I found this while trolling your profile. I thought anyone with the balls to use your screen name must have some interesting opinions. :rolleyes:
Presidential speeches of this kind are invites. The speeches have always been disrupted. That is a part of the tradition. What exactly bothered you about the disruption by Wilson?
Zombie! Kill it with fire!
Generally, this board prefers people to start new threads rather than reopening old ones.
That’s Ireland’s list of forbidden terms - lier isn’t on there, but its bad form to call someone it.
Lier is banned in the UK parliament.
Since the original thread only suffered a few brushfires with no serious meltdowns and most of the posters still seem to be around, I’m going to let this zombie stay open.
OTOH, as noted, we prefer that old threads be left dormant so that old feuds are not brought back up or departed posters are not attacked when they cannot respond.
Generally, if one needs to return to the topic of an old thread, we prefer that one start a new thread with a link to the old one.
[ /Moderating ]
Frankly, I don’t see the problem here.
First of all, the chamber belongs to the people, not to the president, and a member of Congress is a duly elected representative to that chamber. I don’t see any reason why an outburst that does not actually disrupt anything should be met with disproportionate force. And from my perspective, such minor outbursts should be tolerated from the floor as well as from the galleries.
Second, a representative’s role is to represent his district. If such a representative believes that he or she can best do so through such a small act of defiance, I don’t see why not.
Third, as it is, the person who made the outburst looks like the petty, intemperate fool here. Any “solution” to this non-problem would put the duncecap on the other foot, so to speak.
Fourth, Congress has been subject to genuinely intolerable actions, such as in 1856 when U.S. Rep. Preston S. Brooks (D-S.C.) beat Sen. Charles Sumner (D-Mass.) with a cane so severely that it was three years before Sumner could return to his duties.
Fifth, our government is a government based on civil, democratic, egalitarian values. I do not believe in blasphemy. Yes, civility is to be desired and encouraged, but we do not worship any branch of our government or treat it with reverence. Outbursts like this should be brushed off by a rational people, not treated like blasphemy.
really? I apologize. I had stumbled upon a different thread where somebody was told to search out an older thread before starting a new one on the same topic.
I see.
The Chamber belongs to the people? Odd concept. I know the House is called the People’s House, but the Chamber is where official business is conducted. There is a guest seating area, but to be allowed on the floor of the Chamber, one has to be invited. I’ve been invited to sit on the floor of the Massachusetts State House, by none other than US Representative Barney Frank, way back in the 70s. Haven’t gotten an invite for the US Floor yet. 
I don’t understand defiance being defended as a principle since it is the members who invite the President to speak. I have very little issue with Wilson’s outburst, as he apologized, but he then went on to use what he apologized for in a fund raising appeal. Makes Wilson look like a 1st class cad.
I agree totally that treating it as blasphemy is silly and over the top. Ain’t like outbursts didn’t happen in recent memory – with a little less craziness.
This one is fairly low on the list of interesting opinions I’ve expressed here.
Generally, I am distressed at giving a public forum to the witless and the rude, and particularly so if the forum in question has as its purpose a Presidential address to the nation. Politics is enough of a farce without, at a minimum, requiring a civil discourse. If outbursts are freely permitted, there is nothing that would prevent an angry individual or group of individuals from screeching throughout an entire speech.
I disagree with Mr Obama on many things. He is, nevertheless, entitled to make a planned speech to the nation in a planned setting without being interrupted. It’s as simple as that. I’m uninterested in whether or not there is prior precedent. What I proposed in the OP is that in the future the sanction for such interruptions should be to toss the offender out on his ass, on the spot.
I’m not opposed to smirks, yawns, napping, raised eyebrows, and the like. While they are rude, they don’t demand the floor. But a vocalized outburst seizes attention for someone who has not earned the privilege to have the floor. The least we can do in an effort to create a working government is to prevent or sanction boobs who do not understand the concept of civil discourse.
My opinion is that what Wilson did was disgraceful. But I don’t think the President should have the power to have had him evicted from the room. The speech was being given inside the Congressional building and that’s where Congress rules not the President. Even Pelosi shouldn’t have the power to evict an elected member without going through a full due process.
Now if Wilson had said the same thing during Obama’s inauguration or some other speech, I’d be open to the idea of having him removed.
Incidentally, let’s not let debates over the propriety of Wilson’s outburst cause us to loose sight of the actual facts. Wilson yelled out “You Lie!” when Obama said that illegal aliens would not be covered under the health care plan.
Here are the facts. Illegal aliens are not covered under the health care plan. It’s not just implied, the plan specifically says this.
Some opponents of the plan felt this was not sufficient. They said that while the plan prohibited illegal aliens it did not include enough provisions to enforce this. They proposed amendments that would require patients to produce proof of citizenship at the time they received medical treatment. It was not clear if these proposals would have effected all patients. Those who opposed these amendments argued that people were required to provide other documentation at other points in the process which would have already screened out any illegal aliens.
You beat me to this! Er … checking the date, I see you beat me by 8 months! :smack:
And reading the thread, I see that Mr. Magiver of course, never did come up with a cite. 
If this were BBQ Pit I might talk about maintaining a scorecard on Dopers to facilitate …
The facts of the debate are irrelevant, although I’ll eat my insurance policy if illegal aliens are not covered by the health plan; it’s becoming increasingly unpopular to even ask for proof of citizenship under almost any circumstance. Certainly something as ubiquitous as healthcare, with a default assumption that healthcare should be extended to all, is not going to be policed for citizenship. Even current healthcare establishes no test for citizenship, under any circumstances of which I am aware. It’s meaningless to pretend a law does something if there is no enforceable consequence; might as well proclaim that stupidity will end if we establish a law against it…
To the issue at hand: I fully agree it’s a matter of opinion whether or not a disruptive audience member should be removed, and perhaps a matter of further opinion who is or should be empowered to remove them. It is my opinion Wilson and disruptive individuals like him should be thrown out on their ass, on the spot, and particularly so when it’s the State of the Union address and the President is speaking. Feel free to defend him and his ilk, and any “freedom” to do that sort of thing, but you will not find support from me for it.
Fine. In 2014 you can show how illegal aliens are applying for and receiving tax subsidies to buy health insurance on the exchange. I’m sure that’s going to be happening alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the time.
Just as one can support the troops but not a particular war, one can support an idea without supporting an individual involved. I would not defend Wilson, but I would defend his right to be an idiot. And the House Chambers are not where the Executive has authority to throw out people. Especially US Representatives. It was a House matter and it was dealt with within House rules and procedures. To argue more is to miss the forest for the trees.
Hereyou go.