So when will Clyburn and Mimi offer such a resolution against such "hateful rhetoric" from Pete Stark? Remember this from 2007?

Quote:

---

First of all, I’m just amazed that they can’t figure out– the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional ten million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? You gonna tell us lies, like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have the money to fund the war or children, but you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.

This bill would provide health care for ten million children and, unlike the President’s own kids, these children can’t see a doctor or receive necessary care. Six million are insured through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and they’ll do better in school, and in life. In California, the President’s veto will cause the legislature to draw up emergency regulations to cut some 800,000 children off the rolls in California and create a waiting list.

I hope my California Republican colleagues will understand that if they don’t vote to override this veto, they are destroying health care for many of our children in California.

In the previous job as an actor, our Governor used to play make-believe and blow things up. Well, [the] President and Republicans in Congress are playing make-believe today with children’s lives. They claim we can’t afford health care. They say the bill will socialize medicine. Tell that to Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley and Ted Stevens, those socialists on the other side of this capitol. The truth is: [The] CHIP program enables states to cover children primarily through private health care plans. But, President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up… in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

---

That clearly violates the same House Rules that Wilson is being censured for. Guess it just didn't meet the Dowd standard.

Yep, he was out of line too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

Didn't your momma teach you manners??? I guess not. Here's what you don't understand... When, for example, you're at your aunts house for dinner, and you spy an old relative that you don't much get along with. He yells at you, and you let an f-bomb go towards him....

Then you realize your mistake and apologize to him.... But, don't you think you owe an apology to Auntee??? No, of course, you don't. That's because your momma didn't teach you no manners.

So, just sit back and get learned... Do I havta do it ALL?

---

See my last post... and then demand an apology also from the Democrat boo-birds that interrupted his 2005 State of the Union speech. You wouldn't want to be applying different standards would you?

Hello Steve:

So, you ain't got no manners either... Maybe there's somthin in the koolaid...

Using my example for tom, lets say the last time you were at your aunt's house, some OTHER relative let off an f-bomb and HE didn't apologize to auntee. So, I guess, according to the rightwingers manual on manners, it means you don't have to either.

I don't understand you guys...

excon

Quote:

---

Hello tom:

Didn't your momma teach you manners?? I guess not. Here's what you don't understand... When, for example, you're at your aunts house for dinner, and you spy an old relative that you don't much get along with. He yells at you, and you let an f-bomb go towards him...

Then you realize your mistake and apologize to him... But, don't you think you owe an apology to Auntee?? No, of course, you don't. That's because your momma didn't teach you no manners.

---

Ex not a good comparison ;calling someone a liar is not as bad as the f bomb... but I'll go along with it

Suppose the old relative (or keeping with the Maureen Dowd example... the black sheep of the family ) started tossing F bombs at me ,and in fact began tossing those F bombs long before I replied ? Who would be owed an apology then ?

Lets go to the video tape...

Quote:

---

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It's a lie, plain and simple.

---

Throughout the address the President said his critics spread "misinformation" and "bogus claims," of "demagoguery and distortion," and of "scare tactics" .
Was the chambers of Congress the place for his flamatory rhetoric ?

Decorum means that he should get away with the very thing they sanctioned Joe Wilson for ? Where's his manners ?

Hello again, righty's:

It's like I suggested... Your manners are based on what the other guy does - NOT on what your momma taught you.. I figured as much...

excon

Just out of curiosity, what is the rule that Wilson violated? Can anybody show me the rule itself?

Also, what is the actual effect of "a resolution to disapprove"? As far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing. It doesn't punish Wilson. It doesn't limit Wilson's ability to act in the House. It doesn't censure him. It didn't hurt him. It certainly hasn't SILENCED him (he's appearing on lots of TV and radio shows and getting some great "face time") and now he's got more people listening to him than ever before, especially on Health Care. Other than wasting their own time and the taxpayers' money that constitutes their salaries, what did the Dems accomplish with this vote?

Wilson has raised over $1.5 million of campaign money in the past week because of all the spotlight the DEMS have been putting on him. They took a guy that NOBODY knew and didn't care about and made him a huge money-maker for the Republican party. How did drawing this thing out help the Dems?

The Dems COULD have made this go away. They could have accepted the fact that Wilson apologized to Obama and let it stand at that. But instead they have made Wilson a household name. Wilson was only saying what 67% of Americans were already thinking to themselves during Obama's speech. Now that 67% has a face to flock to, at least temporarily. The Dems gave their opposition a FOCAL POINT. They gave them a rallying cry. If Wilson wins re-election, he becomes the darling of the Tea Party crowd... the guy who stood up to Obama in public and lived to tell the tale. If he loses re-election, he becomes their "Alamo"... the guy who was bullied by the Dems for standing up for them. "Remember what the Dems did to poor Joe Wilson, the guy who stood up to Obama for truth."

It was the stupidest political move they could have made under the circumstances. They SHOULD have just let it go.

Elliot

I really don't think manners apply very much in political discourse.Obama thinks he's telling the truth and so did Joe Wilson. In this case I think the Parlimentarians have more honest discourse . If one side is permitted to cheer lead from the back benches ,so should the other side be permitted to jeer.

Good point, tom. Not to mention there were more lies by Obama than just the issue on which Wilson was vindicated last Friday.

The claim:

Quote:

---

"More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."

---

The facts:

Quote:

---

Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."

Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years ."

The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."

The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.

These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies). [/B]

---

The claim:

Quote:

---

He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."

---

The facts:

Quote:

---

In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.

---

When is Obama going to apologize for his inflammatory rhetoric and lies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, righty's:

It's like I suggested... Your manners are based on what the other guy does - NOT on what your momma taught you.. I figured as much...

excon

---

Nope, he apologized directly and it was accepted. That should have been the end of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I really don't think manners apply very much in political discourse.Obama thinks he's telling the truth and so did Joe Wilson. In this case I think the Parlimentarians have more honest discourse . If one side is permitted to cheer lead from the back benches ,so should the other side be permitted to jeer.

---

Hello again, tom:

Couple things... I don't know what's so hard here. The distinction I'm talking about is NATURALLY understood by MOST of the people here... But, not you guys... Really. You're MISSING it, which of course, ain't no big surprise over here.

It has nothing to do with WHAT they said. It has to do with WHOSE HOUSE THEY SAID IT IN.

And, I agree, tom. Parlimentarians DO have more honest discourse. But, if you listen carefully to their jeering, you NEVER hear someone accused of lying... That would be NEVER!! THEY have manners... They UNDERSTAND whose house they're in. Jeering is NOT accusing...

excon

Elliot .

Not sure what the rules were at the time of the incident .But the Dems. Did publish updated rules since .

You won't believe them
There is a section on how to properly insult POTUS
DECORUM IN THE HOUSE AND IN COMMITTEES

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the president a “liar.”
• call the president a “hypocrite.”
• describe the president's veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the president has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the president as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the president's part.” (the Clintoon corallary )

Quote:

---

It has nothing to do with WHAT they said. It has to do with WHOSE HOUSE THEY SAID IT IN.

---

I'd say it's the people's house . Perhaps that is overlooked here. Obama is not a king.

Quote:

---

, what is the actual effect of "a resolution to disapprove"? As far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing. It doesn't punish Wilson. It doesn't limit Wilson's ability to act in the House. It doesn't censure him. It didn't hurt him. It certainly hasn't SILENCED him (he's appearing on lots of TV and radio shows and getting some great "face time") and now he's got more people listening to him than ever before, especially on Health Care. Other than wasting their own time and the taxpayers' money that constitutes their salaries, what did the Dems accomplish with this vote?

---

Don't forget the Alinsky playbook... you need a personal demon to slay .That's why Dowd and Clyburn et al have pinned the scarlet racist on him.


Still waiting for that Charlie Ragel sanction.

"The Chair enforces this rule of decorum on his own initiative."

And what is the prescribed remedy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd say it's the people's house . Perhaps that is overlooked here. Obama is not a king.

---

Hello again, tom:

So, you WOULDN'T apologize to your aunt for swearing in her house, because, because... because... you think you have rights there?? Or something like that?? I have NO idea WHAT you guys think anymore...

But, that's OK... There's still some people around who know how to properly conduct themselves. That's why I'm here - to teach you what your momma didn't... Can you believe that? An exconvict teaching rightwingers about manners...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Still waiting for that Charlie Ragel sanction.

---

Hello again, tom:

Ohhhh... I'm beginning to understand... When the NEXT Republican gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you're going to bring up Rangle as your excuse... I see... You're laying political groundwork... Good thinking...

However, it might be BETTER if the future Republican crook you're looking out for, listened to his momma, instead of thinking he can get away with it. Poor Republicans just don't think that way any more... I don't know why. I thought you were the righteous ones.

excon

I don't buy into your strawman . The Capitol building is our house not my aunts. Wilson apologized (for whatever reason ) to the only person who was speaking .

Screw this phony protocol ! There was a time that Congress men had to check their weapons in before they entered because the debate was so empassioned.
It was not uncommon to have brawls . In one famous one during the debate about Kansas entering the union ;the two parties had a "bench clearing brawl" . The Sergeant at Arms tried to bring order by beating members with his cane . The brawl lasted until one congressman grabbed the hair of another and grabbed hold of a wig instead . When he yelled "I scalped him!" The brawl ended as all members stopped for a good belly laugh .


I'm not saying we should go back to those days ;but lets have some perspective here. Wilson's outburst was no big thing.

I don't think it was a big thing to Obama real guys don't get their feelings hurt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zippit

I dont think it was a big thing to Obama real guys dont get thier feelings hurt

---

Hello z:

I've been trying to point out, that it's NOT about Obama. HE accepted the apology. It's about Joe Wilson's affront to the people who OWN the house he's serving in. It's THOSE people to whom he owes an apology...

I thought maybe you'da got that... That's why I used the aunt thing. No, huh? Ok. I'm not busy. I'll say it again, and even again, if I have to.

excon