Congress Banned from Saying 'Merry Christmas' [Archive]

iceberg

12-20-2011, 03:49 PM

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1336705701001/congress-banned-from-saying-merry-christmas/?playlist_id=86858

Happy festivus!

126

i just can't put up with a 30 freaking second video every fucking time i wanna see something. it's just pissing me off to where i simply don't watch them anymore. :(

as for the topic, sigh. i have no problem being an "open society" where we value all thoughts and cultures, but we should NOT have to put our own away out of fear of being offensive. if merry christmas pisses you off or upsets you, fuck you.

iceberg

12-20-2011, 03:52 PM

Members of the House of Representatives are being told that no holiday greetings, including “Merry Christmas,” can be sent out in official mail.

According to the Washington Examiner, members who submit official mailings for review by the congressional franking commission that reviews all congressional mail to determine if it can be "franked," or paid for with tax dollars, are being told that no holiday greetings, including "Merry Christmas," can be sent.

"I called the commission to ask for clarification and was told no 'Merry Christmas.' Also told cannot say 'Happy New Year' but can say 'have a happy new year' – referencing the time period of a new year, but not the holiday," a Hill staffer who requested anonymity told the paper.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/18/no-merry-christmas-us-house-members-told/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz1h5vNqXhv

VTA

12-20-2011, 03:55 PM

Why wouldn't someone just say, fuck off? Where in our nations constitution is even suggesting such a thing valid?

JBond

12-20-2011, 07:00 PM

Why wouldn't someone just say, fuck off? Where in our nations constitution is even suggesting such a thing valid?

Some would argue the Supreme Court ruling regarding church and state makes it illegal to say Merry Christmas. Of course they would be wrong.

VTA

12-20-2011, 07:43 PM

Some would argue the Supreme Court ruling regarding church and state makes it illegal to say Merry Christmas. Of course they would be wrong.

Hence the 'fuck off'.
Followed by, "but have a Merry Christmas".

erdawiro

12-20-2011, 09:53 PM

Why wouldn't someone just say, fuck off? Where in our nations constitution is even suggesting such a thing valid?

It's not really a constitutional issue. Congress created the franking commission as a self-regulatory body. There have been pretty strict rules in place since the 1970s.

iceberg

12-21-2011, 03:01 AM

It's not really a constitutional issue. Congress created the franking commission as a self-regulatory body. There have been pretty strict rules in place since the 1970s.

well that gives me comfort.

it is a constituational issue. can we speak freely or do we impose part time rules to confuse us?

i'm not ashamed of how we got here and i won't apologize. after the romans we're the next civilation out there.

and we're killing it. not out of spite, not out of hate but out of evolution.

telilng people what is safe to say is wrong and in doing so, we're on the wrong path.

that path only leads to limitation. you can either deal with "merry christmas" or you can't and if you can't....

fuck you.

i won't stop spreading good will because someone got offended in my delivery. give what you want or shut the fuck up.

erdawiro

12-21-2011, 07:24 AM

well that gives me comfort.

it is a constituational issue. can we speak freely or do we impose part time rules to confuse us?

i'm not ashamed of how we got here and i won't apologize. after the romans we're the next civilation out there.

and we're killing it. not out of spite, not out of hate but out of evolution.

telilng people what is safe to say is wrong and in doing so, we're on the wrong path.

that path only leads to limitation. you can either deal with "merry christmas" or you can't and if you can't....

fuck you.

i won't stop spreading good will because someone got offended in my delivery. give what you want or shut the fuck up.

It's only a Constitutional issue in the sense that it is an example of Congress exercising the powers granted to it. Each chamber of Congress gets to make its own rules. The Senate can send Merry Christmas cards and the House cannot. In no way is it a free speech issue. Representatives are welcome to send Christmas cards out on their own dime (or however much stamps are) and they're welcome to change the rules if they want to.

VTA

12-21-2011, 11:12 AM

It's not really a constitutional issue. Congress created the franking commission as a self-regulatory body. There have been pretty strict rules in place since the 1970s.

Sure it is. Members of Congress are individuals and citizens and their freedom of expression is protected.

JBond

12-21-2011, 01:20 PM

They can use my money to kill babies but not to say Merry Christmas. No wonder this country is fucked.

erdawiro

12-21-2011, 01:40 PM

erdawiro

12-21-2011, 01:43 PM

The House of Representatives kills babies? You heard it hear first, folks.

JBond

12-21-2011, 02:24 PM

Do you live under a rock? Spending originates in the House or it used to when people actually cared about the Constitution. Are you claiming no tax payer money is used to fund abortion mills? Not a single dollar is used for that hideous act? You are a liar. But the left lives in an alternate reality where killing viable unborn babies is a good thing to spend my hard earned money on.

