Why does he need to apologize again? I don't see a reason. Also, what he did was absolutely nothing compared to most governments. People do that constantly in British parliament and stuff
?? threads evolve. this is a thread about Joe Wilson's lack of remorse, so um, the fact that he was dead and demonstrably WRONG in his child-like outburst is relevant to a lot of people. What facts do you dispute, or what other facts do you submit, to support the notion that Obama's statement re: illegal immigrants was a "lie!" And you have to support that it's a lie! with the exclamation mark. We need evidence that this is such a clear-cut egregious lie that it brings one to shout. To shout spontaneously against the POTUS as he speaks! Because surely the reason wasn't anything about Obama or illegal immigrants themselves. Mercy, no. Joe has no problem having a black president or illegal immigrants around, so it HAD to be that the lie was of such stupendous proportions that it led a sensible man to spontaneous shouting. Lie! Lie? Porve? You say nobody will be swayed. Why won't facts sway any of us? I can and have been swayed by facts hundreds of times. In fact, I pride myself on it. So show me how the president lied in that statement.
The best thing is to work on issues that affect the American people...What this does show is they would rather work on punitive efforts when an apology was immediate and accepted... This is stupid,...Let it go. Do something to show you are working for the people in general...Or continue a pissing exhibition and claim surprise as polls indicate declining numbers. But that is something the politicians won't hear unfortunately...
Did I miss something? Since when is an admonishment a punishment? Doesn't this simply mean, if passed, the House disapproves of what Joe Wilson has done? It's a reaction, but I wouldn't call it a punishment. If Wilson put a squirrel in his pants, for example, and the House had no rule to speak to it at all, they could vote to admonish him. Would anyone complain that it wasn't against the rules when he put the squirrel in his pants? No, it was just an embarrassment to the House and they want to formally say so. It's not like they're going to cane the guy. I believe Wilson's argument is that even though the bill says it won't cover illegal immigrants, it doesn't provide any mechanism to ensure illegal immigrants are weeded out. So, there's bound to be some illegals who will manage to sneak in.
Thanks. From FactCheck's review of the speech: Illegal Immigrants Obama said that his proposal would not cover illegal immigrants, a remark that prompted Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina to shout "You lie!" Obama: There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. The president is correct: The House bill contains a section (Sec. 246) titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS," which 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." 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." And Rep. Wilson certainly was out of bounds to call the president’s statement a "lie." He later issued a statement apologizing for his "inappropriate and regrettable" comments.
Speaking of accuracy, this was an interesting find: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServe...tion_246_is_Ineffective_vFINAL.pdf?docID=3101
I have a problem with FactCheck's conclusions. They are confirming that they citizenship won't be checked before extending entitlements. But then saying that because there are repercusions (should could include *gasp* deportation, which the illegal is already faced with) that the illegals really aren't covered. That makes no sense. If an illegal alien lies about his citizenship, he could get covered. You can put him in prison, fine him, deport him, whatever, but he still got coverage for something. I'm not arguing that we should check for citizenship to get benefits, because I don't think we should. But, it is a stretch to say Obama is unequivocally right that illegals won't be covered. It would be a better argument to say participation by illegal immigrants will be low and the benefits of not weeding them out outweigh the burdens they impose (though it doesn't make a good soundbite).
That's kind of what I was wondering. While the bill states it does require it, it seems there's a lot of dispute on how it will be enforced. That led me to a similar question: why not enforce it stringently? Why not add provisions for enforcement?
I think its fair to conclude that Wilson was out of bounds to say Obama lied. His words: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - " Is that a lie? I mean, at best, saying the reform effort will insure illegal immigrants is misleading. And depending on how one reads it, it is false. So I don't consider that a lie. And the rest: " - the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." That is not a lie. The bill explicitly says that the public option is not to be available to illegal immigrants.
Because proof of citizenship burdens fall primarily on poor folks. Think of blacks born outside of hospitals through the 1960's, of Depression era babies for who no good record exists, etc.
Is this legitimately a major issue? I have no idea so I mean this seriously. These people don't have social security numbers, etc?
howbout just have a debate 1 on 1 debate between wilson and a dem rep and discuss if illegals are covered or not
Here's some data... The Brennan Center at the NYU School of Law... Also, think how difficult it would be to prove citizenship if you don't have an address.
Some good research there and if that was the rule that existed at the time that the Democrats you mentioned made those comments then I agree they should've been admonished. I also agree that if this is a break with House tradition regarding how violations of decorum have been treated then they should just follow tradition. That said I don't see how they are creating a new rule. They are breaking with tradition regarding how the rule is enforced but that isn't the same as making a new rule.
It is a fact that he broke House decorum rules and even though bmp4516 has made a great argument regarding enforcement of that rule he still broke it and the House can enforce it. Personally I like the way the British do things and think it would be good for the President to debate Congress but that's not the way we do things here and given the separation of powers might be problematic. On a side note John McCain proposed doing just that during the last election.
Sorry for the multiple posts. The problem with that argument is that the illegal alien is defrauding the system but accusing Obama or anyone else besides the illegal alien would be essentially holding them accountable for the actions of the illegal alien. Obama doesn't know in advance that people might defraud the system and he certainly isn't intending for people to do so. Wilson certainly has an argument that the bill is so weak on enforcement that its likely that illegal aliens will get coverage from it but that is applying his own speculation to Obama. The only way Obama could be lying about that is if Obama agreed with Wilson's speculation. You logically can't accuse someone of lying about something based on your speculation about a possible future outcome.
