http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090903585.html?hpid=topnews
The hollerer was Wilson, a four-term Republican from South Carolina and former aide to the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
And here's why he was wrong: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/
Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn't apply to those here illegally. We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied." We rate Wilson's statement False.
Yeah but I mean, shouldn't you just holler out something nonsensical and false any time someone pauses in a speech?
I mean, c'mon.
Next time we have a meeting at work and my boss pauses to take a breath I think I'll shout out "Monkey balls on your face! Banana between your tits!!"
Same thing.
(I'm starting to hate the people in this country more and more... almost violently)
It's funny, my wife said she was going to do the same things at her meetings. Cept it wasn't monkey balls and bananas, but I might suggest that to her as an alternative.
Yeah, that guy was foolish if he thought the GOP was going to stand by him. But seriously, what do the GOP frontliners believe the nasty townhall meetings and the shameless rhetoric and wingnut pandering would lead to anyway?
Exactly what happened.
Dumbasses.
Quote from: LMNO on September 10, 2009, 04:02:41 PMThe hollerer was Wilson, a four-term Republican from South Carolina and former aide to the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/notepad/2009/09/wilsons-lie-remark-floods-foe.html
Quote from: articleProgressive Democrats took that as a cue to donate to his opponent, and accounts earmarked for Miller on the progressive Website Actblue jumped from a few thousand dollars to $105,943 between the speech and 9:15 a.m. on Thursday.
:lulz:
Gotta say that it was a true Erisian moment, like Eris poked him in the ass with a golden thumbtack at just the right moment. I applauded him when I heard it, it doesn't matter if I believe him or not, it was a beautiful moment.
I am hoping that the Democrats are finally realizing that trying to be bipartisan with these asshats is worthless. They don't care about facts any more. They aren't even trying to debate things rationally. They just randomly yell shit when someone says something that they don't like. Fuck these obstructionists. Throw them over the side if they won't get out of the way.
What the fuck is this shit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR49TbH4Y7k
That's how you ridicule the man "in charge".
Bloody colonials can't do anything right. hrrrhpmhmrpm mhpm rpprhrmhprm
The congressman's opponent gained $200,000 in campaign contributions in 12 hours. :lol:
Even Eric Cantor was pissed.
Sure, he let the party rhetoric get to his head. But what's the big deal? Okay, he didn't show due deference to a man elected by a majority of Americans. Has that ever stopped us, and should we hold him to a different standard?
Quote from: GA on September 11, 2009, 05:32:47 AM
Sure, he let the party rhetoric get to his head. But what's the big deal? Okay, he didn't show due deference to a man elected by a majority of Americans. Has that ever stopped us, and should we hold him to a different standard?
Are we congressmen? On camera, at a President's speech? Until you can explain how our situation is the same as his, I cannot address your claim that we're holding him to a different standard.
Mr. Wilson was bought by the insurance industry a long time ago:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/10/obama-speech-disrupter-a-health-industry-darling/
QuoteIn fact, over his entire congressional career, health professionals represent Wilson's top industry contributors, donating a total of $244,196 to his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets.org database. He received another $86,150 from pharmaceutical companies, $73,050 from insurance companies and $68,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.
Among Wilson's top contributors are the American Hospital Association, a lobby group that represents the interests of hospitals and health networks, and the American Medical Association, which represents physicians.
Quote from: GA on September 11, 2009, 05:32:47 AM
Sure, he let the party rhetoric get to his head. But what's the big deal? Okay, he didn't show due deference to a man elected by a majority of Americans. Has that ever stopped us, and should we hold him to a different standard?
Well, there's the fact that he was
completely wrong about the healthcare initiative is a good start.
If Obama really
was lying, that would be one thing. But Wilson had his head up his ass. So fuck him.
Quote from: GA on September 11, 2009, 05:32:47 AM
Sure, he let the party rhetoric get to his head. But what's the big deal? Okay, he didn't show due deference to a man elected by a majority of Americans. Has that ever stopped us, and should we hold him to a different standard?
If a Congressman is going to yell out "you lie", in a joint session of Congress, he should make sure he, himself, is correct. There is specific language in HR 3200 that says the benefits outlined will be denied to any undocumented individual. He isn't wrong for shouting, he is wrong, for being wrong.
ok, you said that a lot better than I did.
