« The Cancer Did NOT Win | Main | Andrew Breitbart As The New Don Hewitt »

Liar's Poker

Rep. John Carter (R-TX) sent us this release...

(WASHINGTON, DC) - The 111th Congress could go down in American history as the "House of Hypocrisy" after Democrats today followed months of ignoring potentially criminal tax evasion by U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), while scheduling an immediate vote against Republican Congressman Joe Wilson for an inappropriate verbal outburst during last week's Joint Session of Congress.

"We are witnessing perhaps the most blatant display of moral and legal hypocrisy in the history of this body," says House Republican Conference Secretary John R. Carter of Texas. "Speaker Pelosi and President Obama have allowed Democrats at the highest levels of the federal government to violate the tax laws of the United States with impunity, blocked all attempts by this body to hold them accountable, and have made a mockery of our system of justice and the Rule of Law. Yet they find it important to hold a vote against a Republican for two words blurted out during a speech by the President, for which he has already apologized. We are witnessing truly malignant partisanship of historic proportion." Carter has joined other Members of the House in support of Wilson's apology being adequate to address any breach in House rules for his comment.

Carter introduced a privileged resolution earlier this year calling for removal of Rangel as Chairman of House Ways and Means, the House committee that oversees the IRS, while Rangel remained under investigation for tax violations, among other ethics charges. The resolution was blocked from consideration or debate on a party line vote by Democrats, in spite of the removal being supported by the editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post, and numerous other major daily newspapers historically favorable to Democrats.

Carter also introduced the Rangel Rule legislation that would provide the same waiver of penalties and interest on back taxes for all Americans as that enjoyed by Rangel. That measure has also been blocked by House Democrats.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that the only way this House will restore the Rule of Law is for the American people to overthrow it," says Carter. "It is time for a revolution at the polls in November 2010.

I hope that if Democrats make a big spectacle of a Wilson vote, Republican's bring in posters of Rangel and bring him up every time they get an open mike on the Hill.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36762.

Comments (100)

Couldn't possibly have said... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Couldn't possibly have said it better. Rep. Carter, you da man!

I think Wilson should offer... (Below threshold)
LiberalNitemare:

I think Wilson should offer to apologize - then while addressing congress, he should explain in great detail exactly why he called the president a liar.

It wouldnt hurt at that point to point out that after the "outburst", the democrats finally acted to add restrictions to the health care bills that would in fact prevent illegal aliens from gaining coverage. Thus proving Obama to be a liar and the democrats to be tools.

It could be the classic, democratic non-apology in reverse.

Joe knows he did wrong and ... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Joe knows he did wrong and he apologized to the President. He allowed himself to be caught up in the moment, and like so many his vitriol is just indicative of the hatred that boils up inside of many Americans who are outraged and can no longer control their emotions.

I don't seem to be able rec... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

I don't seem to be able recall any Democratic outrage over Pete Stark's calling Bush a liar on the house floor. Do you? Was there some sort of move to censure him that I'm unaware of? No? Well whaddya know....

It's the ACORN corollary to... (Below threshold)
jim m:

It's the ACORN corollary to the question: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound?

In this case it's: If a liberal commits a crime and the MSM doesn't report it, did it really happen?

The Dems want to pretend that none of these things ever happened and they think that because the MSM doesn't report them that nobody will ever know.

Clue-Phone, It's for you!!! People don't get their news from the MSM like they used to. The news does get out. Van Jones is not an aberration. You will have to deal with the consequences of these crimes, willingly or not.

I just want to see them int... (Below threshold)

I just want to see them introduce a resolution censuring every Democrat in Congress when Bush was booed by them during a State of the Union. Make them vote against that one. Put the results of two votes on every campaign flyer for the next year+.

I don't care about their cr... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I don't care about their crude behavior toward Bush anymore. It's water under the bridge.

Instead I'd like to see motions of censure against Rangel for his behavior and against EVERY member of the ethics committee that has dragged their feet on the issue.

Victor Davis Hanson writes ... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Victor Davis Hanson writes about this today.

Couple of excerpts...

"The Left is now furious that, as the new establishment, the rules of discourse are not more polite. But from 2002-8, they (Who are "they"? Try everyone from Al Gore to John Glen to Robert Byrd to Sen. Durbin), employed every Nazi/brown shirt slur they could conjure up....

The Democrats nominated a charismatic African-American, won the presidency, after obtaining large majorities in Congress, and suddenly became the Establishment, demanding respect for the Commander in Chief in direct proportion to their efforts to deny respect to his predecessor. Then just as suddenly two tropes appeared after January 20th of this year:

One--cannot we all get along? We deplore this resort to barbarism and crudity.

Two--if you dare sound off like we just did, then you are now a racist."

"It is becoming increasingl... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that the only way this House will restore the Rule of Law is for the American people to overthrow it," says Carter. "It is time for a revolution at the polls in November 2010."

THAT IS GOING TO STING!

First I'd like to point out... (Below threshold)
jim:

First I'd like to point out the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." Remember that one?

Second, I just thought I'd point out once again that Wilson, in addition to being ruder and less civil to a president than any official in history - was also completely wrong.

Do you care?

Joe Wilson declared that Obama was lying, when Obama said his bill would not cover illegal immigrants - AND there is language in the bill which SPECIFICALLY STATES that it will not cover illegal immigrants.

Do you care?

While you're all ranting about perceived hypocrisy here, this just seemed like a good time to bring this up.

jimmy......take your bullsh... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

jimmy......take your bullshit somewhere else. Let me explain in small words for you.

THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR ENFORCEMENT. TWICE REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE. TWICE DEMOCRATS ON A PARTY LINE VOTE SAID 'NO'.

NOW DEMOCRATS WANT TO INCLUDE ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE. NOW! NOT THEN! NOW!

So take your crap and walk troll.

Jim, please qoute us the pa... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Jim, please qoute us the paragraph and page where this is located in HR3200.

jim - "in addition to b... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim - "in addition to being ruder and less civil to a president than any official in history - was also completely wrong."

Then perhaps you can explain why in the latest bill, that allegedly will be released Wednesday, it has specific language requiring proof of citizenship?

That said, I agree to a point he didn't lie, he was just being extremely disingenuous [or clueless about what was in the bill] - at best.

Garandfany, let me explain ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Garandfany, let me explain in smaller words to you:

1. to "lie" is to "say something is not true".

Clear so far?

2. there is difference between "not covered" and "not covered enough".

Have we gotten to that point?

This is similar to the difference between having "no money" and "not enough money". See, one is zero, and the other is less than a desired amount.

3. therefore if Joe Wilson had disrespectfully blurted out "But illegal immigrants will still be able to cheat and get some, because there's not enough enforcement!" he would have still been a disrespectful fool who thought he was on the Jerry Springer show - but he wouldn't have been wrong.

But to say that someone is LYING when they're saying there is *something*, and there actually is *something* - that's saying something that is untrue.

Did you follow that? Is there any part of that which is unclear to you? If so let me know and I'll be happy to clarify it further.

Here's some initial reading... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's some initial reading for you all:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/

Now. ODA, please feast your eyes on this:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

And go specifically to section (Sec. 246), titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS". It states:

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

Marc, this language was already in place at the time of Obama's speech. If you don't believe me, all of you please by all means look it up and prove me wrong.

Now please note, when you are unable to, that the **people who told you otherwise are wrong***.

It's not like I'm any smarter - I'm just listening to people who don't lie to me. So get mad at me for proving you wrong, if you want - but you realyl should be mad at the people who are telling you **lies that are exactly what you want to believe** - in order to manipulate you.

Do you understand?

The PEOPLE YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM ARE MANIPULATING YOU. I don't know how to be any plainer. Just from looking at this example, can't you see that? THEY ARE LYING TO YOU.

It's like a car salesman. Just because they're telling you what you want to hear, doesn't mean they like you or they have your best interest at heart. You still have to look at the facts, no matter how good they make you feel.

Hey dumbass, Congress is NO... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey dumbass, Congress is NOW installing an enforcement provision in HR3200. WHY DID THEY NOT DO THAT BEFORE? They had TWO chances and said NO.

WHY IS THE HISPANIC CAUCUS UP IN ARMS OVER THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISION?

Hey jim, ya dumbass - FACTC... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey jim, ya dumbass - FACTCHECK:

However, conservative critics object to a lack of specific enforcement measures in the bill. Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to check the citizenship of anyone applying for federal coverage or affordability credits. SAVE is the program used by Medicaid and similar entitlement programs. That amendment was voted down along party lines by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Republicans have a point here: More could be done to enforce the ban. But it's worth remembering that, as a spokesperson for the American Immigration Lawyers Association told us, attempting to get a health care credit would have legal repercussions. "Making a fraudulent claim to an entitlement program when you're not actually entitled to it would have serious consequences for any person," the spokesperson told us, "but especially if it's considered a false claim to citizenship, that would have serious immigration consequences that could ultimately lead to deportation."

I've got news for you and the 'immigration attorney', illegals have NO PROBLEM illegally using FAKE or STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS right now. Gets real easy to break the law, especially since you've already done so by crossing the border ILLEGALLY.

You think illegals won't use fake or stolen SS cards to gain health care? You that fucking stupid?

JimAccording to your... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Jim
According to your link to factcheck.org and your standards about what constitutes a lie, Obama lied several times. Perhaps you are like most liberals who only see what they want to see and ignore the rest.


As for the illegals not being insured under this plan, true there is language that state that illegals are forbidden these benefits. However the Democrats refused to put any enforcement measure in the bill to prevent illegals from getting these benefits. In reality the end result if the bill passes would be that illegals would receive these benefits. So do we go by what is stated or with reality?

JimIt would be like ... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Jim
It would be like a football team saying that there will be no steroid use on their team because it is stated so in their policy. However there is no testing or enforcements policies and they hired known steroid sellers as their trainer to give their players shots. Do you go by a weakly written policy with no enforcement or with reality?

Jim, Section 246 app... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Jim,
Section 246 applies only to "affordability credits" as you can tell by reading it. It does not prohibit illegal aliens from participating in the subsidized government option, in whatever form that may eventually take. In fact, Section 152 seems to prohibit refusing to provide care on the basis of immigrant status. Then there's whole equal protection thing, which may do the same thing.

jim - "Here's some <a h... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim - "Here's some initial reading for you all:


First of all you avoided answering my question.

However congrats, on lowering yourself to the likes of hyperbolist and bryanD among others who post links that say exactly opposite of what they and you contend. [relinked above BTW]

However, conservative critics object to a lack of specific enforcement measures in the bill. They argue that the lack of a specific verification mechanism constitutes a loophole that would allow illegal immigrants to get benefits despite the legal prohibition. Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to check the citizenship of anyone applying for federal coverage or affordability credits. SAVE is the program used by Medicaid and similar entitlement programs. That amendment was voted down along party lines by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Republicans have a point here: More could be done to enforce the ban. But it's worth remembering that, as a spokesperson for the American Immigration Lawyers Association told us, attempting to get a health care credit would have legal repercussions. "Making a fraudulent claim to an entitlement program when you're not actually entitled to it would have serious consequences for any person," the spokesperson told us, "but especially if it's considered a false claim to citizenship, that would have serious immigration consequences that could ultimately lead to deportation."

Now, go ahead and take the position of American Immigration Lawyers Association as quoted above and you'll be arguing it's "better" to catch them after the fact - thus incuring untold thousands, or millions, of dollars in court and Justice Dept. resources than it would be top stop it BEFORE they ever sign up.

jim.... you can enter your other pathetic excuses, which surely you'll extract from your anus, here______


Glad Carter is FINALLY stan... (Below threshold)
Lisa:

Glad Carter is FINALLY standing up, but I wish he had done that YEARS ago, when I asked him to. I'm telling you, many Republicans just think this is anger against Democrats, so they are in the clear. Bullshit, Republicans, we aren't buying it!!

garand - I'm very sorry you... (Below threshold)
jim:

garand - I'm very sorry you are refusing to acknowledge the very real difference between "not covering" and "not enforcing not covering enough to satisfy the GOP".

Now, recognizing that difference would force you to acknowledge that I'm right and you wrong. So I can understand why you don't want to see it - it's emotionally difficult for you.

However your emotional wishes do not change reality. Rather, it is being driven by your emotional wishes **and not** acknowledging uncomfortable realities, that has you been manipulated by the GOP right now.

I realize also that pointing this out on my part doesn't change things. If anything it may make you angrier at me, and even more resistant to reason. Nevertheless, I think the information you all are being subjected to is so awful, that it's my duty as a fellow human being, let alone a fellow AMerican, to at least give you the chance to experience the facts directly.

Wow, I was going to say som... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Wow, I was going to say something about the BS that Jim was pushing, but you all seem to have covered that quite well.

Hope the truth didn't hurt to much Jim; but then you should be getting used to that by now.

"...Congress is NOW install... (Below threshold)
jim:

"...Congress is NOW installing an enforcement provision in HR3200. WHY DID THEY NOT DO THAT BEFORE?"

I don't know. That has nothing to do, however, with Wilson calling Obama a liar, when Obama was actually telling the truth.

"WHY IS THE HISPANIC CAUCUS UP IN ARMS OVER THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISION?"

Because they probably view it as veiled racism. Whther or not they're right is up to debate.

However and once again - that has nothing to do with WIlson's claim that Obama is a liar either.

Simply put, for Wilson's statement to be true or false, either the bill did exclude illegal aliens or it did not.

The bill did exclude illegal aliens.

Therefore Wilson's statement was false.

jim - "Nevertheless, I ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim - "Nevertheless, I think the information you all are being subjected to is so awful, that it's my duty as a fellow human being, let alone a fellow AMerican, to at least give you the chance to experience the facts directly.

You mean your own FactCheck link that specifically states, at best, enforcing a "no illegals" policy is problematical.

And BTW, how many times are you going to point at the "specific language" in HR3200 [a bill that is moot at this point] saying it won't happen?

Over the course of the last few days, in more than one thread on this topic you continually cite it and each time you do only goes to show you have an overriding trust in this, or any gov to do the right thing.

They WON'T and they have ZERO ability to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Or course with the dems voting down amendments calling for citizenship verifications we KNOW the consequences were INTENDED.

To all of you who are now c... (Below threshold)
jim:

To all of you who are now cherrypicking factcheck - and in further delicious irony, accusing me of same - let me point out again:

1. I am talking about WIlson's statement. Simply put, for Wilson's statement to be true or false, either the bill did exclude illegal aliens or it did not.

The bill did exclude illegal aliens.

Therefore Wilson's statement was false.

2. As factcheck.org points out: "Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn't insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar."

Do you follow that?

Do you also follow the conclusion? "Overall, Obama got good marks for clarity and accuracy from at least one expert who's sometimes been critical. John Sheils, senior vice president of the Lewin Group, which has analyzed the House bill and health care proposals, told us that there was "a lot of stuff you could quibble with" in the president's speech, but overall he was "impressed" with the way Obama explained a "hugely complicated issue." "I think in the main of it, I think he did pretty well."

3. If we are going to apply a consistent standard to all politicians, then fine. Let's do that. I'm all for it.

If Obama is a liar because he said some things in the speech which are in dispute, ok. I can accept that. I just want the same standard applied to ALL politicians.

Which also means:
- Joe Wilson is a liar, because in the statement he complained about, Obama was not lying.

- Sarah Palin is a liar, because nothing in any bill proposed contains ANY "death panels".

Fair enough, or would you prefer to have different standards depending on who supports your party?

Let me know.

Jim you can play word games... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Jim you can play word games saying that because the bill said that illegals shouldn't be covered that that was what the Dems intended.

However, given their repeated action to block ANY language which would have enforced that it becomes clear that to any INTELLECTUALLY HONEST person that their real intent was to provide a fig leaf of language, but then allow illegals to access a taxpayer funded system.

You can sit here and cry about how "the bill said", but the Dems actions speak far louder than their words. They said it didn't cover it and when called out on the issue they repeated their statements and then tried to quietly add the missing enforcement language. I'll note also that suddenly the 47 million uninsured has been changed to 30 million, oddly coincidental to the stated 17million illegals living in this country.

They got caught and the only stooge is you who believe that they had no intent of letting illegals get coverage. If they really didn't want it they would have NEVER voted against language providing for enforcement. They would have said such language was unnecessary, but they would have voted for enforcement.

While the Democrats are bus... (Below threshold)

While the Democrats are busy repremanding and calling for public apologies from elected officials for blurting out stupid things, can we add Speaker Pelosi to the list and have her apologize before the House for lying about not being briefed on the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques?

I know, I know, wishful thinkin'...

And Marc, I keep repeating ... (Below threshold)
jim:

And Marc, I keep repeating this because you guys keep saying things that AREN'T FACTUALLY TRUE.

There is *plenty* to not like about Obama. What bothers me tremendously is this focusing on criticisms that aren't based in fact.

Criticisms not based in fact can't be refuted, and don't add anything but hysteria and anger.

I want my country to act like one country again. To have disagreements which are based in FACTS. Because using facts are productive. Because if people are focused on facts, then everyone can learn.

Facts are literally the best way forward - in fact the only way forward - for the human species.

So PLEASE criticize Obama, and praise people who put forth policies and solutions you believe in. That makes the country better.

But when you spread things which aren't true, you do everyone a disservice, including yourselves.

Jim - get a clue!S... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Jim - get a clue!

Saying that illegals are not covered means NOTHING unless you put in place a method to make sure that they don't. The Dems blocked enforcement at every turn until now.

Blocking enforcement is the SAME as allowing illegals to get taxpayer funded insurance. The analogy above to the football team saying that no one uses steroids but then blocking testing is perfect.

You can cry all night and day about what it said. What everyone else is talking about is what the bill DID. It doesn't matter what the language of a law is. The effect of the law is what matters. The effect was that the bill allowed illegals to get taxpayer funded insurance. That has finally been addressed. If it wasn't the effect then the Dems would not have scrambled to change the bill this week.

jim:Let's really SPL... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

jim:
Let's really SPLIT that gnats hair:

"Obama said his plan wouldn't insure illegal immigrants"

Obama HAS NO PLAN, HAS SUBMITTED NO PLAN.

One would have to assume that HR3200 was the bill being discussed since it's the only one that's been PRINTED and PUBLISHED. Obama is a lawyer, not that it matters, as one would also assume he READ the bill. Being a lawyer, he'd know that a law with no penalty has no power to dissuade someone from violating that law.

You haven't swayed me. Obama's a liar.

Jim, Please provide ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Jim,
Please provide a citation to HR3200 which bars illegal immigrants from participating in the public option. Then please explain how that phantom provision is not in conflict with Section 152.

The "House of Hypocrisy" - ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

The "House of Hypocrisy" - Rep. Carter has a way with words, think I'll start referring to the 111th Congress by that title. Nancy has always wanted a reference that would 'stand out'.

Jim - Chill out man - Joe w... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Jim - Chill out man - Joe was not wrong. Obama is a liar. He has told lie after lie after lie. Are you so used to hearing him lie that it is soundling like truth to you?
Transparency
Bills posted on line
No earmarks in Stimulus bill
No raise in taxes (of ANY kind for anyone making less that $250,000).
Do you get the picture? I got it the day he acted like Joe the Plumber was not worthy of talking to. He talked down to him and left me with the impression that he was better than Joe. Sorry, wrong attitude. Up until that point, I was going to vote for him. Now I am glad I am not responsible for the destruction of my country. You and your kind can take the blame. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Madalyn

Using "Jim" logic, there re... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Using "Jim" logic, there really is no need to include a specific provision in whatever Dem Health Care Reform bill to require proof of citizenship to receive health care.

After all, using "Jim" logic, there are no illegals in the United States because there are provisions in our law that outlaws anyone coming here illegally.

Right Jim?

Madalyn is very correct jim... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Madalyn is very correct jim. Obama has lied so many times in such a short time it boggles the mind.

Joe Wilsong was correct. Obama did lie. Here is how it works. Obama said in his speech that 45 million americans do not have insurance and he wants to pass a bill that would cover all 45 million. 9.2 of that 45 is illegals. So, he did, in fact lie. Thank you. ww

Garand, you're refusing to ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Garand, you're refusing to be swayed.

If as you say Obama's statements are to be compared *only* to be a bill he has submitted - and he has not submitted a bill - then Obama must be referring to the bill Obama wants passed.

In this case there is NO WAY Wilson can know that the bill would cover illegal immigrants - therefore Joe Wilson's statement of certainty that Obama is lying is ALSO false.

"Saying that illegals are n... (Below threshold)
jim:

"Saying that illegals are not covered means NOTHING unless you put in place a method to make sure that they don't. "

Jim M, I refer you to my statement upthread:

"...if Joe Wilson had disrespectfully blurted out "But illegal immigrants will still be able to cheat and get some, because there's not enough enforcement!" he would have still been a disrespectful fool who thought he was on the Jerry Springer show - but he wouldn't have been wrong."

Joe Wilson didn't say "There isn't sufficient enforcement!" What WIlson said when Obama said that illegal aliens would not be covered was "You lie!"

Therefore if you're going to take the literal meaning of Obama's words, you should also take the literal meaning of Wilson's words.

Which means that Wilson, in addition to being historically disrespectful to the elected President above and beyond anything any liberal has ever done - was wrong.

Madalyn, was the statement ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Madalyn, was the statement Joe Wilson was referring to any of those?

Answer: no.

What was the statement Wilson was responding to? Obama's statement that illegals would not be covered.

Was there already existing language that said illegals would not be covered? Yes.


Therefore, when Wilson yelled "You lie," was Wilson correct?

The only logical answer is no, Wilson was not correct.

And Wildwillie, you must be... (Below threshold)
jim:

And Wildwillie, you must be referring to some other statement. Because in the speech in which Joe Wilson tarnished the House of Representives, Obama said 35 million citizens. Which, again according to factcheck.org, if anything is understatement of how many citizens don't have coverage.

No, Drago. Instead... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, Drago.

Instead, according to "Jim Logic" people shouldn't be called liars for statements that are not, in fact, lies.

Do you really disagree with that?

It's historically stupid and rude for a Congressman to yell out during a Presidential address, by itself. This is in fact the first time it's happened in our entire nation's history, as far as I've been able to determine.

But to me what's really bad is, Joe Wilson was in fact factually wrong.

And what's worse than that is, it doesn't seem like people care. It seems like people would rather not even deal with the **actual facts**.

I just think American policy should be based on facts and figures, and not devolve into Jerry freaking Springer. Am I wrong in this?

Jim - no amount of word gam... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Jim - no amount of word games is going to get you around the fact that the EFFECT of the bill was to allow illegals to get taxpayer funded insurance.

Obama said that the bill wouldn't allow it. That was untrue. A lie. Obama may indeed be naive/stupid enough to believe that a prohibition on enforcement wouldn't alter the effect of the language, but that does not excuse what he tried to slide by the public.

Laws are meant to do things. The effect of a law is not what individual parts say it is what the whole actually does.

You are focused on what the individual parts say. They only have meaning in the context of the whole law. The whole law had an effect that was contrary to the one part that you are focused on. It's that simple.

Jim - If there was a line i... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Jim - If there was a line in the health care plan that said illegals WOULD NOT be covered, then why after Joe called out "You Lie" did Obama's little elves scurry away and get busy putting something in there to disqualify illegals? Live for today dude. Quit mouthing the same old bullsh*t that comes from the WH. We get enough of that from the Obama groupies.
Do I make myself perfectly clear? Geez, sometimes you people sound like my 3 year old great grandson.
Madalyn

jp2, is that you?... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

jp2, is that you?

Carter also intro... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
Carter also introduced the Rangel Rule legislation that would provide the same waiver of penalties and interest on back taxes for all Americans as that enjoyed by Rangel. That measure has also been blocked by House Democrats.

Equal treatment under the law ? House Democrats vote NO ?

What if Congress buried in ... (Below threshold)

What if Congress buried in some bill a provision that said 'Barack Obama will be able to fly using solely the power of his mind beginning in 2011.' There is nothing else in the bill that explains how the bill will enable Barack Obama to fly using the power of his mind beginning in 2011. Barack Obama later claims that he will be able to fly using solely the power of his mind in 2011 - because the bill says so in black and white, clear as day. Someone stands up and says he's lying - not, mind you, that he's lying that the bill says it, but that Barack will be zipping around in 2011 on mind power, yes, even though there's a bill that says it.

While it is true that this bill does indeed say 'Barack Obama will be able to fly using solely the power of his mind beginning in 2011' and therefore it is honestly not true to say that it is not in the bill - does anyone in their right mind truly believe that, with nothing in the bill to justify the statement, it is not a lie to claim that the essence of the statement, Barack Obama flying solely on mind power, is a fact?

Madalyn, as stated previous... (Below threshold)
jim:

Madalyn, as stated previously the "little elves" went and included specific enforcement provisions in the bill - so that line of complaint against the bill couldn't be used as a way to vote against the entire bill.

This does not change the fact that, as stated previously, when Wilson yelled "You lie!", the language in a bill ALREADY SAID it would not cover illegal immigrants.

Is any part of that not clear?

Now if you're going to at this point further quibble "How do we know which version of the bill Obama was referring to?" then the response remains the same - if ANY VERSION of the bill says it would not cover illegal immigrants, then Joe Wilson was not correct when he declared with certain truth that Obama was not a liar.

Now is any part of that not clear?

Madalyn, as stated previous... (Below threshold)
jim:

Madalyn, as stated previously the "little elves" went and included specific enforcement provisions in the bill - so that line of complaint against the bill couldn't be used as a way to vote against the entire bill.

This does not change the fact that, as stated previously, when Wilson yelled "You lie!", the language in a bill ALREADY SAID it would not cover illegal immigrants.

Is any part of that not clear?

Now if you're going to at this point further quibble "How do we know which version of the bill Obama was referring to?" then the response remains the same - if ANY VERSION of the bill says it would not cover illegal immigrants, then Joe Wilson was not correct when he declared with certain truth that Obama **was a liar.**

Now is any part of that not clear?

If previous entry is nearly a dupe of this, my apologies - preview is my friend.

Falze, I'm not sure what so... (Below threshold)
jim:

Falze, I'm not sure what sort of satire you're engaging in.

Let's take your example on. If the bill had a provision that said "this bill gives Obama the power to fly solely by his own mind control", and Obama said in a speech "This bill also says that I have the power to fly solely by the power of my mind", and someone from the stands yelled "You lie!" then they would also be wrong - BECAUSE THE BILL IS STATING WHAT OABAMA SAYS IT IS, AND FOLLOWING THE INTENTION OBAMA SAYS IT IS.

Obama could be crazy - that would be a separate discussion. But his statement would still be the literal truth.


Do you understand now?

To object to there not being enough enforcement provisions in the bill is fine and dandy.

But to suggest that the intention of the bill is to cover illegal immigrants when the ACTUAL TEXT of the bill says it will not, is to step over the line into disagreeing with actual observed reality.

I don't recall who the Rep/... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

I don't recall who the Rep/Senator was, but they once observed "It's often more interesting to see what is NOT is a law as opposed to what is actually in it.

Case in point: "Rationing"

"...your health care will be rationed! False: Section 122 outlines broad categories of benefits that must be included in an essential benefits package. It prohibits cost-sharing for preventive care and limits annual out-of-pocket spending to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, indexed for inflation. It says nothing about rationing or limiting treatment.

Now suppose that Obama and Nancy get their wish and the government becomes the sole provider of health care insurance. NEAT! They can then DICTATE what they will pay for any given medical procedure and we all "save".

There's one part of the equation missing. You may OFFER a certain amount, but the other side (the doctors, hospitals, etc) have to be WILLING to accept that amount. What if they DECLINE to accept your medical coverage?

What then jim? You going to throw them in prison? OUTLAW their practice of medicine?

NOTHING in that sections SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT RATIONING! I think even jim can agree on that.

It's the consequences he'll probably want to argue....or ignore.

People in this country ILLEGALLY, using ILLEGAL documents to prove citizenship and the right to work WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM violating that law in order to get health care. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO THEM JIM? What added PENALTY is there? You're already going to deport them for being here ILLEGALLY.

IF there are no CONSEQUENCES, your law is useless. Is Obama a lawyer, or just pretend to be one?

SHOW ME: WHERE is it in HR3200 that you MUST prove CITIZENSHIP in order to obtain health care coverage.

Joe Stalin invented the sho... (Below threshold)
Ken Hahn:

Joe Stalin invented the show trial. The Democrats want it for Bush administration officials accused of "torture".

Mao Tse-tung invented "self criticism". The Democrats want it for Joe Wilson.

I can hardly wait for the next innovation the Democrats get from their inspirational figures.

Ah, Ken you miss the "nuanc... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Ah, Ken you miss the "nuance". When Rep Stark does it, it's called "being forceful".

When Joe Wilson does it, it's deemed "unacceptable".

See? "Nuance"

It's been nearly an hour si... (Below threshold)
wet willie:

It's been nearly an hour since "Jim" explained everything for me.

I'm feeling...anxious...

Jim - I guess saying it twi... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Jim - I guess saying it twice makes it so. Obama lied about illegal immigrants having health care. I don't care how you try to spin it. A lie is a lie is a lie. Accept life for what it is. He is a bold faced liar. No other words can explain it.
Now, can we end this debate and just say you are wrong!! I have a life to live. Don't know about you.
Madalyn

jim,Are all reside... (Below threshold)
pvd:

jim,

Are all residents required to purchase insurance?

If you purchase insurance, are you covered by HR 3200 and the provisions of the Health Insurance Exchange?

Jim,Per <a href="h... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Jim,

Per http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1115o6oiG:e176188:

There is no requirement to check for citizenship. What happens when the healthcare is provided in a sancuary city?

This is what you get when t... (Below threshold)
Flu-Bird:

This is what you get when the demacraps are in charge, Frankly i hope next year leads to a huge conservative revolution and hundreds of liberal demacrats get booted clean out

Earth to Jimmah!! ... (Below threshold)
914:

Earth to Jimmah!!

Lying and racism are 2 different things you stupid joo hating dumbfuc.

"Jim - I guess saying it tw... (Below threshold)
jim:

"Jim - I guess saying it twice makes it so."

Um - what?

OK - Bush is a red-headed alien. Bush is a red-headed alien.

Did that make it so?

NO. So also, saying "Obama is a liar because I know he is, even though the facts say Wilson actually was wrong." , and then repeating it, does not mean wilson was right.

Do you follow?

Facts are facts, whether or not we want to recognize them.

OK, Madalyn, you're referri... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, Madalyn, you're referring to my mistaken double post. I get it.

What I don't get is how you simply refuse to acknowledge the reality that Wilson was actually wrong. But that's how it is.

I wish you would apply the same standard to all people. But apparently you're only interested in applying it to people whose policies you disagree with.

I wish and hope you will someday see how this is having you not look critically at people who say things which validate your world view - such as Joe the Plumber. Such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck at all - who are telling you what you want to hear, and making millions from it.

But that's not my free choice, it's yours. Best luck with it.

914, your comment is only w... (Below threshold)
jim:

914, your comment is only worth acknowledging with a plea to get help.

As for penalties for illega... (Below threshold)
jim:

As for penalties for illegal aliens, Garandfan, I'm for any set of rules and punishments that works.

What do you suggest?

"NO. So also, saying "Obama... (Below threshold)
914:

"NO. So also, saying "Obama is a liar because I know he is, even though the facts say Wilson actually was wrong." , and then repeating it, does not mean wilson was right."

Wilson still is right. Obama lies. what facts are You making up to support the Liar?


"As for penalties for illegal aliens, Garandfan, I'm for any set of rules and punishments that works.

What do you suggest?"

An immediate stop to their voting rights and Deportation.

Sorry GarandFan.. Had to jump in.

jim - "What I don't get... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim - "What I don't get is how you simply refuse to acknowledge the reality that Wilson was actually wrong. But that's how it is."

What I and the rest of us "simply refuse" to get is why do you continue with a course of action, claiming Wilson lied, that has about as much a chance to change a mind here than ACORN getting a Nobel Prize.

We get it now just move the f-uck on.

Jim ( Munchausen by proxy )... (Below threshold)
914:

Jim ( Munchausen by proxy )

Quit beating your posts against the truth.

You lost.

Game over.

Move on.

Jim - Obama is a liar. No g... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Jim - Obama is a liar. No getting around that. When Ms. Palin accused him of having "death panels" in the bill, he lied. If that is not so, how come after Ms.Palin made that speech, they came out and said that part was taken out. How do you take out something that is not there? You give me a way, and I will give you credit for having a brain.
Now, Obama lied about illegals being covered. First off, he claims XX millions in this country have no insurance. He SWEARS he will get them ALL covered. Millions of the uninsured are illegals. Now, do you get the picture? To say Obama did not lie is a laugh. How ignorant or brain dead to you need to be to not get it?
Your move
Madalyn

I have grown bored of readi... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

I have grown bored of reading this thread so I will take my dump and then get off the pot.

Jim: You like to point to facts when they back up your argument. I agree with you, Wilson was inaccurate when he said "You Lie" as well as disrespectful. However stating what he really meant in a fit of rage would have taken a full 60 seconds or so. He summed up his thoughts in two words, inaccurate but not completely untrue.

The President's words were technically accurate according to the written language of the bill, but were provably untrue when put into action until they add enforcement provisions.

I agree with you, they are all Liars even Sara Palin. However Sarah was addressing not just the language of the bill, but the general attitude of the president and his advisers in regard to health care. So she was inaccurate but not necessarily false.

Liberals love nuance and interpretation when it comes to the law. Suddenly the Conservatives have figured out how to read between the lines and left them spluttering when they are caught in the act of trying to secretly and subtly guide the laws toward their ideal society. It is not any fun when we start throwing your nuance back in your face is it?

I agree, what needs to be done is to stop with nuance and interpretation all together. The bill needs to be written in completely plain language and needs to address all issues that are brought up. No issue should be dismissed easily as the democrats did to the Enforcement issue. If there is room for interpretation, then there is room for abuse.

Every politician is a liar, the point is how big the lies are and what the consequences will be when they take effect eventually.

Well Justruss, I have been ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well Justruss, I have been about accuracy the whole time, under Bush and under Clinton before him. Perhaps this can come across as "nuance", which sometimes is viewed as a bad thing but should not be. The devil is always in the details.

So I agree with you that all politicians are liars, and need to be watched. So if we're going to watch all politicians from all sides equally, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican and Other, and measure their words against the facts, I am absolutely with that.

So I hope it won't bother you too much if I absolutely agree with your statement.

What I really want is to move away from the name-calling completely, and go straight to the facts.

I'm for better enforcement provisions, and that's a legitimate complaint. I'm for making sure that no bureaucrats, public or private, are weighing people's lives against the cold costs in a ledger. Most of all I'm for a health reform bill that genuinely works for the American people.

I want those **details** up front and criticized. Because that's what really matters.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

" When Ms. Palin accused hi... (Below threshold)
jim:

" When Ms. Palin accused him of having "death panels" in the bill, he lied. If that is not so, how come after Ms.Palin made that speech, they came out and said that part was taken out. "

Madalyn, please link to the statement where someone from the Obama administration OR from Congress said they took out a part about having a Federal Death Panel weigh the lives of American citizens against the cost of their care.

I would really, really like to see that text.

"Now, Obama lied about illegals being covered. "

As I've shown you, no he did not. You're refusing to acknowledged this does not change the fact. Once again, you can say there is not enough enforcement - but that's a separate argument, one for which you may have legitimate claims for debate.

But there is a difference between "lying" and "not doing enough". YOu can see that right?

"First off, he claims XX millions in this country have no insurance."

Yes - his full statement in this speech was 35 million CITIZENS. And CITIZENS are not ILLEGALS. Is that clear?

If I am wrong, please link to the exact statement of Obama's that proves me wrong.

Otherwise, can we please all just deal with facts. Ok? There is plenty to criticize Obama - or ANY politician for that matter - just sticking with the facts.

Suppose Congress writes int... (Below threshold)

Suppose Congress writes into the final version of the bill that the Government will spend no more than 75 cents on the entire implementation of the plan. However, other parts of the bill make it clear that Congress can appropriate money at a later time to fund the plan and there is nothing in the bill to keep them from spending more than 75 cents. Congressional research staff members calculate the actual spending will require hundreds of billions.

Obama then claims that the plan will only spend 75 cents on the plan, honestly repeating what part of the bill says.

Is it then wrong to claim he is lying? Yes, it is wrong to claim he is lying that the bill does not say that, but it is not wrong to claim that it is dishonest to actually claim that there is anything in the bill to ensure that no more than 75 cents will be spent, particularly in light of the fact that there is no mechanism to guarantee or enable it.

There are facts and then there are facts, as we all know. One fact is that, yes, the bill says that there is a 75 cent cap. Another fact is that there is nothing in the bill to ensure that what it says will come true. It's easy to accuse someone of lying when you pretend they are challenging the first fact, not the second.

But it's just pathetic (and bitter) to cling to your defense in spite of all rational thought - particularly when the people you're defending have made it clear that they don't agree with you.

Jim is twisting, turning an... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Jim is twisting, turning and warping things to make Obama technically true in one aspect while ignoring all else. After all, however he warps something is how everyone else must take it. Claiming that Obama was just stating what the bills text said and not what the resulting outcome would be, would get Obama off the lying hook even though that claim is lame. However claiming Wilson was lying because he had to be talking about the text and not the results is disingenuous. Also as some have pointed out the text in question is debatable.

IMO Obama is in constant ca... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

IMO Obama is in constant campaign mode. He hasn't offered his version of the bill because he doesn't know how to do specifics. He has grand ideas. He leaves it to others to try and come up with ways to accomplish them. I doubt he has a clue on how to do anything he proposes. His role is to campaign and convince people to agree with him.

Jim - If I recall, Obama sa... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Jim - If I recall, Obama said "XX million people" not citizens. BIG difference. Also, regarding "Death panels"-- Sarah's words, but still in the bill but worded different. You can try and spin it any way you want, but to deny your messiah lied is a crushing blow to your intelligence. Call me what you want, but I call your leader a liar because that is what he is. Now, get busy doing something constructive. Your time here has run out.
Madalyn

Madalyn, in the actual text... (Below threshold)
jim:

Madalyn, in the actual text of the speech Obama says 35 million CITIZENS. Not people. Citizens.

Please look it up.

Also, please show me where the bill had ANYTHING like Sarah Palin's claim of Death Panels.

It's not spin to ask you for facts to back up your claims. Since you are so sure that you are not yourself repeating spin, you should be able to find actual facts to back up your claims.

Right?

So, please find those facts.

"Is it then wrong to claim ... (Below threshold)
jim:

"Is it then wrong to claim he is lying? Yes, it is wrong to claim he is lying that the bill does not say that, but it is not wrong to claim that it is dishonest to actually claim that there is anything in the bill to ensure that no more than 75 cents will be spent, particularly in light of the fact that there is no mechanism to guarantee or enable it."

Finally, Falze, we are in agreement.

To argue that there is not enough enforcement is a legitimate complaint.

To argue that it's dishonest to state that illegals will not be covered if there may not be enough enforcement legislation to ensure that illegals are not covered, is a criticism that is not nearly as bad. And it is a criticism that has a chance of leading somewhere productive - such as the development and inclusion of actual enforcement provisions in the bill.

However, that is not the argument Wilson was making. Wilson made the simple argument that Obama was LYING - a very strong and direct charge that requires PROOF that Obama said something that was 100% not true.

And in the process harmed the public discourse as well. Because once again this is a very serious debate - it should not be Jerry Springer.

Madalyn hears what she want... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Madalyn hears what she wants to hear - and can therefore ignore the truth.

"We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone."

"Jim is twisting, turning a... (Below threshold)
jim:

"Jim is twisting, turning and warping things to make Obama technically true in one aspect while ignoring all else."

No Wayne, you and others are trying to enlarge the focus, in order to find something else that Wilson may have been responding to so that Wilson might in some way not be wrong.

I have readily admitted, and repeat again now, that many other portions of President Obama's speech and overall policy are very open to debate.

But you know and I both know that Wilson was responding to that specific part of Obama's speech. That's why he blurted it out right then.

And: it is a fact that Obama was referring to his bill. It is a fact that the bill said what Obama said it did. It is a fact that Wilson called Obama a liar when Obama told the actual factual truth about what the bill said.

It is twisting and turning Wilson's statement, to say that Wilson "wasn't really wrong" because "although the bill said it doesn't cover illegal immigrants, it doesn't do enough to make sure they're not covered".

And the text being debatable means that by definition its not certain. Therefore Wilson was wrong to assert certainty. In addition to being, once again, more disrespectful as a congressman to a President than has ever happened before, by members of any party, in our entire nation's history.

Jim, et al - Do I have a re... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Jim, et al - Do I have a recording of what was said when, where, why, etc? No, I don't. Do I have it written down exactly when something was said, what channel I heard it on, what time it was said, No, I don't. I am not electronically up-to-date. I rely on newsprint, TV, radio, etc. Just because I can't give you a link or a recording of what I am saying, I am a liar. OK, I will accept what you think of me. I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with you idolizing a person who is hell-bent on total destruction of a country I have been proud of all my life (unlike Michelle). My husband is a 21+ year Navy veteran. I have a son and a daughter who are also veterans. I strongly object to ANYONE who tries to turn over my country to a bunch of criminals (do Obama's czars ring a bell)? Does tax cheats Geithner, Rangel, etc) ring a bell? Does Countrywide Dodd ring a bell? Do I make my point now? If Obama said "Citizens" one time, I can guarantee you that is the only one you heard. I heard people. Do you think the one time you heard "citizens" is the only time that subject ever came up? You live in a delusional world. I live in the real world. Pick pick pick. Nothing better to do?
Madalyn

"Just because I can't gi... (Below threshold)
Steve:

"Just because I can't give you a link or a recording of what I am saying, I am a liar."

No, but because you ignore the truth when it's staring you in the face you are wrong.

See comment 77, Madalyn.

Slow down. Read the words, Understand them.

Jim,Per HR 3200, a... (Below threshold)
pvd:

Jim,

Per HR 3200, are all residents required to purchase insurance and thus eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange?

If you read the bill, you'll discover they are. And residents are defined by the IRS. Which includes illegal immigrants are technically residents for the purpose of the bill.

Which means that the same bill that you said barred illegal immigrants from participating mandates their participation.

So, yes, the President lied.

I know you would have eventually answered - my question was only 40 posts ago, but I got tired of waiting.

Steve and Jim - As I stated... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Steve and Jim - As I stated, the use of American Citizens is NOT the only time Obama has talked about the illegal immigrant coverage. He discussed it many times. If he said American Citizens when you heard it, OK fine, your point is made. I heard people in the speech I heard. Do you have a link or a recording of every time he mentioned coverage of illegals? If so, please post EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM so you can make another point. Hope you feel good about yourself. You take someone who is electronically challenged and call them a liar. I am sure I am not the only person who heard "people" in reference to health care coverage. If it makes you feel any better, I apologize for my ignorance. I apologize for trying to make a president responsible for what he says. I apologize for not recognizing the difference between "American Citizens" and "people", I apologize for the many criminals who are now running MY country. Keep up the good work. You may one day be able to persuade someone you are the only person who is right at all times.
Madalyn

"Jim, et al - Do I have a r... (Below threshold)
jim:

"Jim, et al - Do I have a recording of what was said when, where, why, etc? No, I don't. Do I have it written down exactly when something was said, what channel I heard it on, what time it was said, No, I don't. I am not electronically up-to-date."

That's fine Madalyn. I don't have some kind of photographic memory either. But if you are going to accuse people of serious things, you can use google to back them up.

I am talking very specifically about the speech Obama gave, that caused Wilson to outburst "You lie!" I am talking very specifically about that speech, because that it was caused Wilson's outburst and accusation.

If you want to enlarge the focus to everything Obama has ever said, that's fine - as long as you are willing to expand that focus to everything Congressman Wilson's ever said.

Because I'm recalling a particularly sad moment I saw recently - a video clip from CSPAN in 2002 where a fellow congressman told Wilson the **exact literal truth** - that previous administrations actually funded Saddam Hussein.

Wilson proceeded to deny the existence of this **historical fact**, while simultaneously accusing the man - his fellow Congressman - of hating America.

This would put Wilson more firmly in the liar category. If there is a silver lining, it makes it less likely that Wilson is a racist - he simply responds with hateful and angry accusations to *anyone* who presents him facts he doesn't like. Or, in simpler words and more accurate words, he's a douchebag.

Jim and Steve - Figured I w... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Jim and Steve - Figured I would do this to end this absurdly stupid debate:
I am wrong. I am and was so wrong to doubt your word. Of course you were right. You always are. What could I have been thinking?
Please forgive me for hearing "people" when you consistently say it was "American Citizens". Of course that was it. Never a doubt. I promise I will never question you again EVER!! (BARF)
Madalyn

Pvd, as I'm sure you are we... (Below threshold)
jim:

Pvd, as I'm sure you are well aware, that bill you mention is one of several versions which are still being reconciled in Congress.

Another bill proposed by Baucus makes no mention of a Public Option. Yet Obama has stated support for one. Does that make Obama a liar? No - because that is not the version of the bill which Obama states he will support.

For Wilson's accusation to have a chance of being accurate, there would have to be NO PART of ANY bill currently under consideration which did not exclude coverage of illegal immigrants.

The bill which Obama has expressed support of, which I mentioned in the comments above here - way back in # 15:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

(Sec. 246), titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS".

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

Alright? Can you see that?

Madalyn, all I'm asking is ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Madalyn, all I'm asking is that you and everyone - liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Other - is that you have facts behind your accusations.

That's all.

You can be mad at me for pointing out that you don't have facts behind your position - but in my opinion that's not who you should be mad at.

Who you should be mad at are the people you listen to, who you trusted when they gave you weak information that had no facts behind it.

"PROOF that Obama said some... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

"PROOF that Obama said something that was 100% not true" compare to to "lie" is to "say something is not true".

First something doesn't have to be shown to be 100% not true to be a lie. Second by your standard, you haven't shown what Wilson said is 100% not true. Others have shown how he was speaking the truth. Typical liberal, one standard for you and completely different standard for the opposition. .

"that many other portions of President Obama's speech and overall policy are very open to debate"

It's called a lie. Just because you refuse to debate if other portions are lies don't change the fact they are. Also to not recognize that Wilson was upset about many of those lies and the statement that illegals would not be covered was just the straw that set him off shows thought process.

Looks to me like Wilson is ... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Looks to me like Wilson is a bigoted racist.

[Congressman Joe Wilson] we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina's state Capitol and denounced as a "smear" the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the '48 segregationist candidate for president.

And the fact that Obama didn't lie proves that there was some other motive behind Wilson's childish outburst.

Some people can't hide their racism, but it's apparent from his past that Wilson hasn't tried to hide it in the past.

It's also apparent from his outburst at Obama that he isn't trying to hide it in the present either.

"First something doesn't ha... (Below threshold)
jim:

"First something doesn't have to be shown to be 100% not true to be a lie."

Yes, actually, it does.

I mean, not to the degree where it would satisfy post-modernism, that wouldn't be possible. But starting from the declaration that truth actually exists, than to prove something is definitely a lie you have to prove it is definitely not true.

And even if that were not the case, I think that if you are as an elected representative publicly yell at a formal occasion where you are *not even slated to speak*, the standards of proof should at least be pretty high.

" Second by your standard, you haven't shown what Wilson said is 100% not true."

No, and I don't have to - because the rude accuser is Wilson, the burden of prove is on him or his defenders. Facts have to prove him right - they don't have to prove him wrong.

But I'll tell you what - I'll go ahead and apply that 100% standard of evidence to both sides. Let's see what happens.

If:

1. President Obama's statement re: coverage of illegal immigrants has to be 100% literally provably true in **every possible interpretation**, in order for Obama to be telling the truth.

then,

2. This also means that Rep. Wilson's outburst **also** has to be 100% literally provably true in every possible interpretation of Obama's statement, for **Wilson** to be telling the truth.

In which case, because not every interpretation of Obama's statement is a lie, Wilson's statement is false.

And let's even say instead that the standard of statements' truthfulness is that they are a mushy and subjective "mostly" true.

If:
1. Wilson's statement that Obama lied would be "true enough" if Obama didn't tell "enough" of the truth,

then:

2. Obama's statement that his bill did not cover illegal immigrants would also be "true enough" because Obama didn't tell "enough" of a lie.


In other words, no matter what standards of proof you apply - if you apply them to both Obama and Wilson, Obama's statement is at least provably correct - which, no matter what the starting point, makes Wilson's statement not provably correct.

That is how logic works, even without a presumption of innocence.

I cant believe You two are ... (Below threshold)
914:

I cant believe You two are still trying to convince yourselve's that the liar in chief does not lie. He lies so much it makes Joe "liar" Plame blush.

914 - I think you mean Joe ... (Below threshold)
jim:

914 - I think you mean Joe the Plumber.

In which case you'd still be wrong.

But hey, just in case you actually intended to refer to Joe Wilson who was outed by teh Bush Administration for actually telling the truth and being right - you've got a great sense of unintentional irony, I must say.

Jim the Idiot wrote:<... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Jim the Idiot wrote:

(Sec. 246), titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS".

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

Alright? Can you see that?

Alright, can you see what I bolded and underlined, you dolt?

"Affordability credits" has to do with payments to poor people who will buy health insurance. It does not in any way prevent, affect, impact, or refer to illegal aliens who will get free government health care under HR3200. Even if it did, Section 152 would void it. Stop quoting from it like it means something.

Do you read anything that you cut and paste, or do you just swallow whole the liberal lie? Take your copied bullshit somewhere else, you dunce. The folks on this site are too smart to buy any of it.

Have a nice day, doofus.

SteveOne being a mem... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Steve
One being a member of "Sons of the Confederate" or supporting flying the Confederate flag when the flag means to that person values other than racist values doesn't make that person a bigoted racist.

It makes the one's jumping to those conclusions a racist bigot. I bet you think the Civil War was only about slavery and there were no other factors such as the Federal Government intruding way too often on States rights.

JimYour logic is ama... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Jim
Your logic is amazing. According to you if I said all blacks are thieves then you can't say that is lie since some blacks are thieves so it wouldn't be 100% not true. Amazing logic.

It all comes back to interp... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

It all comes back to interpretation. Bush I believe called it "Truthiness". It's the StarWars meme "From a certain point of view".

This is what the left is great at, "interpreting" statements, language of the law, situations and even Facts so that they can be turned around and made to support their argument. My ex-wife did this all the time, she was NEVER WRONG! No matter that I could show her exactly where she made her mistake she still never would admit to the lie.

I said earlier however that a Lie is a Lie and a liar is a liar. All current politicians are liars so they all need to be watched, and booted from office next year. Republican and Democrat.

Only a complete turnover will fix the corruption problems (if only for a few years til the lobbyists get them again). Complete turnover, cut their pay, and impose term limits of like 3 terms.

I think even shorter term l... (Below threshold)
914:

I think even shorter term limits would be better. We have quite enough citizens to take up the cozy job for 6 years. Only problem is job security. You would have to be wealthy or have another business to fall back on after Your term. To make it feasible.

I think Jim is really Bill ... (Below threshold)
pvd:

I think Jim is really Bill Clinton, arguing about what the word "is" is.

Is it a LIE? I don't know. First, what is is? And what is it? And what is a lie? And on that one, Jim is completely clueless.

He uses HR3200 to prove his points then completely invalidates it by saying that there is more than one bill out there and even brings one up that didn't exist at the time of the speech.

" 914- I think you mean Joe... (Below threshold)
914:

" 914- I think you mean Joe the Plumber.

In which case you'd still be wrong.
But hey, just in case you actually intended to refer to Joe Wilson who was outed by teh Bush Administration for actually telling the truth and being right - you've got a great sense of unintentional irony, I must say."

No, I meant Joe liar Wilson.. The one with the powder cake stripe running down his craven back.

Oh ok 914. Great.P... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh ok 914. Great.

Please provide a citation for what that Joe Wilson was proven to have lied about.

Wayne, I'm actually using y... (Below threshold)
jim:

Wayne, I'm actually using your logic. As I said in the beginning of my comment.

Apparently what's not making sense to you is that I am applying it to BOTH sides in this case - and not just the side which would you dislike.

You're absolutely right - your kind of logic would consider "all of group (x) are thieves" truthful, if any single member of group (x) ever stole anything. And you're absolutely right, in that shows this is a completely irrational wat to think.

What's fascinating to me is that you can see the fault when it's applied against Representative Joe Wilson - but you choose not to see the fault in this kind of thinking when it's applied Obama.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy