Discussion: House Republicans

Discussion for article #234543

Yup, the GOP has shown you can go further than full retard.


The only thing sillier than the immigration bill press release only displaying GIIFs of white people is that they are ANIMATED GIFs!!

Stupid and annoying …


The old white men who run the House reached at hipster but only got as far as clueless, but it did show women sitting at the back of the bus, so that’s cool…


Republicans are nothing but a joke anymore. How can any rational person take them seriously? Republicans are mocking people for being who they are. The only explanation I can come up with is the GOP is in its death throes. We are witnessing crazy, insane people.


Ooooohhh! GIF’s! Totally edgy. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll just pop off and shoot myself.


As a companion bill to this legislation, the House also plans to introduce a bill making it illegal for the President to veto legislation. A House spokesman said, “We can’t get this through without it.”


I hope they get sued. I’m tired of them trying to steal things from those who don’t support them.


A joke except that they are the majority party in the House and Senate. And we should find it disturbing that full retard is in power.


I was more into the gold-trimmed Judiciary Committee header…very Downton Abbey!


This particular bill won’t go anywhere; however, it gives the House GOP cover for failing to act on the bi-partisan Senate immigration bill submitted to the House in 2013, and it puts this message of nullifying (by another name) the powers of the federal government into public discourse. Watch the RW media run with it; watch ALEC-inspired bills popping up in red states demanding this authority.



Given that context, it’s notable that all 10 GIFs included in the press release depicted white characters or celebrities.

Of course they did. Republicans don’t see race. By which they mean, they don’t see blacks, or hispanics, or, really, anyone but white people. Rich white people - they don’t see poverty either.


I wonder if the celebrities approved of this? If not, I wonder if Republicans can be sued for violating the celebrities’ rights of publicity? It seems like this is suggesting that the celebrities actually endorse the Republican’s positions on immigration, which I doubt is true, and which could cause harm and damage to their reputations.


I strongly suspect that the celebrity gif’s are copyrighted and possibly the others. If permission was not obtained, this is a major issue given that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over copyright, trademark and patent. Inquiry needs to be made.


The heading of this TPM article should be “House GOPers Promote Anti-Immigration Bill Using Only GIFs Of White People”. The bill is not an immigration bill by any stretch of the imagination.


The response to House Republicans:


“House GOPers Promote Immigration Bill Using Only GIFs Of White People”

Only GIFs? When will the anti-JPEG bigotry end???


Issa, King, Gohmert and Franks are on this committee chaired by a man with milk in his name. I give up.


Maybe. If this violates copyright or trademark, then an action will lie at least against the staffers. The defense will be that it is protected by the Speech/Debate Clause since it concerns legislative activity. The Members are probably protected by that defense. The issue is whether they delegated that to staff. I suspect that since the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over patent, trademark and copyright, the Members will say they did not authorize the staff to do this and throw them under the bus. This is an area of law with very few court precedents. I hope TPM pursues the permission issue with great vigor.


True, but so little content is used from each source that the GOP could probably get away with a fair use claim. I think, ExSpectator has the right idea here:

To the extent that the images put words in the mouths of recognizable film stars, those actors might have a stronger case for having their images misappropriated without their permission, to advocate political views they don’t support, than the producers would have for copyright infringement.

But I’m not a lawyer - perhaps one can weigh in with a quick analysis?

1 Like