You are so full of shit. What kind of idiot would you have to be to get that it would be “ok for a Democrat to do what Wilson did?”
If one argues that a particular murderer should not get the death penalty, it does not reasonably follow that the person is arguing that it’s ok to murder people.
Only a dishonest douchebag would make that argument.
You know that I don’t think it’s ok for a Democrat to do what Wilson said. Why would you say that’s what I’m saying? Dishonesty, or stupidity. You’re not thatstupid.
So take your faux indignance and stick it up your ass. Debate honestly what the other person is arguing and you won’t have these problems.
Just so it’s clear, yesterday the House passed a Disapproval resolution, not a formal censure. That may come later. Assuming I understand things correctly.
None of this would have happened if Joe Wilson had a stronger sense of manhood. If you lose your cool, you should apologize. You shouldn’t be so naive as to believe that any of your wrongdoing does harm to one and only one party. As Bob Inglis (R-SC) put it: “Joe Wilson analogy: I speed, lose control of my car and hit your car. Part 1: I fix your car. Part 2: I pay my speeding ticket. Case closed.”
OBTW: It’s not a waste of time. Arguably more harm was done to the House than to the President. There are codes of conduct that are prerequisite for legislative bodies to function. Even the Brits disallow certain words during Parliamentary questioning: “Liar” is one of them, “Coward” is another. The idea is that certain phrases simply destroy even the barest semblance of debate or at least presentation of position.
Ok here’s the language. There is indeed no censure in yesterday’s resolution.
There’s nothing in there explicitly about calling the President a liar, only about rudely interrupting the President during joint session. Time and place, etc. etc. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.744: Mr. Moto draws another false and tenuous equivalence.
Check out Paragraph 2 - that makes mention to a breech of decorum. The decorum rules I linked to above spell out the language not permitted - that would include calling the President a liar. So yes, there it is.
That’s a decent qualification in the previous post, but no – we’re not talking about the same offense (though there’s some overlap) and Moto’s presentation of these two cases doesn’t elucidate their similarities and differences particularly well.
At any rate, if Wilson at any point decides to man up in the well of the House–as Stark did after an admonishment by Nancy Pelosi-- I think this whole thing should just be a matter between Wilson and his constituents.
I consulted your helpful link, like you said, but I can’t find a reference to Stark having called Bush a liar in this link. near as I can make out, what he said was
I mean, congratulations on finding out Der Trihs’s secret identity and everything, but he didn’t even use the word “liar” in that sentence.
Was it maybe in an earlier article that he is quoted as having called Bush a liar from the House floor? Can you find it for me? Please?
Oh, horsepucky. The breach of decorum was yelling at the President in the middle of his speech. Here, let me quote the relevant bit: “Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session”…
Don’t you ever get tired of this disingenuous nonsense?
You really can see no diference between a man including (true but) offensive language toward the Presdent while making a speech, having been granted the floor, in a ‘normal’ House session, and someone jumping up to interrupt the President during his address to a Joint Session of Congress with a (false) accusation that he is lying?
A question: how do you feel about the 1993 ruling by the Commandant of the Marine Corps that Marines need not salute President Clinton because he was not a veteran?
Wilson did issue what appeared to be a prompt and unreserved apology. He didn’t even wait until the following day–it was within a couple of hours of the speech.
But apologizing doesn’t end when you mouth some apologetic-sounding words. I said that night on these very boards that if Wilson had shown genuine contrition–letting his apology stand, taking his lumps, shutting up and letting the furor die down–that Congress and everybody else should have let it drop. But if he tried to make himself into a hero over it and use it in fundraising pitches, he would be effectively taking back his apology, and Congress should let him have it with both barrels.
Needless to say, he was on Hannity and YouTube within 24 hours nailing himself to the cross.
I don’t like the idea of furthering his martyrdom with a censure, but I also don’t like the idea of encouraging future jackassery by back-bencher wingnuts who want a day in the sun.
This appears to be an urban legend - certainly Snopes thinks it is. And the entirety of my active duty was during the Clinton presidency, and we were always instructed to salute him.
I’m sure you would be happy to either give me more information supporting your charge or immediately dropping it, given this.
True or false is a matter of perspective, and in any situation like this one side thinks the statements are true and one side thinks they’re not. To the extent that your case on your personal belief that one statement was true and one was false, there’s not much point in what you say.
In general, there’s a tendency of partisans - both IRL and on internet MB - to think their slurs against their opponents are just telling it like it is while their opponents’ slurs against them are unacceptable and uncivil lies that violate common decency. This is an obstacle to calm, respectful, and rational discourse.
I would spin that around.
If Democrats generally would have accepted the apology in the spirit that Obama did and then Wilson would have carried on about it, I would agree with you. But if a guy apologizes, and his opponents continue to demand more pounds of flesh, and his election opponents crow about their success in using the incident for fundraising efforts, you can’t blame the guy for shifting into a more defiant mode.