Must be the vicodin.
the fact that we're even discussing this proves that he accomplished his goal
sure he can say he's sorry after the fact, but lie or not, he just skewed the discussion along this "documentation" angle
it's the right wing hijacking the discourse by putting their balls on the table again. What has been seen can't be unseen. Now all we can talk about is those balls.
It would've been nice if one of the Dems had shouted out "you lie" when Bush was selling the Iraq War. Fuck, I would've settled for them to shout out "you lie" by voting NO on the funding. Fucking pussies!
I saw this last night:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/craig-ferguson-devotes-en_n_283361.html
Quote"I am not getting on Congressman Wilson's case for disagreeing with the president...every congressman has a vote, he should use it, but not in the middle of a speech to the joint sessions of Congress, that's not when you do it. It's not the Jerry Springer Show. You don't stand up in the middle of Congress and go 'oh no you did not.' What the hell is wrong with you? He said his emotions got the better of him--sometimes I want to have sex with a hooker but I don't."
Hit the link for the video of the monologue. Hi-larious.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 11, 2009, 02:33:19 PM
the fact that we're even discussing this proves that he accomplished his goal
sure he can say he's sorry after the fact, but lie or not, he just skewed the discussion along this "documentation" angle
it's the right wing hijacking the discourse by putting their balls on the table again. What has been seen can't be unseen. Now all we can talk about is those balls.
Now you're getting it! That's what I'm talking about! He just changed everyones discussion from "Well I have problems with that speech." Or "Wow, I can see clearly now, the scales have been lifted." To a discussion of "Well that was unexpected, what a jerkface." WOOHOO!! I love that guy, he's great! Politics would be so much better with a little randomness.
Quote from: LMNO on September 10, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090903585.html?hpid=topnews
The hollerer was Wilson, a four-term Republican from South Carolina and former aide to the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
And here's why he was wrong: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/
Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn't apply to those here illegally. We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied." We rate Wilson's statement False.
Laugh, I hope this serves to spread your meme => http://facebook.com/branding Top WALL POST at time of publication.
Quote from: Nigel on September 11, 2009, 05:41:34 AM
Quote from: GA on September 11, 2009, 05:32:47 AM
Sure, he let the party rhetoric get to his head. But what's the big deal? Okay, he didn't show due deference to a man elected by a majority of Americans. Has that ever stopped us, and should we hold him to a different standard?
Are we congressmen? On camera, at a President's speech? Until you can explain how our situation is the same as his, I cannot address your claim that we're holding him to a different standard.
Our situation is the same in that we're both primates, working with "rules" and "social structures" invented by other primates? Fundamentally I see little difference between mooing at a subway stop and yelling false statements during a speech - they're both noises in placetimes where you "should" be quiet and go along with the workings of the flow of the machine (although I will give that one was much more creative and much less obnoxious than the other.)
Like RWHN, I think it would have been nice if some Democrats had shown this level of opposition to Bush during his (actually lying, although they may not have had the evidence to demonstrate it at the time) speeches. It just seems silly to criticize someone for doing something that you would approve of if only they were on the other side of the partisan divide.
Bill Maher's speech at the end of his New Rules was awesome--he called out the Demorats on their rat-bastard whining and too little taking to the streets and getting shit done.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTWB1M9VPOte4M77spW7Z62NsGyQD9ANR0P01
QuoteGOP's Wilson faces rebuke Tuesday from House Dems
By BEN EVANS (AP) – 55 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — The uproar over Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting "you lie" at President Barack Obama returns to the House floor Tuesday for what could be a contentious and highly partisan debate over whether to formally criticize the South Carolina Republican.
The decision by Democratic leaders to bring a resolution of disapproval to the House floor was derided by Republicans, who said Wilson had already apologized for his remark during Obama's health care speech to a joint session of Congress last week.
But it was also met with skepticism by a senior Democrat, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., who said he would vote against it. "I think it's bad precedent to put us in charge of deciding whether people act like jerks. I don't have time to monitor everyone's civility."
Wilson apologized to the White House for his outburst, and Obama said he had accepted the apology. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initially said she was not inclined to take the matter further, saying it was time to move on to the more pressing matter of health care.
But other Democratic leaders, including Wilson's fellow South Carolinian James Clyburn, said the egregious breach of decorum could not be ignored. Wilson in turn rejected suggestions that he go to the House floor on his own and apologize.
