Should Joe Wilson apologize?

[CassCassXXX]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu ery=joe+wilson+you+lie&search_type=&aq=f

So this guy decided it'd be a good idea to call Obama a liar right in the middle of Obama making his case for his healthcare reform. Joe Wilson called Obama a liar after Obama said that illegal immigrants would not be able to take part in it. Joe Wilson already apologized to Obama, but now democrats want a public apology on the house floor or he'll face some serious consequences. My questions to you:

#1 - Should he have called Obama a liar?
#2 - Was he correct?
#3 - Should he have to issue an apology on the house floor?
#4 - Is their a double standard? Would democrats have been this outraged if it had been Bush making a speech and one of their own said that?
#5: HOLY CRAP', DID YOU SEE PELOSI'S FACE WHEN HE SAID THAT?! IF LOOKS COULD KILL! D=

[ohbombuh]

Called me biased if you will, but here's my response.

#1 - Should he have called Obama a liar?

No.

#2 - Was he correct?

No.

#3 - Should he have to issue an apology on the house floor?

Yes.

#4 - Is their a double standard? Would democrats have been this outraged if it had been Bush making a speech and one of their own said that?

No, but they'd still be expected to apologize.

#5: HOLY CRAP', DID YOU SEE PELOSI'S FACE WHEN HE SAID THAT?! IF LOOKS COULD KILL! D=

Half the politicians there support the idea that they should be allowed to kill, even if with a sentence instead of looks.

Also, Pelosi spent most of the address entertaining herself by playing with her eyelids and standing up and clapping every couple of sentences Obama said.

[CassCassXXX]

At 9/11/09 02:10 PM, ohbombuh wrote: Called me biased if you will, but here's my response.

#1 - Should he have called Obama a liar?

No.

#2 - Was he correct?

No.

#3 - Should he have to issue an apology on the house floor?

Yes.

#4 - Is their a double standard? Would democrats have been this outraged if it had been Bush making a speech and one of their own said that?

No, but they'd still be expected to apologize.

#5: HOLY CRAP', DID YOU SEE PELOSI'S FACE WHEN HE SAID THAT?! IF LOOKS COULD KILL! D=

Half the politicians there support the idea that they should be allowed to kill, even if with a sentence instead of looks.

Also, Pelosi spent most of the address entertaining herself by playing with her eyelids and standing up and clapping every couple of sentences Obama said.

I would just like to mention that many people believe the president lied when he said that about illegal immigrants because currently there would be no requirement to prove you are a legal citizen to participate in his plan, meaning that illegals could very well take part in it because they wouldn't have to prove they're legal citizens. That's what I've heard from the other side of this debate. =\

[Memorize]

At 9/11/09 02:18 PM, CassCassXXX wrote:

I would just like to mention that many people believe the president lied when he said that about illegal immigrants because currently there would be no requirement to prove you are a legal citizen to participate in his plan, meaning that illegals could very well take part in it because they wouldn't have to prove they're legal citizens. That's what I've heard from the other side of this debate. =\

It's funny because we already do exactly that in many areas when it comes to raids, stops, work place...

Some states already give them near free medical coverage because they either ignore or simply ban proof of citizenship or some form of ID.

So his plan would include illegals.

Though I found it hilarious that he changed the number from 47 million uninsured to 30 million (after over a year of hearing the 47). Why? Because people soon discovered that of that 47 million "uninsured Americans", they were counting illegals as well.

Btw, what the guy did (shouting "you lie") was no different from what the Democrats did when Bush proposed a social security 'reform'. Yet I didn't see an apology from the entire Democratic side who shouted.

lol, hypocrisy.

[Proteas]

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Okay, so Obama was technically right, no federal payments would be doled out for undocumented Aliens. BUT... where is the section of this bill that defines who qualifies for healthcare benefits, and how do they intend to ensure that undocumented aliens will be disqualified for this plan? Because HR 3200 is a hefty resolution, and I'm not even sure where to look, or what to type into google that I can cross referrence with this bill.

That being said, I think it's a shame that Obama wouldn't go into specifics about an issue that could put such a sizeable dent into the budget of this bill, possibly setting it up for a downfall in terms of its "deficit neutrality," instead of just giving Wilson that "If this were Russia, you'd be dead of polonium poisoning in a week" look. Wilson should have just responded by saying "DEEZ NUTTS."

[TheMason]

At 9/11/09 02:00 PM, CassCassXXX wrote: #1 - Should he have called Obama a liar?

