantry wrote:

Hey! I admit I may be stupid about many things — but at least I can express myself employing proper English grammar and sentences.

If people are intent on proving their ignorance, that is not a point in their favor.

Fewer people pay attention to postings they cannot understand. Or that are deliberately misspelled or exhibit poor language skills.

wasting your time...

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

wilpharm wrote:

wasting your time...

Looks like you are correct. Although the last comment from dirtshover was the most lucid to date . . . .

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

dirtpusher wrote:

No you can't you don't know what proper is in anything

Most lucid comment so far. Better english usage than normal.

Should probably have been two (2) sentences, like this:

“No you can’t. You don’t know what proper is in anything.”

Nice try though!

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Wyantry wrote:

Most lucid comment so far. Better english usage than normal.

Should probably have been two (2) sentences, like this:

“No you can’t. You don’t know what proper is in anything.”

Nice try though!

Lol