I might as well, but that first sentence appears to be at odds with the rest of the post.
Yeah, I’m not sure I understand that part… and I don’t agree anyway.
I think those are meant to be questions. Not sure why there are no question marks, though.
If you don’t think the House should vote their disapproval because it is a wste time, ok, fine, I am not really going to argue that. But if you try to argue that the actions of Representative Wilson do not warrant a disapproval, then I take issue. And yes he apologized to the President, but as the OP noted, he also owed the House an apology, which he has not given.
What else was he going to say? He had no choice since he actually has manners.
Wilson apologized like a kid whose parents make him apologize to his sister. I wonder if he crossed his fingers while he did it.
Also, he apologized only for being rude, not for being wrong.
Thank you. I don’t personally find much to call “incoherent” in the remarks, so boo to the NYT for not doing a better job of quote-mining to back up the characterization, but he did clearly reference “[the President’s] lies”, so you’ve provided what I asked for.
Point of order, though: when speaking of the president’s actual lies on the floor of the House, what’s the protocol for characterizing them without running afoul of the decorum rules? An uncomfortable, mumbling, clearing of the throat?
I guess whatever it is, Representative Stark should have done that instead.
Well, it’s not his fault that he’s wrong. He is a Republican, after all.
My apologies to the board.
Deadpan doesn’t come across very well on the internet.
Do I get an apology?
“With apologies to Ontarians, and Albertans, but with no apologies at all to Morris Dancers…”
I was told by our former foster son, who was in the Corps in 1993-4, that he was told this by a Gunny. Probably I should have checked it out before raising it, but I had no reason to doubt it. Thanks for the response, and consider the issue dropped as based in presumably false information.
Well then…
The difference between you and Wilson (besides him being an important person serving in an august body and you being an insignificant anonymous loser on a message board) is that when Wilson made his error he first apologized to the primary party he had personally wronged. He didn’t make some abstract apology to a generic group.
I guess Wilson understands that an apology is personal. An apology to a Country, a group, a board, or Congress is without meaning because none of those things has feelings. None of those things is a person. None of those things can accept or appreciate it.
Because there is nothing personal about it, no actual acceptance of responsibility to a wronged party, such a gesture is empty and ultimately cowardly if it excludes the person wronged.
You don’t apologize to things, you idiot. You apologize to people.
So, besides being important and significant… compared to you, Wilson also possesses more class as he takes responsibility to the person he wronged, and you don’t. That being the case, it’s ironic that you’re attempting to chastise a man who demonstrates a much higher level of class and respect than you in the very thing you wish to chastise him for.
It’s rare that someone will immediately demonstrate such a degree of hypocrisy as to immolate their thesis in an attempt to defend it, but you accomplished the task.
Nor, is this the first time. You’re turning into a hater, dude. You’re hating over libertarian. You’re all intolerant and vicious. You used to be a pretty balanced guy.
Now look at you.
Why was he in the Corps for such a short period? Did they kick him out for not saluting the President?
I keed, I keed.
But I didn’t wrong you; I wronged the board. It’s perfectly acceptable here (in the Pit) for me to call you dishonest, a liar, a hypocrite, many other terms that are personal insults (or would be if they did not fit you).
“Fuck off” is not a personal insult. It’s simply a forbidden term. By using it, I broke the rules of the SDMB and set a bad example for other posters. Hence the preciseness of my apology.
Regards,
Frank
I think it’s wonderful how Joe Wilson is staying true to his illustrious predecessors.
It is forbidden, according to Ed because it is to egregious a personal insult to throw at another poster.
Your argument is incredibly stupid. Consider:
“Murder is not a personal crime. It is simply a forbidden action. By doing it one breaks the rules of society and sets a bad example for other people.”
So, by your logic you shouldn’t take it personally if somebody tries to murder you.
Telling somebody to “fuck off” is not a personal insult?
How stunningly stupid can you possibly be?
You do realize Preston Brooks was a Democrat, right?
Because the Democratic party nowadays is exactly identical to the Democratic party of the pre-Civil War era. Riiiiiight. :rolleyes:
Well, if this is the case, perhaps you should keep your yap shut about “illustrious predecessors”.