I would like to know what the far right wingers that troll this forum think - should he be punished? Not because he disagreed, but because of how he did it.
Yes - 0
No - 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -
Totally uncalled for. Put one up for the punish side.
His punishment is the world knowing how little activity is really going on inside that pea sized brain of his. Seriously he could not come up with anything better to shout out? Cmon!
___________________________________________________________________
Hahn Stage II - Mitsu TD06-20g |3" Turbo-back Exhaust | 61mm Bored TB |
HP Tuners | Innovate WB02 | Spec Stage 3 | Team Green LSD | TurboTech Upper | Full Addco Sways | Sportlines & Yellows |
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:And let's be honest, here. If someone did that during a Bush speech, the tone throughout the media the following day would have been that of pride that someone finally said it.
You
truly are blind if you think this would be true. You
really need to open up your mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -
I guess no one remembers the '05 State of the Union Address???
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
its cute how you like to label any dissenting voice as that of a "far right winger"
regardless--sure, it was rude, but what sort of punishment do you think the man deserves? he broke parliamentary procedure, not international law.
and as john pointed out, one person yelling "you lie" is worse than a dozen or more booing the president? where were your outraged cries for punishment then? why is it suddenly so different now?
(tabs) wrote:its cute how you like to label any dissenting voice as that of a "far right winger"
regardless--sure, it was rude, but what sort of punishment do you think the man deserves? he broke parliamentary procedure, not international law.
and as john pointed out, one person yelling "you lie" is worse than a dozen or more booing the president? where were your outraged cries for punishment then? why is it suddenly so different now?
I also find it funny how you said that I label "any dissenting voice" as a far right winger. That's right, I used the word "all" in there. Somewhere. Please find it for me.
No, more like just a description of a few people here on the war forum. My gf and her fam are republicans...and I don't call them far right wingers.
And I'm not sure who is giving "outraged cries"? A democratic lynchmob? Where?
You do realize that you "elevated" this post so much more, and for no real big reason? Were you also one of the people yelling at the town halls?
It was a simple question that I knew would be blown up by the far right. You just CAN'T disagree without flipping out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -
Right Wing Conservative is code name for ignorant flat earther (but hey anti-intellectualism is the in-thang these days). Libertarian is code name for "True Republican"
___________________________________________________________________
Hahn Stage II - Mitsu TD06-20g |3" Turbo-back Exhaust | 61mm Bored TB |
HP Tuners | Innovate WB02 | Spec Stage 3 | Team Green LSD | TurboTech Upper | Full Addco Sways | Sportlines & Yellows |
Impressive. You lay out a loaded question like you did, then stand back aghast at the pouring forth of outrage from the rightwingers.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
That is FUC_KING AWESOME!!!!!!
I love how the masters in back look upset too!
HA
More of this kind is needed!
To many "Americans" are "role over and do nothing Pusses!"
HA
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Liberals are tolerant of those who believe just as they do. They claim to not push their beliefs on anyone. This the winecork sniffing, designer organic cheese eating left who perpetually, with the assistance of the courts, fosters their agenda on the actual majority
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Next q:
So do you think it was wrong for republican leadership to "force" him to apologize?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -
Yes.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Viper98912 wrote:(tabs) wrote:its cute how you like to label any dissenting voice as that of a "far right winger"
regardless--sure, it was rude, but what sort of punishment do you think the man deserves? he broke parliamentary procedure, not international law.
and as john pointed out, one person yelling "you lie" is worse than a dozen or more booing the president? where were your outraged cries for punishment then? why is it suddenly so different now?
I also find it funny how you said that I label "any dissenting voice" as a far right winger. That's right, I used the word "all" in there. Somewhere. Please find it for me.
No, more like just a description of a few people here on the war forum. My gf and her fam are republicans...and I don't call them far right wingers.
And I'm not sure who is giving "outraged cries"? A democratic lynchmob? Where?
You do realize that you "elevated" this post so much more, and for no real big reason? Were you also one of the people yelling at the town halls?
It was a simple question that I knew would be blown up by the far right. You just CAN'T disagree without flipping out.
i like how a few people pointed out it has happend on the other end, nothing was done or said about it and all you did was to attack tabs because he said all and not some. you kinda just glossed right over his point and that he was right. do you actually believe it was repulicans booing bush at the state of the union adress? come one you know who booed we know who booed. just admit your wrong, dont try and act like it was some crazy right wingers who elevated this post.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
No I don't think he should be punished. I strongly believe in peoples having the right to speak their mind and in this case make a fool out of themselves. I think that right there is punishment enough.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
So we really do live in the fu-king USSA now....
First Amendment Right PEOPLE
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did he "have" to say sorry?
FUC-K that!
I look forward to a song by Tool to come to pass.... something about "Arizona bay"
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Viper98912 wrote:(tabs) wrote:its cute how you like to label any dissenting voice as that of a "far right winger"
regardless--sure, it was rude, but what sort of punishment do you think the man deserves? he broke parliamentary procedure, not international law.
and as john pointed out, one person yelling "you lie" is worse than a dozen or more booing the president? where were your outraged cries for punishment then? why is it suddenly so different now?
I also find it funny how you said that I label "any dissenting voice" as a far right winger. That's right, I used the word "all" in there. Somewhere. Please find it for me.
No, more like just a description of a few people here on the war forum. My gf and her fam are republicans...and I don't call them far right wingers.
And I'm not sure who is giving "outraged cries"? A democratic lynchmob? Where?
You do realize that you "elevated" this post so much more, and for no real big reason? Were you also one of the people yelling at the town halls?
It was a simple question that I knew would be blown up by the far right. You just CAN'T disagree without flipping out.
i also find it funny how you interjected the word "all" into my statement, when in fact i said "any". there is a definite difference, and i used the word "any" on purpose. dont try to pretend for even a second that your question wasnt fully loaded from the beginning. you say the question was proposed to "far right wingers that troll this forum" but you were actually directing the question at anyone that isnt a card-carrying liberal such as yourself.
in both your post and the title you ask if the man should be punished, making it less of a question and more of a statement that you believe he should be. am i wrong? go ahead and tell me you DONT think he should be punished. thats right....you do. which is why you phrased your question like you did and why i phrased my reply as i did.
the outraged cries in question werent given by the democrats when the jeers were leveled at a republican. but once it happened to their fearless leader...? oh shi
t its on now!!! and it is that hypocrisy that i felt like pointing out. you didnt make a post back in 05 asking if democratic members of congress should be punished--i checked. yet here you are today, exasperated at the action of one man accusing obama of lying. so i simply asked in my initial post, and again now,
"why the difference?"
yet instead of answering that question, you tried to deflect it back onto me, as if i were one of your perceived "far right wingers that troll this forum" or some dumb, Bible-thumping hick, like you probably think the majority of republicans are. instead, you accused me of "elevating" this post, accused me of being a town hall rioter, and actually stated "You just CAN'T disagree without flipping out." even though nowhere in my post did i even come close to flipping in, out, up, down, or any other preposition. my post was calm, direct, and completely to the point. i wish i could say the same for yours.
(tabs) wrote:
and as john pointed out, one person yelling "you lie" is worse than a dozen or more booing the president? where were your outraged cries for punishment then? why is it suddenly so different now?
(tabs) wrote: the outraged cries in question werent given by the democrats when the jeers were leveled at a republican. but once it happened to their fearless leader...? oh @!#$ its on now!!! and it is that hypocrisy that i felt like pointing out. you didnt make a post back in 05 asking if democratic members of congress should be punished--i checked. yet here you are today, exasperated at the action of one man accusing obama of lying. so i simply asked in my initial post, and again now,
"why the difference?"
That's the same question I ask every time I see people bitching about this president, as if they never experienced any lies from a president before. Which is why I find these "tea-parties" and certain media pushing an upraise a joke.
And Tabs, I'm sure you can find better vids of Bush getting interrupted like Obama with the heckler was, because quite frankly your example was weak. Sh-it, I bet you could even find me in the background yelling bloody liar & murderer when he address the capital or nation. lol
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:So we really do live in the fu-king USSA now....
