Seems like the democrats are not satisfied with Joe Wilson's quick apology to your President and a quick acceptance by the President and his quote, "lets move on." Your favorite lady of the house Nancy Polosi and the dems want Wilson to apologize in front of Congress. If he does not Polosi wants to admonish the fella.

How quickly one side forgets how the other side was treated during their term as President. Yes there were burst of out cry from the Dems while your past President was addressing Congress.

Not much of an apology was it? I'm sorry about the outburst but I still think you're a liar?

And no, the Dems have never done this. Grumbling or other noises showing discontent is a lllllooooonnnnnggggg way from an accusation of dishonesty.

Wilson embarrassed the entire house with his gaff, but to be honest, Pelosi is just giving him more airtime by stringing things along.

-spence

Puh Leeeze. The past 20 years have been showing more and more disrespect by both parties to the office of the president.

It's the same thing over and over, Repubs growl and go all nasty and the Democrats get their panties all in a bunch.

The democrats get the spolied brat militant look and show no respect of the office of President either.

All a bunch of hypocrites.

I'm 40 years old, my windows of following this stuff goes back to the late 80s. How many years has it been like this? Congress may be a true reflection of the people of the United States - One Big Dysfunctional Family.

Was it like this 40 years ago? Sixty?

Joes the only one that didn't lie. I said it in the other thread. His outburst brought on by Obama's chronic white lies will save the US taxpayer billions.

How quickly one side forgets how the other side was treated during their term as President. Yes there were burst of out cry from the Dems while your past President was addressing Congress.

It'd be easier to accept if this was a first occurrence for him. Also, if his apology didn't come across like him mother grabbed him by the ear and made him say he's sorry.

Flashback: Rep. Wilson Also Had To Apologize After Attacking Strom Thurmond's Illegitimate Daughter
Flashback: Rep. Wilson Also Had To Apologize After Attacking Strom Thurmond's Illegitimate Daughter | LiveWire (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/you-lie-not-the-first-time-rep-wilsons-emotions-got-the-best-of-him.php)

Maybe one day he'll learn what proper etiquette is. Or he'll continue to make himself look like an assclown on live national broadcasts for our amusement. I actually prefer the latter.

It'd be easier to accept if this was a first occurrence for him. Also, if his apology didn't come across like him mother grabbed him by the ear and made him say he's sorry.

Flashback: Rep. Wilson Also Had To Apologize After Attacking Strom Thurmond's Illegitimate Daughter
Flashback: Rep. Wilson Also Had To Apologize After Attacking Strom Thurmond's Illegitimate Daughter | LiveWire (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/you-lie-not-the-first-time-rep-wilsons-emotions-got-the-best-of-him.php)

Maybe one day he'll learn what proper etiquette is. Or he'll continue to make himself look like an assclown on live national broadcasts for our amusement. I actually prefer the latter.

Well then, are you saying that the Dems owe an apology to Palin for what they said about her children?

I'm sure that you do not think so.

of course not FR...dem politicians may lie, impune and do as they please, they have no shame, conscience, standards or "etiquitte" as JD put it......

remember Obama with the middle finger...that was bad etiquitte...

Well then, are you saying that the Dems owe an apology to Palin for what they said about her children?
Please be more specific, what were the "Dems" saying about her children?

-spence

Please be more specific, what were the "Dems" saying about her children?

-spence

Holy Sh*t Spence are you serious? For a seemingly intelligent guy,, sometimes you amaze me...... Your head is so far up your ass... Like an ex girlfriend, you remember all the bad about one side, and paint your side all roses.......

Holy Sh*t Spence are you serious? For a seemingly intelligent guy,, sometimes you amaze me...... Your head is so far up your ass... Like an ex girlfriend, you remember all the bad about one side, and paint your side all roses.......
I remember some remarks made by a "lefty" blog, but nothing by an elected or party official.

Are you saying some independent blog post is equal to an elected representative calling the President a liar in front of the US Congress?

-spence

I remember some remarks made by a "lefty" blog, but nothing by an elected or party official.

Are you saying some independent blog post is equal to an elected representative calling the President a liar in front of the US Congress?

-spenceYes he is... Are you surprised?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama is full of crap! That's why they are working to close the loophole that would allow illegals into his program. When he yelled "You Lie!" he was simply stating a fact... We need more people like him that are not too scared to be a little politically incorrect to tell the truth...
He screamed "the emperor has no clothes" but unfortunately to many of you still see the "imagined clothes". This plan is a huge mistake, and I applaud Wilson for saying what had to be said....

Well then, are you saying that the Dems owe an apology to Palin for what they said about her children?