Yes, if that is what he honestly believes.

#2 - Was he correct?

Yes...or rather maybe. The Congressional Research Service is a non-partisan research arm of the Legislature. It is not a private "non-partisan" think tank...but a part of the government itself. In August it issued a report that while HR 3200 denies illegals subsidies, there is no verification requirement which creates a possible loophole.

Rs say illegals will use this to circumvent the prohibition. Ds say no it won't. I lean towards it will, but that could be my now inate distrust of attorneys and their ability to spin and manipulate the law.

#3 - Should he have to issue an apology on the house floor?

No. Any president lives in a bubble. When he ventures out to a "Townhall", it is a very controlled event. He doesn't have to face the 33-45% of Americans who are passionately oppossed to this initiative. (NOTE: the number that really want this is about the same with a wary and undecided center that has yet to truly weigh in.)

In short; he doesn't get challenged with an opposing viewpoint that often. He doesn't directly meet his critics like the legislature does. So I think it is good for the president (ANY president) to be called a liar...or otherwise be challenged. And I think facing an unrestrained Congress is the appropriate venue.

Beyond this, Obama asked for it. He came into Congress' House and called a faction of Congress liars. No he did not call any one member, or party, liars...but he called points made by the opposition lies. In the end, it is a cowardly way of doing what Rep Wilson did.

Finally, if Wilson apologizes...so should Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuelle (sp?). According to CNN, he cornered three House Republicans and subjected to an explative-filled tirade. Demanding he apologize. This is hypocritical. You don't cry about a social foul by yelling curse words at the Opposition party's leaders.

#4 - Is their a double standard? Would democrats have been this outraged if it had been Bush making a speech and one of their own said that?

Of course. S/he would be praised as courageous and heroic.

[All-American-Badass]

At 9/11/09 02:00 PM, CassCassXXX wrote: Joe Wilson already apologized to Obama, but now democrats want a public apology on the house floor or he'll face some serious consequences. My questions to you:

If he already apologized to Obama, then he shouldn't have to apologize to anyone else.

#1 - Should he have called Obama a liar?

The first amendment gives him to right to have that opinion, if he thoght he was a liar i dont see why not

#2 - Was he correct?

There's only one way to find out, and that's if the healthcare reform passes

#3 - Should he have to issue an apology on the house floor?

No, as I previously stated, Obama is the only one that deserves an apology, not congress.

#4 - Is their a double standard? Would democrats have been this outraged if it had been Bush making a speech and one of their own said that?

No, but the republicans would react the same way the dems did with Wilson

#5: HOLY CRAP', DID YOU SEE PELOSI'S FACE WHEN HE SAID THAT?! IF LOOKS COULD KILL! D=

I honestly think Pelosi is a nutjob, I'm sure she gives that look to all republicans.

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/11/09 02:00 PM, CassCassXXX wrote: #1 - Should he have called Obama a liar?

No. You don't call someone a liar unless you can back it up. I feel very strongly about that in all walks of life. Calling someone a liar is damn serious (there's even a commandment for it) so if you do it, best be able to back it up. There's also a consideration of time and place factoring in here as well.

#2 - Was he correct?

I haven't seen any real evidence mounted that Obama was being untruthful there. It sure seems Mr. Wilson didn't present any. So based on that? I'm going with no, no he wasn't.

#3 - Should he have to issue an apology on the house floor?

I think it couldn't hurt. But I don't think he should necessarily be forced to apologize. Certainly not if:

A) The Pres accepted it, and publicly says such.

B) He isn't actually sorry.

#4 - Is their a double standard? Would democrats have been this outraged if it had been Bush making a speech and one of their own said that?

Probably not. But you can bet the Republicans would have :). Welcome to party politics in America, the other side would be doing the exact same thing if the situation was reversed.

#5: HOLY CRAP', DID YOU SEE PELOSI'S FACE WHEN HE SAID THAT?! IF LOOKS COULD KILL! D=

I did not. I should look into this...you mean she actually can have expressions?

[hansari]

At 9/11/09 05:11 PM, Proteas wrote: That being said, I think it's a shame that Obama wouldn't go into specifics about an issue that could put such a sizeable dent into the budget of this bill...

I know...I'm tired of wasting time watching this guy say the same thing over and over again...whats the point of press conferences and televised screenings like this when nothing new is really said?!

[hansari]

Oh, and anyone who cares...

[TheShrike]

At 9/11/09 02:00 PM, CassCassXXX wrote: #3 - Should he have to issue an apology on the house floor?
#4 - Is their a double standard? Would democrats have been this outraged if it had been Bush making a speech and one of their own said that?

3:YES

4: No. He's the President, he deserves respect, damnit. This isn't the dark ages. What happened to civility. A congressman has as much a right to disagree as much as the next guy, but that was just crass. The democrats never did such disrespect to Bush. The fact that partisan politics is essentially turning out people like this is bullshit.

This isn't important in the long run. There are more serious issues than some dolt who couldn't control his temper in front of the nation.

[Memorize]

At 9/12/09 03:18 AM, TheShrike wrote:

4: The democrats never did such disrespect to Bush.

Omg, LOL! @ the sarcasm!

[Giijo]

At 9/12/09 04:36 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 9/12/09 03:18 AM, TheShrike wrote:

4: The democrats never did such disrespect to Bush.

Omg, LOL! @ the sarcasm!

That's not sarcasm, that's the fucking truth, you tool.

[Korriken]

I find it interesting, if not downright ironic, that the democrats keep shooting down amendments to make sure things the dems SAY won't be covered, remain that way. they shot down an amendment that explicitly said that the reform won't cover abortions, which is what the dems say it won't cover. they shot down the Heller Amendment, which would link the bill to a database to check and be CERTAIN the person being treated isn't an illegal alien.

Kinda reminds me of a parent that sends their kid to their room, but won't let the other parent go remove the computer, video game console, tv, telephone, and other sources of entertainment, and yet insist that the bad kid is being punished.

It doesn't matter what is written on the bill if there is no enforcement. Much like the speed limits on back roads are bunk because no one ever patrols them to enforce the speed limit.

Truth is obvious. the dems keep shooting down the enforcement of the bill so later they can give things to those who aren't supposed to have it, according to the bill.

[TheShrike]

At 9/12/09 10:10 AM, Korriken wrote: Truth is obvious. the dems keep shooting down the enforcement of the bill so later they can give things to those who aren't supposed to have it, according to the bill.

It's sad that you actually believe that.

[Ericho]

I've seen more people say a lot worse to people. I think he should apologize and I don't think he was right on this matter.

[Korriken]

At 9/12/09 10:56 AM, TheShrike wrote:

It's sad that you actually believe that.

prove me wrong then. WHY would they shoot down enforcement amendments?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 9/12/09 11:37 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/12/09 10:56 AM, TheShrike wrote:

It's sad that you actually believe that.

prove me wrong then. WHY would they shoot down enforcement amendments?

Because they restrict the operation of the health service and increases the number of checks and bureaucracy involved in the system, thus driving up costs as more admins need to be hired to deal with it, and also increases waiting times as these checks need to go through an take time?

[CassCassXXX]

At 9/12/09 12:35 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 9/12/09 11:37 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/12/09 10:56 AM, TheShrike wrote:

It's sad that you actually believe that.

prove me wrong then. WHY would they shoot down enforcement amendments?

Because they restrict the operation of the health service and increases the number of checks and bureaucracy involved in the system, thus driving up costs as more admins need to be hired to deal with it, and also increases waiting times as these checks need to go through an take time?

But if illegals participated in this plan because people wouldn't have to provide proof of citizenship, wouldn't that cost more money? I mean . . what would cost more, all the illegals in this country taking part in the plan, or the government checking to make sure everyone who takes part in the plan are legal citizens?

[Korriken]

At 9/12/09 12:35 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Because they restrict the operation of the health service and increases the number of checks and bureaucracy involved in the system, thus driving up costs as more admins need to be hired to deal with it, and also increases waiting times as these checks need to go through an take time?

ok so let's see..

amendment to ban abortion in the public option.

I don't see there being a whole lot of checking needed to make sure that abortions can't be performed on the public option.

Amendment to check database to determine national status.

the databases are already in place and is used by many federal agencies and programs. I don't see the problem in using it for this. The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program are the 2 databases already being used.

How this would bring our health care to a grinding halt is beyond me. Once you're eligible for the benefits, you get on the database. If you aren't on the database, tough.

SImply showing ID would be no good because several states gives drivers licenses to illegal already (how this happens is also beyond me, considering an illegal walks into a government building and can walk out with anything other than a set of handcuffs to be processed for deportation is even possible shows an utter lack of enforcement of immigration law.