Christmas cards....how dare you send a Christmas card. Trying to save a buck by baning Christmas cards is a leftist utopian version of deficit reduction. Your priorities are all fucked up. The left gets their collective panties in a wad over asinine things. That is my point. How long have Christmas cards and greetings been baned? Do you know?

VTA

12-21-2011, 03:13 PM

No, its not. Their ability to express themselves isn't being limited, they have the same ability to send a Christmas card as every other person in the country. No court would say the self-imposed franking rules, that are in place for legitimate reasons, are a restriction on free speech.

It's not about 'sending Christmas cards', it's about offering the salutation of 'Merry Christmas' in any way. In an official letter, you can not end with, 'Merry Christmas'. It's bush-league oppression on the road to language control.

iceberg

12-21-2011, 04:46 PM

It's not about 'sending Christmas cards', it's about offering the salutation of 'Merry Christmas' in any way. In an official letter, you can not end with, 'Merry Christmas'. It's bush-league oppression on the road to language control.

maybe this has been around awhile and maybe because of "federal money" being spent for postage (what if we e-mail it? can they say merry christmas in an e-mail since it's not being "paid for" with government money?) i don't see why it's such a shock to see "merry christmas" in america.

if i go to saudi arabia i'll damn sure see their culture everywhere. it seems we have to keep on apologizing for who we are and *we* have to limit ourselves because of a bunch of people who are just sensitive MOSTLY because we allow it.

VTA

12-21-2011, 05:03 PM

maybe this has been around awhile and maybe because of "federal money" being spent for postage (what if we e-mail it? can they say merry christmas in an e-mail since it's not being "paid for" with government money?) i don't see why it's such a shock to see "merry christmas" in america.

if i go to saudi arabia i'll damn sure see their culture everywhere. it seems we have to keep on apologizing for who we are and *we* have to limit ourselves because of a bunch of people who are just sensitive MOSTLY because we allow it.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The issue is using tax dollars for physical mail.
Regardless, it's a broader issue of dampening our own cultural heritage into non-existence, using the letter of our own laws inversely. Some will say not, but the fact that these arguments exist against bona-fide traditions says otherwise. It flies in the face of the lie propagated of what our nation was founded on; the argument didn't exist because the traditions were very much ingrained into the generations closer to that founding.

iceberg

12-21-2011, 05:38 PM

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The issue is using tax dollars for physical mail.
Regardless, it's a broader issue of dampening our own cultural heritage into non-existence, using the letter of our own laws inversely. Some will say not, but the fact that these arguments exist against bona-fide traditions says otherwise. It flies in the face of the lie propagated of what our nation was founded on; the argument didn't exist because the traditions were very much ingrained into the generations closer to that founding.

oh, i'm pretty sure it's not using government money for things like this, but i wonder how much goes out in e-mail and if the franking rule applies to that?

VTA

12-21-2011, 05:41 PM

oh, i'm pretty sure it's not using government money for things like this, but i wonder how much goes out in e-mail and if the franking rule applies to that?

Franking concerns the U.S. Postal service, but we'll have to ask the Poli-Sci student if its been amended. I'm not sure it can, as email doesn't fly under that umbrella.

iceberg

12-21-2011, 05:42 PM

Franking concerns the U.S. Postal service, but we'll have to ask the Poli-Sci student if its been amended. I'm not sure it can, as email doesn't fly under that umbrella.

damn. they'll have to come up with a whole new way to keep us from saying merry christmas.

erdawiro

12-21-2011, 06:14 PM

It's not about 'sending Christmas cards', it's about offering the salutation of 'Merry Christmas' in any way. In an official letter, you can not end with, 'Merry Christmas'. It's bush-league oppression on the road to language control.

If it was just a limit on Christmas expressions then I think you'd have an argument. No holiday can be mentioned in franked mail. There are all kinds of limits in place, put there by a House commission, because they are afraid of franking being abused to solicitate votes. Anyway it's hard to call it language control when they can alter the rules if they want.

JBond

12-21-2011, 06:19 PM

erd...Do you know when this rule came into in effect? Do you know why?

VTA

12-21-2011, 06:22 PM

If it was just a limit on Christmas expressions then I think you'd have an argument. No holiday can be mentioned in franked mail. There are all kinds of limits in place, put there by a House commission, because they are afraid of franking being abused to solicitate votes. Anyway it's hard to call it language control when they can alter the rules if they want.

That's a given, and understandable and what I'd expected. The salutation I don't think would fall under that.
Aside from the convoluted new way of saying Happy New Year, what other holiday expressions are not permitted?

