(09-10-2009 11:08 AM)claytonbigsby Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 09:19 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Again, Wilson is being attacked for CORRECTLY identifying a liar, while the liar get a pass for wrongly labeling everyone else liars.

It was just the wrong venue. My dad use to say there is a time and place for everything. I thought the chamber was about to become like a townhall meeting.

If it was the wrong venue, it was the wrong one for Obama too. He is the one who was calling every one liars. Why is he being given a pass, again, and someone else is being attacked for doing nothing different?

It's like a certain member here who calls others names, and then starts calling for the mods to intervene when someone does the same to him.

This is probably one of the more Orwellian moments in American history in alot of ways, not just the Liar part but say Obama using Fear Tactics and calling this an immediate Crisis, then demonizing his opponents for what he himself is doing.

btw, how many prime time speeches for The One is this so far? 8 months in?

Bush called on special session of congress, after 9/11(a real crisis), Clinton called Zero. Obama gets to call a Joint Session and label Health Care a Crisis and proceed to give a Hyper-Partsian speech and say anything he pleases with nobody to call him on it? The GOP should'n't have even shown up last night.

(09-10-2009 11:08 AM)claytonbigsby Wrote:  It was just the wrong venue. My dad use to say there is a time and place for everything. I thought the chamber was about to become like a townhall meeting.

Your dad's correct. The proper place to express a dissenting opinion is that the G8 and WTO meetings where you can riot in the streets, burn cars and smash windows - all with the consent of liberals. Or you can shout down anti-illegal alien speakers at Columbia University. Or you can protest at the funerals of dead soldiers. Or you can protest a Marine recruiting station in Berkley. Or you can protest by burning the flag.

But never, ever protest by calling a liar a liar while he's in the middle of telling more lies.

(09-10-2009 12:28 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 11:08 AM)claytonbigsby Wrote:  It was just the wrong venue. My dad use to say there is a time and place for everything. I thought the chamber was about to become like a townhall meeting.

Your dad's correct. The proper place to express a dissenting opinion is that the G8 and WTO meetings where you can riot in the streets, burn cars and smash windows - all with the consent of liberals. Or you can shout down anti-illegal alien speakers at Columbia University. Or you can protest at the funerals of dead soldiers. Or you can protest a Marine recruiting station in Berkley. Or you can protest by burning the flag.

But never, ever protest by calling a liar a liar while he's in the middle of telling more lies.

And where was the liberal out rage every time Bush was interrupted by code pink and others when he spoke? It's phony out rage by the party of pretend.

Hell, he was booed by the Democrats in CONGRESS when he was giving an address in 2005.

What a bunch of f'n hypocrites.

(09-10-2009 12:37 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Hell, he was booed by the Democrats in CONGRESS when he was giving an address in 2005.

What a bunch of f'n hypocrites.

Your apples to apples is more appropriate than my apples to oranges. Thanks.

(09-10-2009 12:37 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Hell, he was booed by the Democrats in CONGRESS when he was giving an address in 2005.

What a bunch of f'n hypocrites.

Flashback: Democratic etiquette in the Bush era
State of the Union speech in 2005



Did any of the hyperventilators today demand apologies from their side at the time? Did any Democrat ever offer an apology for their rude behavior? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I’d take the hyperventilating with a wee more seriousness if it didn’t come from the same crowd who cheered the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush in a 2008 press conference.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/10/fl...-bush-era/

Rahm Emanuel joins the rank of liars. OK, he's not new to the ranks but...

Quote:“No president has ever been treated like that. Ever,” Mr. Emanuel said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/pol....html?_r=1

Freak'n liar!

Harry Reid called Bush a Liar, as did most Democrats for years.

What if bush had called a special session of congress, to spend a full hour to talk about nothing but one key Republican issue? Say, School Vouchers

How do you suppose the MSM and Dems would've reacted to that? That couldn't even help themselves in State of the Unions to go overboard

(09-10-2009 01:03 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Did any of the hyperventilators today demand apologies from their side at the time? Did any Democrat ever offer an apology for their rude behavior? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Shame on you Paul. The left is never rude, how can practicing free speech be rude? Didn't Pelosi say protesting is the American way, and we know she never, ever lies.

(09-10-2009 01:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 01:03 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Did any of the hyperventilators today demand apologies from their side at the time? Did any Democrat ever offer an apology for their rude behavior? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Shame on you Paul. The left is never rude, how can practicing free speech be rude? Didn't Pelosi say protesting is the American way, and we know she never, ever lies.

I think she ment to say CERTAIN protesting is the American way. I think she wants a do over so she can tweek (lie) it a little.

(09-10-2009 12:02 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Who the hell on the right could win in 2012? Joe Wilson?

I would vote for Hilary Clinton over this Dud any day and twice on Sunday if that is all I had to pick from.

I won't lose my vote to those silly and ignorant ranters that holler "Vote for anyone but Obama", yet I will NOT Vote for Father Barack if Adolf Hitler rose from the grave and ran against him.

At least I KNOW what to expect from old Adolf and we can deal with that Toot Sweet.

With Father Barack, it is All Lies all Day Long.

When a man can stand and tell you without any uncertainty that "This is an Absolute Fact based on Theory", then he is a Bald Faced Liar of Munchhausen Proportions.

NO ONE can be that Sure of the things Father Barack is Sure of .... just look at Cash for Clunkers to see a Microcosmic Stare into Obama-Care.

There are NO ABSOLUTES and he is spouting ABSOLUTES like rain drops in a hurricane and HE HAS NO DEFINITIVE PLAN TO EVEN DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM !!!!!!!

How do you just pull bullsh't out of the Air Robert ??? And expect people to trust your Integrity ..... Father Barack HAS NO INTEGRITY and NEVER HAS HAD ANY !!!!!!!

He is a Lost Wondering Soul that is desperate to Create a "Father Barack Presidential Legacy" if it kills every last one of us to do it !!!!!!!

He is a Homogeneous Liar of the most epic proportions and "That's The Fact Jack" .....

.

(09-10-2009 12:26 PM)GGniner Wrote:  This is probably one of the more Orwellian moments in American history in alot of ways, not just the Liar part but say Obama using Fear Tactics and calling this an immediate Crisis, then demonizing his opponents for what he himself is doing.

btw, how many prime time speeches for The One is this so far? 8 months in?

Bush called on special session of congress, after 9/11(a real crisis), Clinton called Zero. Obama gets to call a Joint Session and label Health Care a Crisis and proceed to give a Hyper-Partsian speech and say anything he pleases with nobody to call him on it? The GOP should'n't have even shown up last night.

My initial reaction was that (1) Obama has no right to complain about the comment given that he started off by calling his opponents liars and (2) regardless of that, it was inappropriate for the congressman to interrupt as he did. Our politics may be a lot better if we tended toward the debates of the British parliament, but that's not what we have - in modern America, I can't see it as a good thing for clueless congressmen to interrupt the president based on advise from political advisors, which is almost certainly what we would have if this kind of interruption became common.

I'm tending to think now that the appropriate decision would have been for the Republicans to walk out in the middle of the speech - I don't think they had any real obligation to humor the president in this case at all, and certainly not with the way he began his speech.

I'm beginning to think the same. When the liar started calling all of them liars, they should all walk out.

I actually gave some thought pre-event to what I would do if I were a republican (or even democrat) congressman, and I determined that I simply would not attend the speech, for the reason that I know that I would have a difficult time restraining myself in that precise situation. I'd call in sick or do something. I would have had an extremely difficult, if not impossible, time restraining myself and maintaining proper decorum if subjected in person to the speech given.

When the republicans say, "illegal aliens would be covered," and the democrats reply, "no, there's nothing in this bill that addresses illegal aliens," it's the democrats who are being disingenuous. The default position under current law is that illegal aliens are covered if all citizens are covered; unless specific citizens or groups of citizens are excluded, aliens cannot be excluded. So "there's nothing in the bill" means that illegal aliens will be covered, not excluded.

When the republicans say, "abortion would be covered," and the democrats reply, "no, there's nothing in this bill that addresses abortion," it's again the democrats who are being disingenuous. The default position under current law is that abortion is covered unless specifically excluded. So "there's nothing in the bill" means that abortion will be covered, not excluded.

The odd thing is that my socially liberal side has no problem with either illegal aliens being covered or abortions in general (although I do not favor any governmental funding for abortions). But I do have a serious problem with lying to obscure the true impact of the bill.

Republicans have attempted to insert specific language to exclude both illegal aliens and abortions, and the democrats have voted those amendments down. I would probably have voted against those amendments (allowing for some wiggle room only becuase the specific language is not in front of me), but I would be truthful about what I was doing in voting against them.

My opinion is that the current state of constitutional common law is such that a ban on abortions would probably survive constitutional muster, but a ban on illegal aliens probably would not.

Some of us have moved from "disingenuous", to it is an overt calculated lie. Obama's wordsmithing is well known. If illegal aliens constitutionally cannot be prevented from participating in a HealthCare system crafted for citizens. Then you would not be able to prevent them from obtaining SS, or any other Government service. The VA is a gov't program for Veterans, but according to you anybody, Vet or not, could go there and demand treatment. The states are going to decide the implementation anyway.