Clyburn, in an interview last week, said Wilson's outburst was "indicative of the combativeness he displays all the time when it comes to politics."
Clyburn, a leading member of the Congressional Black Caucus, perceived it as a snub that Wilson held a town hall meeting on health care this summer at a school in Clyburn's district — where Clyburn's children attended — without telling Clyburn.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio sided with Wilson and said he would vote against the resolution.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele issue a statement accusing Democrats of "another stunning example of hypocrisy." He said Democrats "are wasting taxpayers' time and resources on a legislative measure to censure Congressman Joe Wilson so they don't have to talk about their exceedingly unpopular health care plan."
The House has wide latitude in disciplining its members for their behavior. While not a formal reprimand or censure, the planned resolution would put the House on record as condemning Wilson's outburst.
Democrats — particularly some black leaders who see race as a factor in how Obama was treated by Wilson and by protesters at recent town hall meetings — say allowing Wilson's insult to stand without action would set a bad precedent.
Cracks me up--Barney Frank has a great point, though. Legislating peoples' douchebaggy behavior is not really of the moment. Congress has more important shit to do. Like helping the Obama administration fulfill its campaign promises for chrissakes.
Joe Wilson, like many a politician, is instinctually an attention whore. All this does is help to gin up the base and turn Wilson into a Conservative martyr. At this point, people have made up their minds about Wilson. Do we really need a procedural exercise to point out the obvious?
Quote from: Jenne on September 15, 2009, 05:20:13 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTWB1M9VPOte4M77spW7Z62NsGyQD9ANR0P01
QuoteGOP's Wilson faces rebuke Tuesday from House Dems
By BEN EVANS (AP) – 55 minutes ago
...
Clyburn, in an interview last week, said Wilson's outburst was "indicative of the combativeness he displays all the time when it comes to politics."
Clyburn, a leading member of the Congressional Black Caucus, perceived it as a snub that Wilson held a town hall meeting on health care this summer at a school in Clyburn's district — where Clyburn's children attended — without telling Clyburn.
Dude, that's hardcore.
QuoteBut it was also met with skepticism by a senior Democrat, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., who said he would vote against it. "I think it's bad precedent to put us in charge of deciding whether people act like jerks. I don't have time to monitor everyone's civility."
I love my representives. Especially the gay ones.
Actually I have been reading the bill, and while it specifically says that anyone present in the United States illegally will not be covered by the Public Option I don't really see any oversight to make sure that it doesn't happen. Has anyone else been reading it? And if so can you direct me to something?
I believe I heard that Congress is looking at addending the bill to have more oversight, which would be a good thing, but I still think this could have been done another way than a public option.
By definition, wouldn't pretty much any public program in the United States be off limits to illegal immigrants?
Now, does every law that established those programs contain more specific oversight than the language that is in HR 3200?
When a public safety law is amended through legislation, do they spell out every enforcement activity in detail in that legislation? Or, perhaps, do they rely upon the already existing and stated mechanisms for enforcing that law?
In other words, if it is already a standard practice to get ID for inclusion into a public program, is it necessary to spell that out in every single piece of legislation?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
That has a lot of the relevant points. Basically, it's illegal to use the public option if you're an illegal, but breaking the law is as easy as it ever was.
So, yes: The bill forbids illegal immigrants to use the public option.
And, yes: It will probably be as easy for illegal immigrants to use it as any other public service.
Not that joe sixpack will be able to understand the "finer points" of that argument.
So, Joe "Sixpack" Wilson was rebuked via House leg today...what was said here?
Now, there was a Congressional Black Caucus debate that seemed to hold *some* water: that Wilson was a rich white dude knocking down the first black president. That was worthy of some note, I thought...though in reality perhaps more of a symptom rather than the disease.
But I think it's interesting that this is the way the Democrats choose to "fight back." I think there are much better ways.
This is the first time such a thing has happened, btw.
Quote from: Jenne on September 16, 2009, 05:05:21 AM
So, Joe "Sixpack" Wilson was rebuked via House leg today...what was said here?
Now, there was a Congressional Black Caucus debate that seemed to hold *some* water: that Wilson was a rich white dude knocking down the first black president. That was worthy of some note, I thought...though in reality perhaps more of a symptom rather than the disease.
But I think it's interesting that this is the way the Democrats choose to "fight back." I think there are much better ways.