JBond

12-21-2011, 06:24 PM

Never joke about the absurd, extreme lengths leftists will go to diminish Christians or to restrict their Constitutional rights. They are crazy. If someone has some free time maybe they can look up the list and see what other greetings and salutations are forbidden. We know Obama is fond of Ramadan. Guess he shut shut his pie hole also.

ThaBigP

12-21-2011, 06:30 PM

It's only a Constitutional issue in the sense that it is an example of Congress exercising the powers granted to it. Each chamber of Congress gets to make its own rules. The Senate can send Merry Christmas cards and the House cannot. In no way is it a free speech issue. Representatives are welcome to send Christmas cards out on their own dime (or however much stamps are) and they're welcome to change the rules if they want to.

Ah, yes, the "we give you chicken feed, now dance to our tune" trick. Also known as the "strings attached to the shiny object given as a 'gift'" trick. Oldest trick in the book, that one is. :0)

But it does bring up some problems... the franking privilege is, of course, free postage on behalf of the US Taxpayer offered to elected officials. Since the taxpayer is footing the bill, there are (of course) strings attached as to what can, and cannot, be mailed for free.

...but...

Doesn't the US Post Office run in perpetual deficit? Does it not therefore follow that the cost of a stamp only pays for a portion of the actual cost (under the USPO's current structure) of mailing a letter? Does it not therefore follow that the US taxpayer subsidises the remaining portion (actually via deficit spending via money printing at the Fed, but I seriously digress..)? Could that not be construed as a partial "franking privilege"? But of course not, most would say. The franking privilege is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, rules set by the respective chambers, and applies to elected officials of those chambers.

But in the land of "tax cut = subsidy", or "tax increases = budget savings in the tax code", I wouldn't bet the house on it...

erdawiro

12-21-2011, 07:18 PM

That's a given, and understandable and what I'd expected. The salutation I don't think would fall under that.
Aside from the convoluted new way of saying Happy New Year, what other holiday expressions are not permitted?

I happen to agree, but it doesn't really matter what we think. According to the franking manual, no holiday greetings are allowed - Memorial Day, Presidents Day, Independence Day, you name it.

VTA

12-21-2011, 11:36 PM

I happen to agree, but it doesn't really matter what we think.

Thanks for the list.
As to this comment and considering your field of study, I have to ask, what exactly do you think of that?

JBond

12-22-2011, 07:19 PM

erdawiro

12-22-2011, 07:26 PM

Here is the actual manual. It was written during the Clinton occupation. I wonder why they had an issue with holiday greetings?

http://cha.house.gov/sites/republicans.cha.house.gov/files/documents/franking_docs/franking_manual.pdf

Obviously, it is intended as an attack on Christmas, faith, and traditional values.

JBond

12-22-2011, 07:39 PM

Obviously, it is intended as an attack on Christmas, faith, and traditional values.

You forgot apple pie. Oh yeah, we can't eat that anymore....Damn Obama, taking the fun out of everything.

It can and should be corrected by a simple rule change. The paranoid busy bodies making the franking rules need to chill out.

By the way, in case we do not chat again before Sunday...Merry Christmas to you and your family! I truly mean that. Enjoy the long weekend.

erdawiro

12-22-2011, 08:18 PM

You forgot apple pie. Oh yeah, we can't eat that anymore....Damn Obama, taking the fun out of everything.

It can and should be corrected by a simple rule change. The paranoid busy bodies making the franking rules need to chill out.

By the way, in case we do not chat again before Sunday...Merry Christmas to you and your family! I truly mean that. Enjoy the
long weekend.

Thanks, Merry Christmas to you and your family too! It's looking like it will be a white Christmas for us =).

VTA

12-22-2011, 08:22 PM

Here is the actual manual. It was written during the Clinton occupation. I wonder why they had an issue with holiday greetings?

http://cha.house.gov/sites/republicans.cha.house.gov/files/documents/franking_docs/franking_manual.pdf

That's funny as hell.
:laughing: There just needs to be a more hilarious emoticon, appropriate for such things.

iceberg

12-22-2011, 11:32 PM

That's funny as hell.
:laughing: There just needs to be a more hilarious emoticon, appropriate for such things.

the problem is i have too many emotes and need to give them an enema cause only a few show at a time. if you see the emotes at right, hit MORE and you'll see more

a LOT more.

then again... i need a more hilarious emote - the one i thought was there...isn't.

i'll rebuild.

VTA

12-23-2011, 12:26 AM

the problem is i have too many emotes and need to give them an enema cause only a few show at a time. if you see the emotes at right, hit MORE and you'll see more

a LOT more.

then again... i need a more hilarious emote - the one i thought was there...isn't.

i'll rebuild.

Oh I wasn't calling you out master mod, just commenting on how funny that comment from JBond was.
Clinton Occupation. Classic.

Besides, I didn't even see all those choices before, until now. :beer: