Jon Kyl deletes his lie from the congressional record.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
MovingTarget said:
I have noticed this too. Although I do believe that it has its purpose to add in additional information when debate time is short, it should not, under any circumstances, be used to remove or delete anything from the record. If a statement is made on the floor, no matter how stupid, it should be there for posterity to see.
Click to expand...

From C-Span:

Both Senators and Representatives must ask the consent of their chamber if they wish to revise, or to extend, their remarks in the Congressional Record. This is because regulations of the Joint Committee on Printing, which supervises the Government Printing Office, limit revisions of the words actually spoken on the floor to grammatical or technical changes only. So, if Members wish to insert the full text of an editorial, article, or letter to accompany the statement they made on the floor, they must get permission to "extend" their remarks. If they wish to make permitted marginal changes to their statement, they must get permission to "revise" their remarks. Most Members, mostly out of habit, ask for permission to "revise and extend" their remarks simply to cover all possibilities.

Congressional Record clerks have observed that very few Members today substantively revise their remarks, although a lot of them do extend them. With C-SPAN coverage, widespread use of videotape recorders, and public and press witnesses in the galleries for each floor session, it would be extremely unlikely that withdrawing or changing controversial remarks would go unnoticed. However, Members still sometimes seek to substantively revise their remarks because (1) they regret something they said and wish it to be deleted from the permanent record, or (2) they might wish they had said something they forgot to say or had ran out of allotted time to say. Substantive revisions technically require the consent of the chamber, although what is substantive may come down to the judgment of the clerk on duty at the time.

Rules require that the Congressional Record be "substantially" verbatim, rather than totally verbatim. And, in fact, it is more verbatim today than ever before in congressional history. For the first 90 years of Congress, outside reporters were hired to keep a record of the floor proceedings. First called the Annals of Congress, and then later the Congressional Globe, its reporters were not always accurate in their descriptions, often lapsing into rather colorful characterizations of the goings-on. After the Civil War, Congress hired its own clerks to keep a Congressional Record of the proceedings.

Despite the professionalism of the new institutional employees, the difficulty of hearing every word above the noise on the floor made total accuracy impossible. Prior to the advent of electronic sound systems, many Members complained that their words had not been accurately reported. Even today, while the audio equipment allows viewers to hear the proceedings clearly, those physically on the floor often cannot hear either the Chair or the Member speaking. The floor is the one place where Members all gather together at the same time, and all the greetings, cajoling, and conversations can create quite a hub-bub. That's why it sometimes takes the Chair a long time and a heavy hand with the gavel to get order.
Click to expand...
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Fear No Evil said:
Throw welfare and education in there and you have a deal. :rolleyes: I'm willing to guess if given the choice between donating toward our army and donating toward free abortions, the army might have a little better time fundraising.
Click to expand...

Naturally, raising to age 18 all of the extra welfare babies born to unwed mothers because publically-funded abortions are illegal is going to cost American taxpayers far, far less than the cost of the abortions themselves.
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
CADsortaGUY said:
lol, seems little craigy boy won't answer... how cute...
Click to expand...

Won't answer what, someone on ignore? Correct, generally.

If you want something answered, ask yourself, if you stand behind it.

Since you quoted this, I took a look, and it is a fair point that *moderates* the issue, but doesn't change the basic point.

I'd wondered but did not have the orientation of the people who placed below second, and at least one I later learned was also 'liberal'.

This does decrease the significance of the 'liberal' going from 25% to 50% of the vote - but doesn't change the fact it was still notable that the 'liberal' was able to go from reportedly relative obscurity against a well-known incumbent - and she did share the opposition vote with others - in a race the incumbent was expected to win by a large margin, to increase her expected vote a lot to make it about even.

So, the point to note the spread of the 'liberal' candidates is quite legitimate - I agree with it and am happy to update the point to moderate it in light of that.

If that's the update, great. But if it's claimed to be more than that - that it completely negates any public shift for the 'liberal' over the backlash against Walker - wrong.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with a 'lie' as the scum alleges. And if you choose to make such a claim, rather than to discuss it as a correction, you can join him on ignore.

BTW try not to sound like such an idiot with the name calling, 'caddy boy'. Note, as always, idiot is not 'name calling' like 'caddy boy' is, it's a comment on the quality of your post.
 
Last edited:
Corn

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Craig234 said:
......I agree with it and am happy to update the point to moderate it in light of that.
Click to expand...

Well, it's an hour later yet no update found to your remarks......thus it is safe to call you out on yet another lie. You really can't help yourself, I know.

.....and thank you for having me on ignore, all the better to smack you upside the head with the light of your dishonesty and hypocrisy without having to suffer your endless verbosity in reply.

Craig234 said:
Regardless, this has nothing to do with a 'lie' as the scum alleges. And if you choose to make such a claim, rather than to discuss it as a correction, you can join him on ignore.
Click to expand...

Oh, now that's rich! Here in this very thread you accuse someone of lying without a shred of proof the accused actually lied, instead of merely being wrong.......yet your mea culpa blatently exonerates you from your own standard of what constitutes a lie. Oh, there is scum in this thread, but the guilty party is the reflection you see in the mirror.

......and please, do continue to keep me on ignore. I prefer chickenshit pussies to not address me directly.
 
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,293
32,792
136
CADsortaGUY said:
I've not found this statement - do you have a link?
Click to expand...

Yesterday, CNN, to its credit, sought an explanation from the senator about the glaring error. CNN anchor TJ Holmes told viewers:

"We did call [Kyl's] office trying to ask what he was talking about there. And I just want to give it you verbatim here. It says, 'his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.'"
Click to expand...


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/028869.php
 
CADsortaGUY

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
CADsortaGUY said:
Ok, so it's not exactly as insinuated in this thread but rather a poor attempt to spin by his office. It doesn't state he himself knew he was giving the wrong info though. He may have but the supposed "proof" offered lacks weight.
Doesn't matter IMO anyway because the supposed 3% is bullshit too as PP can make it's numbers say whatever they want. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...


Got something to back that up or was that a "not intended to be a factual statement"... statement.
 
CADsortaGUY

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Marlin1975 said:
Got something to back that up or was that a "not intended to be a factual statement"... statement.
Click to expand...

Uhh... it's meant to mean that I don't buy the 3% number the agency sucking federal money puts out. They can make their numbers say what they want. If I had to guess, it'd be that they use 3% to directly subsidize abortion proceedures, but that doesn't mean it's the only money they spend on the issue.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
CADsortaGUY said:
Uhh... it's meant to mean that I don't buy the 3% number the agency sucking federal money puts out. They can make their numbers say what they want. If I had to guess, it'd be that they use 3% to directly subsidize abortion proceedures, but that doesn't mean it's the only money they spend on the issue.
Click to expand...

You realize their financials are externally audited, right?
 
J

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
Corn said:
Here you go: http://slapblog.com/?p=11873

....and before you go on chastising anyone for their alleged lies, perhaps you should answer the following post concerning yet another lie you've made on these forums: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31526463&postcount=167
Click to expand...

Thanks Corn. Been out the past few days and was meaning to reply to Craig. Of course every politician lies in some form or another--except Democrats apparently.

I shouldn't have to do Craig's homework but here is a list that Google brought up. I know how people feel about sites that they deem biased so I leave it to Craig to pick which one he wants to believe or not:

http://www.google.com/#q=bernie+san...w.&bih=890&biw=1280&fp=73d2ceaabb6b01bf&hl=en

Some links are relevant, some actually stick up for Bernie and others point out some lying.
 
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,293
32,792
136
JockoJohnson said:
Thanks Corn. Been out the past few days and was meaning to reply to Craig. Of course every politician lies in some form or another--except Democrats apparently.

I shouldn't have to do Craig's homework but here is a list that Google brought up. I know how people feel about sites that they deem biased so I leave it to Craig to pick which one he wants to believe or not:

http://www.google.com/#q=bernie+san...w.&bih=890&biw=1280&fp=73d2ceaabb6b01bf&hl=en

Some links are relevant, some actually stick up for Bernie and others point out some lying.
Click to expand...

Ok you have some quotes from Bernie Sanders.

1. Actuall SS currently doesn't add one penny to the deficit
2. Wealthy hate old people...opinion.
3. Rich haven't paid one penny to debt. Ok logically that one probably isn't true but not given in a statement on the floor on the Senate for inclusion in the congressional record
 
J

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
HomerJS said:
Ok you have some quotes from Bernie Sanders.

1. Actuall SS currently doesn't add one penny to the deficit
2. Wealthy hate old people...opinion.
3. Rich haven't paid one penny to debt. Ok logically that one probably isn't true but not given in a statement on the floor on the Senate for inclusion in the congressional record
Click to expand...

Fair enough. However, my original quoted joke--How do you know when a politician is lying?--was exactly that..a joke. Then you have superfreak Craig come in and say that Bernie Sanders,and probably every Democrat, never lie. I didn't specify on record or not, but I think it is quite obvious that ALL politicians will and do lie. I am by no means trying to defend any Republican who lies either.

I never mentioned about the lie being on record or not. What Jon Kyl did was wrong, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom