John Hawkins interviews Congressman Joe Wilson on Obama, lies, and health care.
Labels: health care, politics
posted by Helen at 1:19 PM
Friday, September 11, 2009
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Good advice
- Thank you, Joe Wilson
- John Hawkins interviews Michelle Malkin on her boo...
- Who cares what presidents think?
- Are there really no black school shooters?
- “The recession has been a bonanza for the online e...
- Don Surber: "Are we American citizens or are we su...
- "You are your child's moral tutor, not that shady ...
- Health care for Clunkers
- Self Help book on Borderline Personality Disorder
14 Comments:
call me old fashioned, but I like civility, manners, taste, class--I try to teach my kids this and I expect it in those elected to serve us. To defend a lout who ignored the rules of the game--yes, there are rules for the president addressing congress--is inexcusable and anyone defending such out of order (where is the sgt at arms?) behavior is in turn someone I can not respect or admire.
"fred,"
So my question to you is, why are you still here?
Praytell, what are the rules for the President addressing Congress?
Oh, and if you can cite such rules, what are the situations where breaking them is acceptable?
There must be SOME point.
At the risk of invoking Godwin, I'd guess that, "And we need to kill all the Jews," would be past that point. "I think puppies are cute," would not be.
So where is it? It's got to be SOMEWHERE.
So my question to you is, why are you still here?
Dr Helen this looks like you're saying "if you don't agree with my position I'd rather you weren't here"
It's your blog Dr Helen, so the scope is whatever you decide; however, I was under the impression that you were open to debating various points. I disagree with Fred more often than I agree, but he seems to be making a cogent point. Agree or disagree his position is well constructed.
The comment section of this blog would be exceedingly boring if only those who agreed with you were welcome.
I apologize if I've misunderstood your response to Fred.
Oh, and if you can cite such rules, what are the situations where breaking them is acceptable?
http://rules.house.gov/archives/house_comm_dec.htm
" Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
* call the President a “liar.”"
As for when you can ignore the rules. The answer to that is easy. It's the same for any set of rules: "You follow rules for as long as you respect those rules".
Presumably he agreed to abide by the house rules when he entered office. If he no longer agreed with those rules then maybe it's not the right place for him to be. Or maybe he should have made a motion to have them changed.
The point of the rules is to facilitate civil discourse. The correct response to the Presidents address (note that an address is not a dialog) would be to formulate a response and present it to the President and public. This is exactly what the Republican's did.
The point of the rules is to facilitate civil discourse. The correct response to the Presidents address (note that an address is not a dialog) would be to formulate a response and present it to the President and public.
And I ask again, at what point is the President's speech, by definition, not "civil discourse".
There's a point that someone could cross in a speech, that renders rules of "civil discourse" moot.
And it's somewhere between "we need to kill all the Jews" and "puppies are cute."
Where is it?
There's a point that someone could cross in a speech, that renders rules of "civil discourse" moot.
The rules for the House of Representatives don't apply to the president. In point of fact they don't apply to Senators either. If Rep Wilson had been Sen. Wilson he wouldn't have faced House censure (which is probably why he ultimately apologized).
The House has it's rules for better or worse. He broke them. If he doesn't want to follow the House rules he should stop being a member. As a matter of fact, if he had stood up and walked out of the address I think it would have been a much stronger statement.
It seems the republicans would have been much better served by slicing up the presidents proposal and showing the holes in the bill than by shouting "Liar!" during the address. It provided no real service to the Republicans and left the Democrats with a wonderful mallet.
Uh yeah, it was the President who called out the critics as liars to begin with, in that very speech.
Hypocritical for his supporters to claim one set of rules for him, and another for his opposition.
But we've gotten used to that.
"It provided no real service to the Republicans and left the Democrats with a wonderful mallet."
Heh. You wish. Because of Wilson, everyone is talking about the President being called a liar, instead of the speech.
Heh. You wish. Because of Wilson, everyone is talking about the President being called a liar, instead of the speech.
No I DON'T wish. Not talking about the presidents speech doesn't help the right. Discussing the merits of the bill (or lack of) is what is necessary to get it defeated. If you don't see the fence sitting Democrats (the ones that will make or break this bill) moving behind the president BECAUSE one loudmouthed Republican representative got carried away then you're not paying attention.
The most fundamental rule at all times is TELL THE TRUTH. Since Barack Obama rarely if ever follows this rule, I think everything else is up for grabs when he is speaking. It ought to be perfectly acceptable to call him out at any time for the liar that he is. We should not allow him to stand there and lie and lie and lie to us over and over and over again.
All of the discussion ahead of this was about a proper civil address, but an ongoing series of lies is not covered by those rules. It is time to quit extending to him the courtesy of civility; he has abused it beyond the limit. This is what Alinsky taught him to do, and he has followed Alinsky to the letter. Now let him reap the whirl wind.
He is no president of the US; he is a faux president only. A true president would no show such genuine hatred for the nation as he routinely displays.
@Helen said... "fred," So my question to you is, why are you still here?
_______
I wonder if "fred" had a position on "Buck Fush" merchandise or on calling President Bush "Hitler".
I suspect "fred" is just one of many names used by the same person.
Hi Dr. Helen- My comment brings two of your points to light- 1. BPD and 2. how both the juveline justice system and the mental health system have failed our kids and society. We have a 17 year old adopted son. We took him in when he was 10. We had 6 1/2 years of a roller coaster ride. He has been diagnosed with BPD. He's also been expelled from 2 high schools in a 6 month time frame (first expulsion was brandishing a knife at school.) He's been arrested for shoplifting, etc., etc., He no longer lives with us- he made that deciosion. Anyway, the system has failed our son. We have worked with over 8 therapists over the past 6 years and even placed our son in a private residentioal facility. My husband and I had to pay for that ourselves. Twice now, the powers that be have recommended and promised residential treatment for our son. I go through the necessary steps and sign all of the documents for residential placement. At the last minute, the rug is yanked out from under us and he is denied residential treatment. I believe he is incapable of living on his own in society. Poeple like him should be kept in institutions. Enough of this, "least restrictive environment" bologni. LRE has done more damage to our son than a residential setting.
Thank You,
Debbie Gum
Post a Comment
<< Home