Douchebag interrupts speech to show his stupidity.

[Cramulus]

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.

[AFK]

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!

[Telarus]

I saw this last night:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/craig-ferguson-devotes-en_n_283361.html

"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.

[Halfbaked1]

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.

[Love]

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.

[Golden Applesauce]

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.

[Jenne]

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. 

[Jenne]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTWB1M9VPOte4M77spW7Z62NsGyQD9ANR0P01

GOP'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.

[AFK]

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? 

[Golden Applesauce]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTWB1M9VPOte4M77spW7Z62NsGyQD9ANR0P01

GOP'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.

[LMNO]

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."

I love my representives.  Especially the gay ones.

[Halfbaked1]

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.

[AFK]

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? 

[LMNO]

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.

[Kai]

Not that joe sixpack will be able to understand the "finer points" of that argument.