I can see perjury and cheating on your taxes, but that's a different semantic game.
I have a friend who thinks that all politicians should be under oath from the moment they run for office. Anything they say or do can be held against them in a court of law. I think that's unworkable, but perhaps if they were under oath in parliament (or congress) it would change a few things.
At the very least, one should have to say something like "I admit that the comments I made were false and that I was in error, I apologise if I mislead anyone". NITBAFS is not only a cop out, it's damaging to a healthy democracy.
For about a month after he did that bullshit, I used NITBAFS as j/k.
And then, rarely, when I was serious, it was just, ITBAFS.
But yes, Jon Kyl damaged the whole american system by doing that. I wouldn't mind a law that anything that is said on the floor of the house/senate cannot be UTTER bullshit.
We have censure, which is a slap on the wrists really and requires a majority anyway. I believe you have something similar. Here at the very least a minority politician saying something like that would end up having it on the record that parliament had given them a slap on the wrist for what they said.
To my knowledge no, nothing happened to him. He is GOP, and at the time he said it, GOP controlled the house. So majority party power protection.
Then again, Charlie Rangel, didn't pay his taxes while being in charge of the 'ways and means' committee, and all he got was the slap on the wrist censure.
Congress ain't big on imposing rules on congress; I am Jack's total lack of surprise.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 03:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 03:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 08:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 02:51 pm (UTC)I can see perjury and cheating on your taxes, but that's a different semantic game.
I have a friend who thinks that all politicians should be under oath from the moment they run for office. Anything they say or do can be held against them in a court of law. I think that's unworkable, but perhaps if they were under oath in parliament (or congress) it would change a few things.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 03:51 pm (UTC)-Jon Kyl, US Senator, on the floor of the senate
when confronted his office released the NITBAFS response:
that state was
"Not
Intended
To
Be
A
Factual
Statement"
NITBAFS
That man should have to pay some sort of penalty for such blantant lies.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 04:02 pm (UTC)And then, rarely, when I was serious, it was just, ITBAFS.
But yes, Jon Kyl damaged the whole american system by doing that.
I wouldn't mind a law that anything that is said on the floor of the house/senate cannot be UTTER bullshit.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 04:05 pm (UTC)Did anything happen to him?
no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 04:13 pm (UTC)He is GOP, and at the time he said it, GOP controlled the house. So majority party power protection.
Then again, Charlie Rangel, didn't pay his taxes while being in charge of the 'ways and means' committee, and all he got was the slap on the wrist censure.
Congress ain't big on imposing rules on congress; I am Jack's total lack of surprise.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 09:16 am (UTC)(checks)
Ah, he didn't....thought not.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-13 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:03 am (UTC)