[Memorize]

At 9/12/09 05:31 AM, Giijo wrote:

At 9/12/09 04:36 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 9/12/09 03:18 AM, TheShrike wrote:

4: The democrats never did such disrespect to Bush.

Omg, LOL! @ the sarcasm!

That's not sarcasm, that's the fucking truth, you tool.

Obviously you weren't paying attention when Bush proposed his Social Security "reform" and the audience of Congressional Democrats "boo'd" all in unison.

lol tool!

[dySWN]

At 9/12/09 05:31 AM, Giijo wrote:

At 9/12/09 04:36 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 9/12/09 03:18 AM, TheShrike wrote:

4: The democrats never did such disrespect to Bush.

Omg, LOL! @ the sarcasm!

That's not sarcasm, that's the fucking truth, you tool.

I enjoy how you seem to have been living under a rock the entire time we were in Iraq. If that era is an indication of respect for the president, then I would hate to see what Democratic scorn would look like...

[Jizzlebang]

Whether democrats acted similarly during the Bush years or not is besides the point. Democrat or Republican, as a congressman or senator, citizen or not, you should never interrupt the president in such disrespect and shout at him calling him a liar.

Wilson was out of line.

[Proteas]

At 9/12/09 05:28 PM, Jizzlebang wrote: Wilson was out of line.

And he apologized to Obama for it, end of story. No need for him to make an apology on the senate floor for what he did, that's just vindictive and redundant, as it only seeks to make Wilson a pariah for his actions.

What irks me about this is that I was listening to NPR the other day (I was bored and hoping they'd have an interesting interview or something), and they said that the disrespect Wilson showed to Obama was nothing more than an extension of the Birther Movement and racism in the U.S.. They didn't have an actual response for what Wilson called Obama a liar for, they just basically accused the guy of being a racist.

I wanted so badly to just call them up and scream at the top of my lungs "DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM" that it wasn't even funny. The issue of healthcare for illegal immigrants is going to make deficit neutrality for this bill nearly impossible, and they want to ignore that and claim racism of anyone who disagrees with Obama. Grow up.

[Proteas]

At 9/12/09 09:08 PM, Proteas wrote: and they want to ignore that and claim racism of anyone who disagrees with Obama

* is racist?

That's the biggest act of ad hominem I've ever seen in my life. And what's pathetic is that there are people out there who would sooner write their opposition off as this or that then take 5 minutes out of their busy lives to actually rebut their opposition in logical, well thought out manner. Joe Wilson is no more racist for shouting out "LIAR" during Obama's speech than any one of you were "unpatriotic" for speaking out against the Bush administration for their policies towards civil rights.

</rant>

[Freetos]

The man could say what every he likes, and I do remember something along the lines of the Constitution saying things such as freedom of speech. Its total bullshit that they would make him apologize at the risk of losing his position.

[Sajberhippien]

At 9/12/09 03:04 PM, Memorize wrote:

That's not sarcasm, that's the fucking truth, you tool.

Obviously you weren't paying attention when Bush proposed his Social Security "reform" and the audience of Congressional Democrats "boo'd" all in unison.

lol tool!

I just have to say that personally, I see it as much more acceptable to shout "boo" than to call someone a liar. Booing, first off, may be only an attack on the reform; not the person behind. Calling someone a liar is far worse imho, as it's a direct attack on the person and on his morals. It's like a light form of defamation.

To the OP, I think it was morally wrong to come with such accusations without evidence, but I do think he has the right to do it.

[Sajberhippien]

At 9/13/09 08:58 AM, Freetos wrote: The man could say what every he likes, and I do remember something along the lines of the Constitution saying things such as freedom of speech. Its total bullshit that they would make him apologize at the risk of losing his position.

Just for the note, freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything at any time. There are limits to it, such as threats, hate speech, and defamation.

[dySWN]

At 9/13/09 10:11 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: hate speech

That's only in Europe; nobody likes hate speech, but I think the founders understood that, just like in situations like this, it would be easy to twist someone's words into hate speech for the purpose of silencing dissent. As long as they do not incite violence, even the most repugnant spewers of hate have a right to speak in the US.

[BloodPact]

I applaud Joe Wilson for what he did. I think that everybody is being too hard on him, because the way that American politicians act is nothing compared to how they settle things in the Japanese Parliament. When the Prime Minister makes his speech in the Parliament in Japan he is interrupted every paragraph, and they fight every week in Parliament as well. I wish they would do that in the House and Senate over here.