I'm sure that you do not think so.

Which members of Congress were talking about Palin's children?

Wasn't talking about a random person affiliated with a political party. Let's not forget that most Republicans were disgusted by his "outburst of emotion".

Wilson will win reelection because of his "outburst" Take it for what it's worth but I think the American people appreciate someone who risks their political career to state the truth.

Wilson will win reelection because of his "outburst" Take it for what it's worth but I think the American people appreciate someone who risks their political career to state the truth.
It will help him raise a lot of money from a national audience out to hurt Obama...this doesn't say a whole heck of a lot about his own beliefs.

-spence

Wilson will win reelection because of his "outburst" Take it for what it's worth but I think the American people appreciate someone who risks their political career to state the truth.

So just to be clear, the answer to my question is... none. Just trying to stay on point here.

And Wilson is still an assclown.

Joe should have thrown his shoes at him !:grins:

Joe should have thrown his shoes at him !:grins:

:rotf2:

Not much of an apology was it? I'm sorry about the outburst but I still think you're a liar?

And no, the Dems have never done this. Grumbling or other noises showing discontent is a lllllooooonnnnnggggg way from an accusation of dishonesty.


-spence

You're wrong. Pete Stark.

Watch this hypocrits:

Reminder: Democrats Heckled and Booed Bush 43 (http://minx.cc/?post=292091)

Joe should have thrown his shoes at him !:grins:

LOL, could have seen if he could duck as quick as bush. :D

[QUOTE=justplugit;711309]LOL, could have seen if he could duck as quick as bush. :D[/QUOTE

of course he wouldnt duck, he would expect someone from Govt to step in and save him isnt this how it works??

I hear the republicans want to invite Obama to an open-air, bi-partisan discussion to mend fences at Dealey Plaza this November. They've even picked out a stylish little pink Chanel number with a matching pillbox hat for Michele to wear. They've made assurances that no one will shout him down this time.

I'm laughing at the hypocracy of the left on this. Let's see.. they are worried about the respect for the Presidency now? After Clinton played hide the cigar in the Oval office? Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 could not respect the position more. Now we have Obama. Openly blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong. Disrespecting him as a former President every chance he can.
The rest of the Democratic leadership makes me puke. Phony's, every last on of them. And the defenders, excuse makers and supporters....well good luck to them..... They have their own personal issues to sort out.

Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 could not respect the position more.

Well......2 out of 3 Ain't Bad

Well......2 out of 3 Ain't Bad

:smash: No kidding. Buckman consistently complains about Obama's spending, while Bush thrust us into 2 wars that will more than likely cost over a trillion dollars each. The same guy that brought us the gem, "No Child Left Behind" and championed for the Patriot Act so that the actions his administration were involved with were only 'sort of' illegal afterward.

Yeah, I can see how you could "not respect the position more."

As an aside, I find it amusing that for someone that has demonstrated himself to be quite financially focused when it comes to policy, you don't like Clinton - considering Bush inherited a hefty, hefty Surplus from him while Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all left an increase in the deficit.

*cue replies that ignore my point and spin to Obama*

JD. We didn't start the war , Remember 9/11. Your a pissa

Bush also inherited a failing ecomomy. Did you forget that also?

don't you love how JD and Spence continually impune others for supposedly mindlessly regurgitating talking points when each of their posts is nothing more than one mindless regurgitation of left wing talking points after another.....:uhuh:

don't you love how JD and Spence continually impune others for supposedly mindlessly regurgitating talking points when each of their posts is nothing more than one mindless regurgitation of left wing talking points after another.....:uhuh:

Spence's whole act is to sprinkle trigger words like "talking points" and "neocons" into his posts. This, while seeming inoccuous enough puts a negative connotation in a person head. If you were to pay close attention, Spence doesn't come right out and bash people with opposing views. He tries to do it subconsciously.

The funny thing about JD's posts is that in many of them, he shows himself to have conservative views. In others, he comes across as extremely liberal. I've decided to coin a new word to describe JD. He's a "Republiphobic". His deep rooted beliefs are conservative, but he doesn't want to come out and admit that he's a Republican. It's like the guy who makes fun of gays and acts real macho because deep down he has feeling for other men.

JD. We didn't start the war , Remember 9/11. Your a pissa

Bush also inherited a failing ecomomy. Did you forget that also?

Are we going to start this again?

At the time, and even moreso now, there is absolutely no relationship between 9/11 and Iraq (or more specifically, Saddam). Not one.

Also, if Bush was such a great president and ever so wise, if he truly did "inherit a failing economy" then why in the hell would he push through the Bush tax cuts?