This is the first time such a thing has happened, btw.
Considering the rebuke was decided more or less among party lines (233 dems + 7 repubs for, 12 dems + 166 repubs against), I don't think the rebuke in and of itself really says all that much, other than that we still decide essentially meaningless issues more on reelection questions than anything else.
:lulz: I just noticed that this headline could have been used for Joe Wilson or Kanye. Synchronicity, baby!
Change "speech" to "having her ass handed to her" and it applies to Serena Williams as well.
2009: Not just the year everyone who ever mattered to anyone died. Also the year where everyone had an urge to interrupt in the most counter-productive and lulzy ways.
Quote from: GA on September 16, 2009, 05:13:12 AM
Quote from: Jenne on September 16, 2009, 05:05:21 AM
So, Joe "Sixpack" Wilson was rebuked via House leg today...what was said here?
Now, there was a Congressional Black Caucus debate that seemed to hold *some* water: that Wilson was a rich white dude knocking down the first black president. That was worthy of some note, I thought...though in reality perhaps more of a symptom rather than the disease.
But I think it's interesting that this is the way the Democrats choose to "fight back." I think there are much better ways.
This is the first time such a thing has happened, btw.
Considering the rebuke was decided more or less among party lines (233 dems + 7 repubs for, 12 dems + 166 repubs against), I don't think the rebuke in and of itself really says all that much, other than that we still decide essentially meaningless issues more on reelection questions than anything else.
Oh I agree--in fact, until the Black Caucus got involved as they did, I was just seeing this as an easy knee-to-the-groin on the part of the Democrats. Just like impeaching Clinton was for the House Republicans all those years ago. Red herring issues, basically, that detract from "God's Work."
Damn, I thought this was the Kanye West thread.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 16, 2009, 05:36:35 AM
:lulz: I just noticed that this headline could have been used for Joe Wilson or Kanye. Synchronicity, baby!
Douchebags happen in threes?
Quote from: Payne on September 16, 2009, 01:52:52 PM
2009: Not just the year everyone who ever mattered to anyone died. Also the year where everyone had an urge to--
Hey Payne, did I every tell you the one about the seal that walked into a club?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 16, 2009, 06:12:43 PM
Quote from: Payne on September 16, 2009, 01:52:52 PM
2009: Not just the year everyone who ever mattered to anyone died. Also the year where everyone had an urge to--
Hey Payne, did I ever--
FUCK OFF SPAG!
Quote from: Payne on September 16, 2009, 06:41:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 16, 2009, 06:12:43 PM
Quote from: Payne on September 16, 2009, 01:52:52 PM
2009: Not just the year everyone who ever mattered to anyone died. Also the year where everyone had an urge to--
Hey Payne, did I ever--
FUCK OFF SP---
You know, my uncle once told me this story about a cow and a farmer friend of his. It was udderly hilarious!
:lulz:
:crankey:
LEAVE JOE WILSON ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Jenne on September 16, 2009, 03:32:11 PM
Quote from: GA on September 16, 2009, 05:13:12 AM
Quote from: Jenne on September 16, 2009, 05:05:21 AM
So, Joe "Sixpack" Wilson was rebuked via House leg today...what was said here?
Now, there was a Congressional Black Caucus debate that seemed to hold *some* water: that Wilson was a rich white dude knocking down the first black president. That was worthy of some note, I thought...though in reality perhaps more of a symptom rather than the disease.
But I think it's interesting that this is the way the Democrats choose to "fight back." I think there are much better ways.
This is the first time such a thing has happened, btw.
Considering the rebuke was decided more or less among party lines (233 dems + 7 repubs for, 12 dems + 166 repubs against), I don't think the rebuke in and of itself really says all that much, other than that we still decide essentially meaningless issues more on reelection questions than anything else.
Oh I agree--in fact, until the Black Caucus got involved as they did, I was just seeing this as an easy knee-to-the-groin on the part of the Democrats. Just like impeaching Clinton was for the House Republicans all those years ago. Red herring issues, basically, that detract from "God's Work."
It wasn't even an effective knee to the groin - they just gave the Republicans more opportunities to martyr Wilson and fuel for stupid protests. At least impeaching Clinton tied up executive and party resources.
It gave the Right Wingnutjobbers some more grist for the mill, yes. Some of the lail displayed at the 9/12 "marches" was hilarious.