The Rep from South Carolina yelling "You lie!"

GraceOMalley_IHB

GraceOMalley_IHB

New member
What does the IHB make of that?



I ask because although I thought it was in poor taste, and disrespectful of the office, I also thought that someone had to say it. In Obamas speech he said in his proposed healthcare plan "would not apply to those here illegally" yet its not what he's proposing thats being considered, its the actual bill H.R.3200.

2 different amendments asking for a validation mechanism like SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) have been put through congress, one through the house of ways and means and the other though the house committee on energy and commerce, both went down in flames.



On the campaign trail, Obama promised that he would deal with amnesty straight away but he's put it off for 2 years because there are too many other, more pressing issues this year, and next year is an election year. So La Raza and the like have said "if youre not going to deal with amenesty then we will not be supporting your healthcare bill" Which means that the words excluding healthcare for illegals may be in the bill, but there are no means of enforcing or verifying them. Obama threw them a bone.



Was the Representative from South Carolina really wrong for his words? Maybe, it probably wasn't the venue, however at the same time if he hadn't it wouldn't have been all over the news today.



Before anyone spouts off the pat response of "Stop listening to Rush, Hannity, Fox News and being a sheep" I don't. I don't know who Hannity is and before someone on this board mention him, I had never heard of him, I think Rush is a pig, and Fox anything is never. on. the. TV. at. our. house. Ask BK.





<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_illegal_immigrants_fact_check">Healthcare Illegal Immigrants Fact Check</a>



<a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/mexican-flag-wearing-la-raza-member-attacks-texas-town-hall-attendees/">La Raza attacks the healthcare town meetings</a>
 
it is not the right way to do it under most situations, IMO.



However, it worked. This issue is ALL over the news, and frankly BO has no choice but to make sure he doesn't actually lie as a result of the final bill.
 
I agree. It was distasteful. It needed to be said. A respectful rebuttal would have been much more impactful to acknowledge that our President spoke the literally truth, that the bill presently does not provide for coverage for illegal aliens however, the committees have directly shot down SAVE which is used in many other programs to validate coverage. So the President is correct, the bill doesn't explicitly provide coverage but there is no enforcement to prevent coverage. Is a speed limit followed by an announcement that they will not enforce the speed limit mean there is a speed limit? Nope. It's an open invitation to fraud.



It could have been covered well. It wasn't.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1252660393]I agree. It was distasteful. It needed to be said. A respectful rebuttal would have been much more impactful to acknowledge that our President spoke the literally truth, that the bill presently does not provide for coverage for illegal aliens however, the committees have directly shot down SAVE which is used in many other programs to validate coverage. So the President is correct, the bill doesn't explicitly provide coverage but there is no enforcement to prevent coverage. Is a speed limit followed by an announcement that they will not enforce the speed limit mean there is a speed limit? Nope. It's an open invitation to fraud.



It could have been covered well. It wasn't.</blockquote>


SAVE is used in 70 other programs including medicare, welfare etc.
 
[quote author="GraceOMalley" date=1252660832][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1252660393]I agree. It was distasteful. It needed to be said. A respectful rebuttal would have been much more impactful to acknowledge that our President spoke the literally truth, that the bill presently does not provide for coverage for illegal aliens however, the committees have directly shot down SAVE which is used in many other programs to validate coverage. So the President is correct, the bill doesn't explicitly provide coverage but there is no enforcement to prevent coverage. Is a speed limit followed by an announcement that they will not enforce the speed limit mean there is a speed limit? Nope. It's an open invitation to fraud.



It could have been covered well. It wasn't.</blockquote>


SAVE is used in 70 other programs including medicare, welfare etc.</blockquote>


Exactly, and the committee's intentionally scuttled SAVE from the bill. That is an important point which could have been made.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1252662442][quote author="GraceOMalley" date=1252660832][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1252660393]I agree. It was distasteful. It needed to be said. A respectful rebuttal would have been much more impactful to acknowledge that our President spoke the literally truth, that the bill presently does not provide for coverage for illegal aliens however, the committees have directly shot down SAVE which is used in many other programs to validate coverage. So the President is correct, the bill doesn't explicitly provide coverage but there is no enforcement to prevent coverage. Is a speed limit followed by an announcement that they will not enforce the speed limit mean there is a speed limit? Nope. It's an open invitation to fraud.



It could have been covered well. It wasn't.</blockquote>


SAVE is used in 70 other programs including medicare, welfare etc.</blockquote>


Exactly, and the committee's intentionally scuttled SAVE from the bill. That is an important point which could have been made.</blockquote>


But wasnt.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1252660393]I agree. It was distasteful. It needed to be said. A respectful rebuttal would have been much more impactful to acknowledge that our President spoke the literally truth, that the bill presently does not provide for coverage for illegal aliens however, the committees have directly shot down SAVE which is used in many other programs to validate coverage. So the President is correct, the bill doesn't explicitly provide coverage but there is no enforcement to prevent coverage. Is a speed limit followed by an announcement that they will not enforce the speed limit mean there is a speed limit? Nope. It's an open invitation to fraud.



It could have been covered well. It wasn't.</blockquote>


agree it is distasteful. However, the two amendments have been voted down more than a month ago, and wasn't much discussions in the press. The sad truth is: can anyone here think of a better and more civilized way to bring this very important subject to the forefront of the discussion and on front page of all major news network??



I can't think of any....He forced the hand of not only BO, but also all major news outlet regardless they like to cover it or not.
 
[quote author="irvine123" date=1252665323][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1252660393]I agree. It was distasteful. It needed to be said. A respectful rebuttal would have been much more impactful to acknowledge that our President spoke the literally truth, that the bill presently does not provide for coverage for illegal aliens however, the committees have directly shot down SAVE which is used in many other programs to validate coverage. So the President is correct, the bill doesn't explicitly provide coverage but there is no enforcement to prevent coverage. Is a speed limit followed by an announcement that they will not enforce the speed limit mean there is a speed limit? Nope. It's an open invitation to fraud.



It could have been covered well. It wasn't.</blockquote>


agree it is distasteful. However, the two amendments have been voted down more than a month ago, and wasn't much discussions in the press. The sad truth is: can anyone here think of a better and more civilized way to bring this very important subject to the forefront of the discussion and on front page of all major news network??



I can't think of any....He forced the hand of not only BO, but also all major news outlet regardless they like to cover it or not.</blockquote>


I think it was the perfect forum for it. After all, an elected President called the joint session of... elected... Representatives and Senators. It would have been inappropriate for a member of the gallery to do it, but the President is not royalty, nor a deity, not even a demi-god. He's the President and I respect the office, but I also expect our Representatives to stand up for us and against him/her when our best interests are in danger of being ignored. The President came to their house to lay down the law and they have every right to speak out in their own house. I hope we see more of it, as it's far more useful than all the command ovations.
 
Have you ever watched the British Parliament on C-SPAN? The stuff they say to each other in the House of Commons is amazing.



In this circumstance is was bad decorum. You just don't do that. An address from the President is not the House of Commons in Great Britain, and unless they want it to become that, this Representative was out-of-order.



It underscores the partisan bickering the Republicans are relying on. They are in full obstructionist mode. The strategy worked well for them in Clinton's first term in 93-94.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1252667741]Have you ever watched the British Parliament on C-SPAN? The stuff they say to each other in the House of Commons is amazing.



In this circumstance is was bad decorum. You just don't do that. An address from the President is not the House of Commons in Great Britain, and unless they want it to become that, this Representative was out-of-order.



It underscores the partisan bickering the Republicans are relying on. They are in full obstructionist mode. The strategy worked well for them in Clinton's first term in 93-94.</blockquote>


If the majority won't listen, and you have NO real way of expressing it, and get media attention, what would you do? You have to find your own outlet. All minority take the "obstruction" route in order to be heard, regardless their party, or which country.



by the way, demo. booed bush during his speech to the joint congress ( just saw the clip)



What I would like to know is WHY the two amendments were voted down?



Congressional research office stated that there is NOT a way of preventing illegals from getting the proposed universal care as it is currently proposed. I guess if BO is not lying, then congressional research office is lying. Someone is not telling the truth to us.
 
Frankly, i don't care how it is done, but it worked in terms of raising the issue.



It is not illegal, and no one really got hurt. Ya, it probably IS out of line, but i guess this is one of those cases that ends justifies the means. Don't see much downside, and only upside (regardless what side you are on) to raise the issue which hasn't been discussed on the front page.
 
I think it was rude and a bit out of line. And I'm more libertarian when it comes to immigration so I don't really get all up in arms about illegals and such. But as a way to turn the conversation towards health care reform and illegals, it was amazingly effective.



Democrats think they won this one, but I have a feeling they're once again misreading how this will play out amongst the electorate. They're shoveling attention on this because they think it shows Republicans in a bad light, but by keeping this as the top story, they're just making sure more people hear about it. "You lie!" buttons and stickers are going to be really popular in 2010 and 2012, I expect.
 
Pres BO needs to be careful or he'll end up wearing it. The Repubs can still drive it home to show the electorate how carefully they have to check what he says. That's bad for a President. Once people feel they need to doubt the basic truthfulness, you're toast. Frankly, I suspect it is also the root of his sagging popularity polls. People don't want to parse the definition of basic words.
 
Classic Justice.



Rob Miller. Joe Wilson`s upcoming Democratic rival in the next election has received over $ 700,000 in donations in the last 2 days thanks to just a couple of words. Paybacks are a bitch.



<a href="http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/19079">http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/19079</a>
 
I think it was a bold move. I also am leaning toward believing it was more planned and calculated then Wilson is letting on.



In a brief moment with two words "you lie" he has had more press coverage then almost any republican since Obama threw his hat into the Presidential Race.



President Obama has tied himself to closely to Universal Healthcare and if it fails the Republicans will lambast him for that when he runs for re-election.



A majority of Americans have health insurance so they don't care, what they do care about is paying for some illegal aliens health care. Side note I know we pay for it now because

the hospitals do not turn them away and the cost goes to the bottom line.
 
Here is Joe Wilson asking for Money.

I keep looking for the gunman in the room. Like he is a hostage victim.

This guy has ZERO chance at election time.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
It was rude - but I am almost certain had someone done this to Bush people would be cheering.



Disclaimer: I voted for Obama. I just think people have double standards far too often.
 
[quote author="diulei" date=1252709498]It was rude - but I am almost certain had someone done this to Bush people would be cheering.



Disclaimer: I voted for Obama. I just think people have double standards far too often.</blockquote>


A partisan never sees the evil in their candidate nor do the see the good in their opponent. They are blind to Truth due to their preconceptions. This is true of either party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top