Bush's tax cuts + Bush's wars = a failing economy.

Here's the graph again since you seem to continually forget. Unfortunately, it only includes to 2006.
http://mikelove.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/deficit.gif

Buckman's right, Johnny. You are a pissa.

I can't believe you tell someone in another thread that information form blogs doesn't count. Then you actually have the nerve to pull a graph from a blog and present it as the centerpiece of your argument. :rotf2:

I can't believe you tell someone in another thread that information form blogs doesn't count. Then you actually have the nerve to pull a graph from a blog and present it as the centerpiece of your argument. :rotf2:

Opinion vs. Facts

A blog post is an opinion piece. A graph is a visual collection of data. Anyone can scrape the Federal Reserve website for the information on that graph.

Opinion vs. Facts

A blog post is an opinion piece. A graph is a visual collection of data. Anyone can scrape the Federal Reserve website for the information on that graph.

Fact. The graph came from a blog. By your logic, any information in a blog can be fact, since it may come from another more reputable website. There can certainly be a persons own opinion mixed in, but they may base their opinion on facts, right? You can't have it both ways.

Fact. The graph came from a blog. By your logic, any information in a blog can be fact, since it may come from another more reputable website. There can certainly be a persons own opinion mixed in, but they may base their opinion on facts, right? You can't have it both ways.

You're conflating previous comments made about opinion pieces. The nice thing about numbers is that 2+2 always equals 4. As I stated above, the exact information in that graph can be scraped from the Fed's website.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. However, I'm also not going to dig through the Fed website to put an excel sheet together to demonstrate that Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all increased the national debt (quite significantly in the case of Bush 2) and that Clinton had a significant surplus.

hey ass clown....sorry, I just find that amusing when you say it...democrats controlled congress during Reagan and Bush the elder, they controlled the spending, Republicans controlled the congress for most of the Clintons years, and the spending...

You're conflating previous comments made about opinion pieces. The nice thing about numbers is that 2+2 always equals 4. As I stated above, the exact information in that graph can be scraped from the Fed's website.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. However, I'm also not going to dig through the Fed website to put an excel sheet together to demonstrate that Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all increased the national debt (quite significantly in the case of Bush 2) and that Clinton had a significant surplus.


Can an opinion be bases on facts and be true?

You must be really busy to be able to go on blogs, but not check out the govt. site. I just went on there and oddly enough, there was much economic growth during Bush's terms. Clinton left office with many of the economic indicators in a downward pattern, and they actually rebounded while Bush was in office. Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first person to say that the economy is mostly cyclical. But, you have to look at where it is and where it's heading when each President takes and leaves office. Oh and also keep in mind the words of many of your fellow libs and conservatives. Deficits can be a good thing for the economy.

Deficits can be a good thing for the economy.

Brief deficits can be a good thing. What the Dems are doing right now is not. Spending during a down economy is only good if it is put towards quick growth and recovery areas. A historical example of the contrary would be Reagan's increased Cold War-era spending during a down economy. The deficits during these times had no long-term financial benefits (regardless of the debated necessity for the spending).

Are we going to start this again?

At the time, and even moreso now, there is absolutely no relationship between 9/11 and Iraq (or more specifically, Saddam). Not one.

Also, if Bush was such a great president and ever so wise, if he truly did "inherit a failing economy" then why in the hell would he push through the Bush tax cuts?

Bush's tax cuts + Bush's wars = a failing economy.

Here's the graph again since you seem to continually forget. Unfortunately, it only includes to 2006.
http://mikelove.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/deficit.gif

The federal budget and the private sector are two different things. While it is good for private sector entities to have a surplus, ideally (ha-ha) the federal gov. balance should be zero. If it goes below that line on the graph your probably spending too much (or, some would say, you're not taxing enough). If it goes above that line, you're probably taxing too much (or, some would say, you're not spending enough). Generally, the President proposes and the congress disposes when it comes to spending. Look to the congresses of those presidents to foot much of the blame or credit for budget graphs. And, more importantly, look at private sector economic graphs to tell a more important picture.

The federal budget and the private sector are two different things. While it is good for private sector entities to have a surplus, ideally (ha-ha) the federal gov. balance should be zero. If it goes below that line on the graph your probably spending too much (or, some would say, you're not taxing enough). If it goes above that line, you're probably taxing too much (or, some would say, you're not spending enough). Generally, the President proposes and the congress disposes when it comes to spending. Look to the congresses of those presidents to foot much of the blame or credit for budget graphs. And, more importantly, look at private sector economic graphs to tell a more important picture.

I can see your point, but I do think there are some issues with zero-balance budgeting. For example, without cash reserves, there is nothing to buffer a down economy when people aren't making as much money and as such, tax contributions are down. Also, massive, massive cash reserves are how the Chinese became the military super-power that they are now. This is how they have significantly increased their space exploration as well.

If we had at least some cash reserves, some of that could have gone towards funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to help offset the massive amount the average taxpayer is now on the hook for.

Generally, the President proposes and the congress disposes when it comes to spending. Look to the congresses of those presidents to foot much of the blame or credit for budget graphs. And, more importantly, look at private sector economic graphs to tell a more important picture.

Interesting. Many debating me here have made the exact reverse argument that "the President is the one at the helm. He's the one to blame or be praised for what happens to our country."

I can see your point, but I do think there are some issues with zero-balance budgeting. For example, without cash reserves, there is nothing to buffer a down economy when people aren't making as much money and as such, tax contributions are down. Also, massive, massive cash reserves are how the Chinese became the military super-power that they are now. This is how they have significantly increased their space exploration as well.


The concept of a "rainy day fund" in reserve to bail out of a possible future emergency, much as it would be prudent in private endeavors, is inimical to the federal gov. "mind." Congress will find ways to spend surpluses (unless you can put them into a"lock box:biglaugh:). The U.S. became a military super power not as a result of cash reserves, but as a policy and will to do so. We will do what is necessary if the people are behind it.

If we had at least some cash reserves, some of that could have gone towards funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to help offset the massive amount the average taxpayer is now on the hook for.

The question is not where the money comes from for these endeavors, but should we do them.

The question is not where the money comes from for these endeavors, but should we do them.

I couldn't agree with you more, on both points.

Interesting. Many debating me here have made the exact reverse argument that "the President is the one at the helm. He's the one to blame or be praised for what happens to our country."

When you have a President whose party is the majority in the House and Senate, the President is proposing spending that is most likely going to be approved. This is what we have now. When Bush and Clinton were in office, there was a system of checks and balances that we no longer have.

Interesting. Many debating me here have made the exact reverse argument that "the President is the one at the helm. He's the one to blame or be praised for what happens to our country."

The President being "responsible" for what happens to our country has grown from being the head of one of the three co-equal branches of government to ridiculously being the face of who we are. And too much intrusion into the shape of our society HAS resulted from the mythical power of this face. In conjunction with legislative power being assumed by the Supreme Court (abetted by Presidential appointees) the executive branch has gone well beyond its originally intended power. Even so, when it comes to spending, Congress has the final say.

The President being "responsible" for what happens to our country has grown from being the head of one of the three co-equal branches of government to ridiculously being the face of who we are.
I agree, Bush 43 did focus too much on capturing executive power. Cheney does a tremendous job of articulating why this was important.

As to the comment before on running a zero balance budget, I think this would be great if you had a serviceable debt load, which even with Clinton's surplus, we certainly didn't.

-spence

this is hilarious...take a snippet what Detbuch says and just twist up an argument against Bush...you are deranged Spence...no president has engaged in the coalescing of power in the executive branch like this current pres., and in less than one year...so far...

but who can blame Obama when his constituents worship on hand and knee at his feet and the media licks his boots till they're shiny on a hourly basis...

Did you know that if the entire congress takes the sanction of admonishment against Joe Wilson that what happens is they stand up and turn thier back to him for a brief period of time.

Nancy Pelosi could turn her back on a full room of people and turn around and find they all left the room on her.

Did you know that if the entire congress takes the sanction of admonishment against Joe Wilson that what happens is they stand up and turn thier back to him for a brief period of time.
Congress has some pretty weird procedures and traditions...

I'd note that Wilson did violate House rules with his comment. Pelosi is well within her bounds by sanctioning him.

-spence

Obama throws the lie and lier words around all the time. This side show is pathetic. He apoligized, Obama excepted end of story. Except Pelosi needs to grand stand and continue to play petty politics. She should just effin go away. She's the biggest insult to the Presidency and The Nation as a whole.

He apoligized, Obama excepted end of story. Except Pelosi needs to grand stand and continue to play petty politics.
He committed two offenses, one to the President and one to the House of Representatives of which he's an elected member of and which sponsored the President speaking before the joint session of Congress.

He violated House rules and longstanding tradition by his remarks. He was in effect saying that he was on equal ground with the President of the United States of America.

His apology was nearly a non-event. All words and no substance, in fact he used the event to gather sympathy from his peers by returning to his position after the fact, perhaps even more so.

Certainly the Dems are making a political calculation by serving this rebuke, but there's no argument that they are fully within their bounds by doing so.

Of course, you think the burden is on Pelosi and not Wilson who's lapse of judgment started this affair. And I thought Republicans were about personal responsibility!

-spence

christ he apologized!
and second this was NOT a national address, it was the president ADRESSING congress. KNow your history, there have been fights and insults flying in congress for decades.
And Spence, the absolute KING of the lame apology is Obama. How many has he already done?

He committed two offenses, one to the President and one to the House of Representatives of which he's an elected member of and which sponsored the President speaking before the joint session of Congress.

He violated House rules and longstanding tradition by his remarks. He was in effect saying that he was on equal ground with the President of the United States of America.

His apology was nearly a non-event. All words and no substance, in fact he used the event to gather sympathy from his peers by returning to his position after the fact, perhaps even more so.

Certainly the Dems are making a political calculation by serving this rebuke, but there's no argument that they are fully within their bounds by doing so.

Of course, you think the burden is on Pelosi and not Wilson who's lapse of judgment started this affair. And I thought Republicans were about personal responsibility!

-spence

So the same standard should have been applied to Pete Stark when he accused Bush of being a liar and also disrupted the House during the 2007 SCHIP debate. The difference was that he refued to apologize and the Dems didn't call for one from him. Pelosi did call his comments "inapproriate", which is a far cry from how she responded to Wilson's comment.
Here is what Pelosi had to say about Stark.

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand,..."

Spence, your defense of the Dems is usually a lot like Wilson's apology - "All words and no substance".

Now I'll just wait for your convoluted, doublespeak excuses why Wilson is such a bad guy and the Dems that do the same thing are salt of the earth servants of the people of the US.

He committed two offenses, one to the President and one to the House of Representatives of which he's an elected member of and which sponsored the President speaking before the joint session of Congress.

He violated House rules and longstanding tradition by his remarks. He was in effect saying that he was on equal ground with the President of the United States of America.

His apology was nearly a non-event. All words and no substance, in fact he used the event to gather sympathy from his peers by returning to his position after the fact, perhaps even more so.

Certainly the Dems are making a political calculation by serving this rebuke, but there's no argument that they are fully within their bounds by doing so.

Of course, you think the burden is on Pelosi and not Wilson who's lapse of judgment started this affair. And I thought Republicans were about personal responsibility!

-spence

right, he's being railroaded for being honest, what happened to the freedom of speech agument that the left throws out whenever they attack? this is not his employer's rules or the rules of a private entity..."Congress shall make no law respecting ..... or abridging the freedom of speech, , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
I think he was petitioning Obama for a redress of grievences, namely, Obama is a lying sack of sh$#.....

Obam has been pissing on "traditions" for a year now, wanna make a list???....Pelosi can kiss my a%$.....

I agree, Bush 43 did focus too much on capturing executive power. Cheney does a tremendous job of articulating why this was important.-spence

Actually, Presidential power has grown almost from the beginning. Certainly Pres power grew greatly under FDR. As well under Lincoln. "Emergencies" and "crises" are always ripe times for power grabbing, not only by the executive branch from the legislative, but by all branches of government from the people (private sector). As we are seeing in this current administration.

His apology was nearly a non-event. All words and no substance, in fact he used the event to gather sympathy from his peers by returning to his position after the fact, perhaps even more so.

I am not sure what a near non-event is, but his apology was eventful, to the point, and to the person who accepted it. As for his insult to House rules, his calculated refusal not to "apologize" is no more political than Pelosi's call to censure him.

Certainly the Dems are making a political calculation by serving this rebuke, but there's no argument that they are fully within their bounds by doing so-spence

And Wilson is fully within his bounds to let them politic. It may all the more endear him to his constituency. It seems that he has more than doubled the inflow of campaign money compared to his rival since the insult to congress.

Wasting a day in session over this shows the hypocrisy of the Dems. IMO this will and has backfired on them. They are stupid beyond the voters that put them in office.

Obamas speach was a rally, not an address. He used that rally to once again blame Bush. That continues to be a much larger disgrace to the Nation.

Actually, Presidential power has grown almost from the beginning. Certainly Pres power grew greatly under FDR. As well under Lincoln. "Emergencies" and "crises" are always ripe times for power grabbing, not only by the executive branch from the legislative, but by all branches of government from the people (private sector). As we are seeing in this current administration.

Absolutely, every thing under Obama, except maybe for the banking problem, has been a fear mongering Emergency.
He knows exactly what he's doing.
It's turning out that the deep recession which required the Emergency stimulus/pork bill, according to Obama,seems to be a cyclical recession, which lasts the normal 6 to 18 months.