that you and MoDo both "heard" a non-existent "Boy!" says far more about both 'a ya'll than it does about Wilson, or, for that matter, Obama.
This is the problem with government they waste their time on stupid crap like this instead of actually solving problem.. The American people voted in the democrats for a change, but it seems the democrats and republicans are pretty much the same.
What does it say about you when you hear non-existent disdain for special needs children, repeatedly? Psychotic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection [rquoter] In classical psychology projection is always seen as a defense mechanism that occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else. ... Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. [/rquoter]
I would like to take this opportunity to say I agree with basso for perhaps the 2nd time ever. Apparently Maureen Dowd and I can analyze the following and make a sensible conclusion. * first shout down of a president just coincidentally happens to come from congressman from South Carolina. * South Carolina was the first state to vote (and vote unanimously) for secession. * South Carolina had arguably the harshest Jim Crow laws in the nation, after Reconstruction. * current president (he who was shouted at) is coincidentally african american * said congressman has called interracial coupling a "stain" * said congressman has expressed great respect for the confederate flag and what it represents. A fairly bland analysis says that said congressman comes from a well-chronicled tradition of people who would append "..., boy!" after losing control of one's emotions and shouting "you lie!" at a black man who is speaking eloquently from a position of power. This says that Maureen Dowd and I can analyze data -- we are really pretty ****ing smart. Which is more than one can say for Joe Wilson.
<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DsGaNR9dVPM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DsGaNR9dVPM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object> that was so much different then, it's changier than that now...
Do all of these Democrats need to also be reprimanded for what they said on the House Floor? Peter DeFazio – 27 September 2006 Mr. Speaker, Medicare part D, confusing, complicated, very costly. In fact, the Bush administration lied about the cost. They had estimates that said it would cost $750 billion to $1 trillion, but they suppressed that to get votes from conservatives on their side. They said not a penny more than 400 million, and it is very costly to seniors. Representative DeFazio (OR). "Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit." Congressional Record 152: 123 (September 27, 2009) p. H7508 James McGovern – 15 November 2005 Critics of this policy strongly support reconstruction assistance for Iraq. We strongly support the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. We strongly support internationally supported security forces in Iraq. We do not support cutting and running, but we do not support lying and hiding. Mr. Bush cannot rewrite history, he cannot rewrite the intelligence again, and he cannot continue to lie to the American people. The truth, the ugly truth, is coming out. Representative McGovern (MN). "President Bush Can’t Rewrite History." Congressional Record 151: 151 (November 15, 2005) p. H10163 Lynn Woolsey – 27 September 2005 Mr. Speaker, Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested yesterday for simply exercising her constitutional right to freedom of speech outside the White House, has awoken a sleeping American public. She deserves a great deal of credit for her tireless campaign against the Bush administration's lies and abuses which have governed the war in Iraq from the very beginning. Her campaign awakened the American people to realize just how awful this war truly is. Representative Woolsey (CA). "Iraq and the March in Washington, D.C.." Congressional Record 151: 122 (September 27, 2005) p. H8378 Jerrold Nadler – 18 March 2004 Mr. Speaker, last year the Bush administration misled and systematically lied to the American people and to this Congress about the reasons why it said it was necessary to go into war with Iraq. We know that what they said about weapons of mass destruction, about nuclear weapons, about the biological weapons, we know all this was not true. The only question now is when they knew it was not true. We now learn, Mr. Speaker, that the Bush administration misled this Congress deliberately and knowingly misled this Congress as to the cost of the Medicare bill by over $140 billion. We know that they threatened the actuary with being fired if he gave truthful information to Congress. Representative Nadler (NY). "Congress Depends on Truthful Information." Congressional Record 150: 35 (March 18, 2004) p. H1233
Representative McGovern (MN). "President Bush Can’t Rewrite History." Congressional Record 151: 151 (November 15, 2005) p. H10163 Just wanted to point out there was no US Rep McGovern from MN in 2005.
If he has apologized to the President once why does he have to keep doing it .Yeah he disrepescted the office of the President but dam it's time to move on people.
So is the unspoken rule that you can accuse someone of lying, as long as they are not present? Or is it that the accusation shouldn't be made directly to the offender (i.e. its ok to say "Bush lied", but not "You lie, President Bush")? This rule seems pretty wishy washy to me. Politicians accuse or insinuate lying on the other side all the time.
Keep in mind that the rule wasn't passed until late in the 109th Congress, 2005 to 2007 so many of those comments might not have been made prior to passing the rule. Since the rule was passed by the Republican run House its likely that rule was passed because of comments like the ones you listed.
I don't know what the unspoken rule you are referring to says, but the written rule that was voted on and passed by the House was spelled out for you on the prior page.
This rule change specifically referred to Senators. The President has been off limits since 1909. See Decorum in the House an in Committees
There apparently must be an unspoken rule, because if that rule was to be taken verbatim Democrats would not have gotten away with their accusations during the Bush administration.
maybe those rules only pertain to decorum inside the House and to words addressed to the President while he's in it?