First Amendment Right PEOPLE
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did he "have" to say sorry?
FUC-K that!
I would say it's is about respect, (correct me if I'm wrong) much how you're in the military and must respect your hierarchy, I would say this holds true with what happened the other night. But that's the beauty of the first amendment, which is why Joe Wilson is not in jail or beheaded. Looks to me like the view of "live in the fu-king USSA" is a bit extreme and fanatical.
---------
On a serious note... .
Nobody mentioned that Joe Wilson was telling a lie when he yelled "lie."
The fact is, and as of now, the reform WILL NOT apply to illegal immigrants. House and Senate bills say subsidies will only apply to legal citizens. What we have today is, when illegal immigrants goes to emergency room, charges are usually paid by emergency medicaid. But one democratic bill is thinking about expanding, but like many things in this proposal, nothing is set in stone. But Robert Gibbs emphasized that the legislation that the president will sign will not cover illegal immigrants.
And with all of that being said and to answer the original question. I whole heartedly agree with this statement.
Wade Jarvis wrote:No I don't think he should be punished. I strongly believe in peoples having the right to speak their mind and in this case make a fool out of themselves. I think that right there is punishment enough.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:(tabs) wrote:
and as john pointed out, one person yelling "you lie" is worse than a dozen or more booing the president? where were your outraged cries for punishment then? why is it suddenly so different now?
(tabs) wrote: the outraged cries in question werent given by the democrats when the jeers were leveled at a republican. but once it happened to their fearless leader...? oh @!#$ its on now!!! and it is that hypocrisy that i felt like pointing out. you didnt make a post back in 05 asking if democratic members of congress should be punished--i checked. yet here you are today, exasperated at the action of one man accusing obama of lying. so i simply asked in my initial post, and again now,
"why the difference?"
That's the same question I ask every time I see people bitching about this president, as if they never experienced any lies from a president before. Which is why I find these "tea-parties" and certain media pushing an upraise a joke.
And Tabs, I'm sure you can find better vids of Bush getting interrupted like Obama with the heckler was, because quite frankly your example was weak. Sh-it, I bet you could even find me in the background yelling bloody liar & murderer when he address the capital or nation. lol
so....wait....? are you admitting that your fearless leader is lying???? well that certainly is a start!
but the tea parties are protests against the massive SPENDING that this administration is doing. while the iraq war may have cost a lot, it pales in comparison to what obama has spent in the few months hes been in office.
and regardless of how/when/why bush was interrupted, the simple question remains:
why the difference now??? neither you nor the OP has yet to answer that. why is it acceptable to have razzed bush for almost a decade, but when it is done to obama, suddenly its a sin worthy of death?
LOL
He got caught LYING... and someone else had to apologize... weird.
Ive called Higher ups (higher rank) out when they where wrong... got chewed out for it, then praised.
we shall see how this pans out, yes?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
To sum this thread up - Democrats and Republicans are immature hypocrites. Should he be punished? Not severely IMO - someone should literally slap him hard upside the head, and that should be the end of it. What he did was rude(and inaccurate BTW), but it wouldn't call for any more than what I've proposed. Of course his opponent for the next Senate race Rob Miller
went from having barely enough to pay staffers to having enough money to wage a serious campaign - that is plenty of punishment. Of course Wilson
is getting tons of donations himself, but he was MUCH better off having been adequately funded against an opponent who was not. In seconds a safe incumbent race became up for grabs.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:On a serious note... .
Nobody mentioned that Joe Wilson was telling a lie when he yelled "lie."
Let's check on that (they have many links I'm not including).
Quote:
We suspect it's rare that the president gets heckled during a speech to a joint session of Congress, but Rep. Joe Wilson didn't hold back.
"You lie!" shouted the South Carolina Republican. This was in response to President Barack Obama's statements on illegal immigrants.
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants," Obama said. "This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
So who's right here? Wilson or Obama?
Incidentally, Wilson apologized for the outburst after the speech, but said he still disagreed with Obama's statement.
We've been monitoring claims about health care reform and illegal immigrants for some time now. Most notably, a chain e-mail claimed that page 50 of the House bill gave free health care to illegal immigrants. That page didn't say that. Rather, it included a generic nondiscrimination clause that said insurers may not discriminate with regard to "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." So we rated the chain e-mail's claim Pants on Fire .
We read all 1,000-plus pages of the health care bill and were struck by the fact that it is largely silent on health care for illegal immigrants. Keep in mind that experts estimated there were 6.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States in 2007, out of a total of 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Right now, there are laws on the books that require hospitals to treat severely ill people who arrive at the hospital, regardless of immigration status, and we didn't see anything that would change those laws, either.
Most illegal immigrants are also now excluded from Medicaid, the government-run health care for the poor. We didn't see anything that would change that.
One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for "affordability credits." These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.
Still, given all that, we have heard from people who said that other aspects of reform could benefit illegal immigrants.
One of the most detailed responses was from the anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform, called FAIR. You can read their statement on the matter on their Web site.
Primarily, they argue that illegal immigrants would be permitted to purchase insurance on the national health insurance exchange because the bill does not include a mechanism for verifying citizenship. So illegal immigrants would have the chance to purchase insurance in the public option, a government-run health care plan that would offer basic coverage at a low price.
FAIR also argues for more robust verification measures for the affordability credit and making sure that illegal immigrant parents won't be able to receive coverage if their citizen children are eligible.
FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange. We don't see anything in the bills that would hinder that. A Congressional Research Service report issued Aug. 25, 2009, confirmed our observation. The House bill "does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently," the report said.
But it's worth pointing out that illegal immigrants participating in the exchange would be paying for their insurance like everyone else. That's similar to the current system — we're not aware of any particular restrictions that stop illegal immigrants from buying private insurance now. Under health care reform, illegal immigrants would be able to buy private insurance or the public option.
When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants. We hope to look at this issue more in the days ahead, because some hospitals are concerned about recouping their costs for treating illegal immigrants, and we're curious to know more about that problem and how it might or might not be solved by reform.
The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option — if it passes, and it might not — on the new health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost. Obama said, "The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," which Wilson said was a "lie." Actually, 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.
There you have it. Wilson was either ignorant of what the bill contains for himself lying. It's a mark against his credibility either way.
(tabs) wrote:so....wait....? are you admitting that your fearless leader is lying???? well that certainly is a start!
but the tea parties are protests against the massive SPENDING that this administration is doing. while the iraq war may have cost a lot, it pales in comparison to what obama has spent in the few months hes been in office.
Iraq has, still is, and will continue to cost tons for a long time. Don't pretend that Bush didn't also spend a metric ton of cash BESIDES war expenses. The truth is that Obama IS spending more than Bush, however the actual increase is NOTHING like you think it is. The biggest difference in their budgets is that Obama is being a lot more HONEST about just how freaking much he is spending. Its those honest figures that are causing the outrage. Believe me, if the last administration was including everything they spent in the budget and without using tricky accounting to fudge the publicly given numbers - you would have been quite shocked. But I wonder... would you have held a "tea party" for him? Like you say -
why the difference now??? That is a 2 way street.
(tabs) wrote:and regardless of how/when/why bush was interrupted, the simple question remains: why the difference now??? neither you nor the OP has yet to answer that. why is it acceptable to have razzed bush for almost a decade, but when it is done to obama, suddenly its a sin worthy of death?
You know what the Democrats did during the 2005 SOTU address was uncalled for, as was Wilson's outburst now. There is no difference. Political dissent is fine, but there is a time and a place for it. No one should be rudely yelling at the Commander and Chief(be it Bush then. Obama now, or the next possibly-Republican president) during a speech in front of Congress, for example.
The art of acting like grown ups has been lost upon several generations in this nation.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:So we really do live in the fu-king USSA now....
First Amendment Right PEOPLE
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did he "have" to say sorry?
FUC-K that!
You know by that First Amendment right - I could go burn American flags all day in front of the closest VA hospital, but maybe I shouldn't for really obvious reasons...
COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
The thing I put in bold just before quoting you... case in point.
