I don't know what to use as a tag.
I thought they removed her because you aren’t allowed to make personal comments about individual lawmakers on committees, and her comments (regarding $$) were covered under that umbrella. Not really sure if my perception is accurate so v open to correction here
So I think it was hard for the constituent speaking to serve her message on the spot given she had 1m45 limitation, but going forward, my suggestion as a workaround would be to list accrued amounts of money the committee members had collectively received from oil groups and interests. Just my immediate thought
Yes, a statement could be made about how much money the committee has taken from corporate masters in aggregate. But the committee didn't decide to take corporate money in aggregate. Each corrupt person decides for themselves to allow their policy to be dictated by their corporate masters. I don't believe that there is such a thing as collective guilt. Individuals are ALWAYS responsible. To again quote Heinlein because I don't do that enough This can't be externalized. Individuals make these choices. Individuals need to be held accountable.blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.
I’m not trying to argue responsibility Simply, I feel there is probably fair reason for that rule besides this situation, aka in the instance of attempting to defame or shame a committee member inappropriately (as opposed to here where it would ? Be appropriate ?) Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion. I feel confident this rule of order wasn’t established to avoid culpability in a situation like the one above. That’s a side effect. Feeling as I do, that it is probably better that personal statements are prohibited from government/legal sessions, because of good reasons (cmon, think a little) - i first cant get too outraged by what happened and second cant advocate that personal statements be allowed. So in this scenario where I find myself, the answer is to find an answer - another path to the same or a similar end - rather than just get mad that someone trying to do something informative and whistle-blow-er-y got in trouble because while so doing, they also ran roughshod over the established rules of governance. This ain’t calvinball here son and even if it were? Your name ain’t Calvin.
Why is it considered a personal attack to state facts about who sponsors a given political candidate? I don't disagree about personal attacks being derailing. This woman wasn't issuing ad hominems, calling people pedophiles, or saying that they smell. The session she attended was convened for the purpose of discussing oil and gas legislation. She brought up the very valid and germane point that the people responsible for these decisions are taking MASSIVE sums of money from the people who benefit from this legislation being passed. This is a problem, and the nature of this problem is such that it resists any and all solutions because the means and methods by which this kind of problem are addressed have been compromised. In this instance, there is blatantly no difference between lobbying and bribery. Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion.
Because the amount of time wasted in argument over the semantics of what qualifies or not as a personal attack would be at least as detailing as those initial attacks, if not prone to political manipulation a la a filibuster. What determines if I am personally attacked? How your comments about me make me feel? Well. If I don’t want something to be discussed I can be offended by any word, every word, all day.
So honestly I don’t know. I have an idea or two but no idea how workable they’d be. Again honestly tho- not my problem. Not my issue that I’ve chosen to tackle. Mostly my point is: if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise