or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's Joint Session on Healthcare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's Joint Session on Healthcare - Page 5

post #161 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

Guess the name of the president mentioned in this quote!

What does that say about the people who voted for the bill?

You know much has been made about what a dope W was, and yet nothing about anyone that went along with his plans and proposals (including a fair number of Democrats...including, in some cases...this one included, the current president).
post #162 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

What does that say about the people who voted for the bill?

You know much has been made about what a dope W was, and yet nothing about anyone that went along with his plans and proposals (including a fair number of Democrats...including, in some cases...this one included, the current president).

Sure they have and it's been discussed here at great length. Especially about Iraq. The fact of the matter is you want to believe the president knows what he/she is doing and is up to the task of the job. I never thought this of Bush but plenty of people did much to their later surprise or shame.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #163 of 190
Just stopped by to drop this quote off. I'm part of that 80%, but also part of the half that aren't sure if we'll get the right plan in place. Unfortunately I don't have all the answers, unlike some people on the board who think they do.

Quote:
Sept. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Americans overwhelmingly approve of President Barack Obamas goals for remaking the U.S. health- care system even as they express skepticism he can achieve them, according to a Bloomberg News poll.

More than 8 out of 10 people support covering the uninsured, curbing costs, creating an insurance-purchasing exchange, and preventing insurers from dropping coverage or refusing to accept people with preexisting medical conditions. Majorities say employers should have to offer insurance and individuals should be required to have coverage.

Americans are less sure of the plan as a whole. At least half say they dont think Obama can fulfill promises such as passing legislation that doesnt add to the federal budget deficit, preserving the Medicare trust fund and producing savings to help pay for drugs for Medicare patients.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #164 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Just stopped by to drop this quote off. I'm part of that 80%, but also part of the half that aren't sure if we'll get the right plan in place. Unfortunately I don't have all the answers, unlike some people on the board who think they do.

This is excellent news. It means the populous is finally realizing healthcare reform is not optional and have sorted through the bullshit, lies and distortions of the lunatic fringe and Fox Noise Channel. Even though it is sad to see that some in this forum have not had the vision to see this.

Now we can have a meaningful discussion about HOW do to it. Like so many luminaries have said, the answer in healthcare reform will dictate who we want to become as a nation. But the details will dictate how much of the costs will be reigned in.
post #165 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

This is excellent news. It means the populous is finally realizing healthcare reform is not optional

I, for one, agree 100% that reform is necessary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Now we can have a meaningful discussion about HOW do to it.

But this is where the hang up is. Of late the discussions have been centered around how racist you are or how much you hate Barack Obama or hate poor people or how much of an idiot you are because you oppose a certain reform proposal. If we can move beyond that, then good. Color me skeptical though because the "if you oppose Obama you're racist" fire just had some new gasoline thrown onto it.
post #166 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So the process was broken when Bush "stole" the election. Now it is broken when the Democratics win elections including the presidency and and both houses of Congress.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps when things keep going in a manner contrary to what you want that perhaps it isn't a fring minority but the majority?

Obama told a bunch of lies and got elected on them. People expect him to keep his word and when he doesn't, they push back because they want the promises not what has arrived. In fact if you look back at posts from that time, I said Obama would essentually be no different from Bush and that is why I spent an entire thread looking at this from a generational angle. It isn't a Democrat or Republican thing. It is a boomer thing.

Well, first, I can't tell a Republican position on any given subject from one day to the next. Those positions change as quickly as the polls do. If there's a crazy nut theory out there, you'll bet there's a Republican congressman or Senator who's willing to parrot it if he thinks the "cool kids" will like him.

But that's besides the point. These loud mouthed nut jobs on the right are just as insane and stupid as the loud mouthed nut jobs on the left. However, one cannot help but notice that the GOP embraces their nut jobs and Democrats are forced to reject theirs. But whatever, I guess that's just all politics.

And, and as predicted, you do have to admit that there's an amazing level of whiplash flip-flopping with Republicans.

You guys were against Nazi propaganda before you were for it.
You guys were against demonstration rallies before you were for them.
You guys were against fiscal responsibility before you were for it.
You guys were against presidential criticism before you were for it.
You guys were for presidential Czars under Bush before you were against them.
You guys were for the Afghanistan war before you were against it.
You guys were for increased presidential powers before you were against it.
You guys were for letting elected officials do their jobs before you were against them.

Is there ANY fundamental conservative tenant that you guys won't betray just to make a political pot shot or two?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #167 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Just stopped by to drop this quote off. I'm part of that 80%, but also part of the half that aren't sure if we'll get the right plan in place. Unfortunately I don't have all the answers, unlike some people on the board who think they do.

80% of polled support utopia. News at 11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Well, first, I can't tell a Republican position on any given subject from one day to the next. Those positions change as quickly as the polls do. If there's a crazy nut theory out there, you'll bet there's a Republican congressman or Senator who's willing to parrot it if he thinks the "cool kids" will like him.

But that's besides the point. These loud mouthed nut jobs on the right are just as insane and stupid as the loud mouthed nut jobs on the left. However, one cannot help but notice that the GOP embraces their nut jobs and Democrats are forced to reject theirs. But whatever, I guess that's just all politics.

And, and as predicted, you do have to admit that there's an amazing level of whiplash flip-flopping with Republicans.

You guys were against Nazi propaganda before you were for it.
You guys were against demonstration rallies before you were for them.
You guys were against fiscal responsibility before you were for it.
You guys were against presidential criticism before you were for it.
You guys were for presidential Czars under Bush before you were against them.
You guys were for the Afghanistan war before you were against it.
You guys were for increased presidential powers before you were against it.
You guys were for letting elected officials do their jobs before you were against them.

Is there ANY fundamental conservative tenant that you guys won't betray just to make a political pot shot or two?

Perhaps if the brush were not so broad, one could realize that there are factions within each party that support and oppose a multitude of views. Sort of like how Democrats were for the war before they were against and now are for it again.

Oh wait... maybe it isn't that simple.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #168 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Perhaps if the brush were not so broad, one could realize that there are factions within each party that support and oppose a multitude of views. Sort of like how Democrats were for the war before they were against and now are for it again.

Oh wait... maybe it isn't that simple.

Yeah, I know. People like to parrot polls that support their position. Kinda like you do all the time. Shocker! But I digress.

Let me narrow my brush a little.... that list of flip-flops actually pertains to YOU! And you are, in my mind, the quintessential Republican political sportsman. And like most Republicans these days, that sportsmanship is what defines your movement and party.

My observation is that you are more concerned about "opposing" than agreeing. This isn't new, of course. This newer "obfuscate at all costs" conservative ideology has been brewing for about 15 years and has come to a full peak. It shouldn't come as a surprise that liberals and Democrats have had to respond with like-minded rhetoric and assaults. [Let's be real here - this hyper partisanship started with the impeachment of Clinton for political purposes -- and not for some phony baloney "he lied" bullshit - because if that were the true reason then we'd have to impeach all them.]

And to be really honest, the "but but but liberals did it..." excuse is really fucking lame and kind of a pussy way out. And liberals who do it should be called out as dick-less betrayers too. Because it seems to me I'm one of the only liberals on this board that's actually calling you and your like-minded brethren out on your betrayal of your own positions.

To put a finer point on all of this -- if you were to tell me the sun were shining outside I'd go to a window to double-check before taking your word for it. Because at this point when can we really tell that our outrage is real and sincere?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #169 of 190
We want to take down Obama so we can replace him with, UmmmH? Palin, yeah Palin, Ummmm or maybe, Rush yeah go Rush, ooops maybe not really the greatest thing, ummm, OReilly, yeah, OReilly hurray bravissimo, he will fix health care for sure!! and make great deals with the arabs, hurray, ooops there is off chace he is not leader material, let's go with Hannity, yeah Hannity he is the dude....! Boner, that guy is the saviour, yeah we are it. Let's take him down!!
I forgot Joe Wilson a true soldier serves his country with honor! Yeah go Joe!!
post #170 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Yeah, I know. People like to parrot polls that support their position. Kinda like you do all the time. Shocker! But I digress.

Let me narrow my brush a little.... that list of flip-flops actually pertains to YOU! And you are, in my mind, the quintessential Republican political sportsman. And like most Republicans these days, that sportsmanship is what defines your movement and party.

My observation is that you are more concerned about "opposing" than agreeing. This isn't new, of course. This newer "obfuscate at all costs" conservative ideology has been brewing for about 15 years and has come to a full peak. It shouldn't come as a surprise that liberals and Democrats have had to respond with like-minded rhetoric and assaults. [Let's be real here - this hyper partisanship started with the impeachment of Clinton for political purposes -- and not for some phony baloney "he lied" bullshit - because if that were the true reason then we'd have to impeach all them.]

And to be really honest, the "but but but liberals did it..." excuse is really fucking lame and kind of a pussy way out. And liberals who do it should be called out as dick-less betrayers too. Because it seems to me I'm one of the only liberals on this board that's actually calling you and your like-minded brethren out on your betrayal of your own positions.

To put a finer point on all of this -- if you were to tell me the sun were shining outside I'd go to a window to double-check before taking your word for it. Because at this point when can we really tell that our outrage is real and sincere?

Hyper-partisanship started well before Clinton. It has been a common trait of boomers. I would be most likely to pin the start of it on the airing of the Daisy ad.

As for claiming that moral equivalence isn't an appropriate defense, you are right that it isn't in a perfect world. However this world isn't perfect. Likewise holding to a set of principles or allowing opposition to attempt to do that to you when they either don't believe in them or would never support them is just silly.

People agree to have a nice little fist fight and someone pulls a knife out. Guess what, having your headstone say you were principled to the end while getting gutted doesn't do a person much good.

The reality is that Democrats keep tossing the rule book out for some short term gains and they get really pissed when it comes back to bite them in the ass. They are the ones pulling the knife and then getting pissed when someone else pulls out a knife or something even bigger.

You look into the history of these things and it is always about Democrats fucking over Republicans and later screwing themselves over. Franken needing his certificate, Kennedy not having a successor appointed, you name it.

The Democrats are getting ready to do it again. Republicans preserved the veto and now Democrats of course hate it. They are going to end it by trying to do health care via reconciliation. Watch that happen and then imagine the next time Republicans control the Senate.

Hell don't imagine it, COUNT on it. Imagine a future Republican House with a future Republican president and a nice Republican Senate where now it is fine to pass major legislation via reconciliation.

Watch Democrats shoot themselves in the head again.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #171 of 190
Republicans had full control of everything in the early oughts and they used reconciliation ALL THE TIME! Republicans ruled during that first term with an iron fist. To imply otherwise is dishonest.

I'm also glad to see that you've reserved the right to a double-standard all for yourself. The fact that you consider the job of running this country as a "knife fight" say a lot.

But that's not what's most disturbing about your attempt at an explanation. Your explanation flies in the face of the basic tenets of conservatism. You yourself have gone on tirelessly around here about how being "a decider" makes you strong. Sticking to your convictions and not backing down is the true American spirit. Remember "stay the course"? Remember when you guys laughed, mocked and ridiculed the notion of "nuance" as being weak and French like? Remember when you guys proudly put Bush on your shoulder for being unwilling to change a position? Remember your chants at Kerry for being a "flip flopper"?

Was any of that shit real? Or were you guys all full of shit back then?

Is Nazi propaganda abhorrent to you or not?
Are political demonstrations repugnant to you or not?
Are you for increased presidential power or are you not?
Are you for the Afghanistan war or are you not?

These are really easy questions to answer.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #172 of 190
For those who are all for using reconciliaton on this. Senator Byrd had something to do with why they should not use it in this case.

Quote:
The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule
Further information: Reconciliation (U.S. Congress)

The Congressional Budget Act governs the role of Congress in the budget process. Among other provisions, it affects Senate rules of debate during the budget reconciliation, not least by preventing the use of the filibuster against the budget resolutions. The Byrd rule, named after its principal sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to modify the Budget Act and is contained in section 313.[2] The rule allows Senators to raise a point of order against any provision held to be extraneous, where extraneous is defined according to one of several criteria.[3] The definition of extraneous includes provisions that are outside the jurisdiction of the committee or that do not affect revenues nor outlays.

Importantly for sunset provisions, the Byrd Rule also defines as extraneous provisions that "would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure." Since the Budget Act states that the reconciliation measure covers the next ten years, this rule has the effect of allowing a point of order to be raised against any spending increase or tax cut that does not contain a sunset provision ending it after ten years. (Otherwise, the provision would increase the deficit in a fiscal year more than ten years hence.) Overcoming a point of order requires cloture, and thus a three-fifths majority of 60 in the Senate. In short, a net effect of the Byrd Rule is to require that any spending increase or tax cut be approved by a majority of 60 if it does not contain a sunset provision of ten years. With the sunset provision, only a simple majority is necessary in the budget reconciliation process.

10 years sunset or proof that it will not negatively impact the budget 10 years from now. To claim that this is known not to impact the budget or that this is not a spending increase by the federal government, I believe is false.

They need to pass it with the full 3/5 votes otherwise. It seems to me that by rules put in place by a democrat, they cannot use the reconciliation system. Do it right, or don't do it at all. It is wrong when the republicans do it, it is wrong when the democrats do it. Period.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #173 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

To claim that this is known not to impact the budget or that this is not a spending increase by the federal government, I believe is false.

Senate’s 10-year health fix would cost $856B
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32872749...h_care_reform/
Quote:
The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees charged to insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.
post #174 of 190
When it began, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated it would cost $12 billion by 1990 (adjusting for inflation). In 1990 Medicare cost $107 billion.
post #175 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Republicans had full control of everything in the early oughts and they used reconciliation ALL THE TIME! Republicans ruled during that first term with an iron fist. To imply otherwise is dishonest.

No duh they used reconciliation. It is a standard operating procedure of the Senate. As NoahJ pointed out there are rules that govern the use of it though and they are about to get tossed.

Quote:
I'm also glad to see that you've reserved the right to a double-standard all for yourself. The fact that you consider the job of running this country as a "knife fight" say a lot.

Save your false outrage for someone who cares. I've never claimed an exclusive right to anything and as is always the case for liberals, your false offense is laughable. The words "knife fight" would be the most tame thing you would have posted in the last two months and you act all offended. Please save it.

Quote:
But that's not what's most disturbing about your attempt at an explanation. Your explanation flies in the face of the basic tenets of conservatism. You yourself have gone on tirelessly around here about how being "a decider" makes you strong. Sticking to your convictions and not backing down is the true American spirit. Remember "stay the course"? Remember when you guys laughed, mocked and ridiculed the notion of "nuance" as being weak and French like? Remember when you guys proudly put Bush on your shoulder for being unwilling to change a position? Remember your chants at Kerry for being a "flip flopper"?Was any of that shit real? Or were you guys all full of shit back then?

What I find most disturbing about liberals and their thinking is the increasing lack of ability to set boundaries or categorize thinking. Everyone is becoming some big cartoon target to them. See I have no idea what the hell your rant above is about. It consists of one part what I believe, about ten parts caricatures of conservatives, and then a few outlier that you want to lump in with that broadbrush of yours.

They all become the same target for you to hate and that is genuinely disturbing and sad.

The correct answer to the strange attempts at reasoning above is that being popular doesn't make something right and if you decide to stick within even as public sentiment turns on you, then reality will determine if it is right or wrong, not being popular.

I've been very consistent on this with Obama as well noting that he is doing things wrong even when they are at times, popular. I'll never endorse being popular making something right because it is a logical fallacy. If 80% supported or 80% opposed an Obama action, I'll still state and keep my view on it the same based off reason, not who's team is winning or popular. The whole second half of that paragraph I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps the meds are making you blend everything together.

Quote:
Is Nazi propaganda abhorrent to you or not?
Are political demonstrations repugnant to you or not?
Are you for increased presidential power or are you not?
Are you for the Afghanistan war or are you not?

All propaganda is abhorrent to me. It doesn't have to be done by Nazi's.

Now as for yourself, liberal propaganda is just fine, and conservative propaganda in return would be proof they are evil, greedy racists.

In terms of political speech though, I've stated no spending limits, full disclosure. George Will articulates that well and I've linked to him several times abotu that.

No political demonstration is repugnant to me. When someone links to a sign at one and paints with their broad brush, I'll link to a similar picture from their own view and laugh at the lame reason spent trying to justify it. The reasoning isn't mine though and I am merely hoisting them on their own petard.

I'm not for increased presidential power unless it is used to roll back government power overall. Our government needs to get the hell out of hundreds of areas.

As for the Afghanistan war, I've stated that as a paleocon, I am not in favor of being the world's cop. I've stated I do not endorse Pax Americana and believe we should end it. That said if you are going to go through all that nonsense you can't do it halfway and you don't lay troops in harms way for political convenience. You don't vote against armor while debating if they should be there for example.

Reconciliation has real rules. It isn't spin. Health care is going to cost real huge amounts of money and most of it will be tax increases on younger folks who will be mandated to buy insure to cover their aging boomer parents who don't have a dime to their name. Instead of saving for their first house, they can pay for insurance when they don't need it some Grandma's Medicare goes broke a little more slowly.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #176 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

I forgot Joe Wilson a true soldier serves his country with honor! Yeah go Joe!!

Bummer Wilson is out too, he even lied about being and "Immigration Attorney"
post #177 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

Bummer Wilson is out too, he even lied about being and "Immigration Attorney"

There is no evidence that it was a lie or not. This is just speculation. Not Fact. However, if he did lie I am sure we will know with a high level of surety soon.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #178 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No duh they used reconciliation. It is a standard operating procedure of the Senate. As NoahJ pointed out there are rules that govern the use of it though and they are about to get tossed.



Save your false outrage for someone who cares. I've never claimed an exclusive right to anything and as is always the case for liberals, your false offense is laughable. The words "knife fight" would be the most tame thing you would have posted in the last two months and you act all offended. Please save it.



What I find most disturbing about liberals and their thinking is the increasing lack of ability to set boundaries or categorize thinking. Everyone is becoming some big cartoon target to them. See I have no idea what the hell your rant above is about. It consists of one part what I believe, about ten parts caricatures of conservatives, and then a few outlier that you want to lump in with that broadbrush of yours.

They all become the same target for you to hate and that is genuinely disturbing and sad.

The correct answer to the strange attempts at reasoning above is that being popular doesn't make something right and if you decide to stick within even as public sentiment turns on you, then reality will determine if it is right or wrong, not being popular.

I've been very consistent on this with Obama as well noting that he is doing things wrong even when they are at times, popular. I'll never endorse being popular making something right because it is a logical fallacy. If 80% supported or 80% opposed an Obama action, I'll still state and keep my view on it the same based off reason, not who's team is winning or popular. The whole second half of that paragraph I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps the meds are making you blend everything together.



All propaganda is abhorrent to me. It doesn't have to be done by Nazi's.

Now as for yourself, liberal propaganda is just fine, and conservative propaganda in return would be proof they are evil, greedy racists.

In terms of political speech though, I've stated no spending limits, full disclosure. George Will articulates that well and I've linked to him several times abotu that.

No political demonstration is repugnant to me. When someone links to a sign at one and paints with their broad brush, I'll link to a similar picture from their own view and laugh at the lame reason spent trying to justify it. The reasoning isn't mine though and I am merely hoisting them on their own petard.

I'm not for increased presidential power unless it is used to roll back government power overall. Our government needs to get the hell out of hundreds of areas.

As for the Afghanistan war, I've stated that as a paleocon, I am not in favor of being the world's cop. I've stated I do not endorse Pax Americana and believe we should end it. That said if you are going to go through all that nonsense you can't do it halfway and you don't lay troops in harms way for political convenience. You don't vote against armor while debating if they should be there for example.

Reconciliation has real rules. It isn't spin. Health care is going to cost real huge amounts of money and most of it will be tax increases on younger folks who will be mandated to buy insure to cover their aging boomer parents who don't have a dime to their name. Instead of saving for their first house, they can pay for insurance when they don't need it some Grandma's Medicare goes broke a little more slowly.

Wow. The box you like to keep liberals in is tiny compared to a mansion's worth of wiggle room you reserve for yourself.

Your post is so rich with hypocrisy and double-standards I don't even know where to begin.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #179 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

There is no evidence that it was a lie or not.

Well, he's a lawyer and he created immigration law (S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) as a Representative in 2008...not sure if that's his particular claim to fame, but it is what it is.
Quote:
Summary: -Applies United States immigration laws and immigration-related labor laws to the Northern Mariana Islands (Sec. 702)

In fact, here's his contribution for several immigration laws...

02/13/2009\t2009 Economic Package
01/28/2009\t2009 Economic Package
04/29/2008\tConsolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
12/17/2007\tInclusion of Consolidated Appropriations
06/15/2007\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations
09/29/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2007
09/21/2006\tImmigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
09/14/2006\tSecure Fence Act of 2006
06/13/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
06/06/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriation Act, 2007
03/16/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
H2/16/2005\tBorder Security bill
02/10/2005\tReal ID Act of 2005
05/18/2004\tUndocumented Immigrant Emergency Medical Assistance
post #180 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

There is no evidence that it was a lie or not. This is just speculation. Not Fact. However, if he did lie I am sure we will know with a high level of surety soon.

Speculation supported by the bar association of immigration attorneys who has no record of Joe Wilson ever practicing immigration law.

Since legal cases are public record there should be easily accessible evidence of Mr. Wilson immigration law case history. However any searches I have tried have not produced a single court document filed by Mr. Wilson.

(I found my own small claims case from 2001...)
post #181 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Wow. The box you like to keep liberals in is tiny compared to a mansion's worth of wiggle room you reserve for yourself.

Your post is so rich with hypocrisy and double-standards I don't even know where to begin.

Thanks for the opinions and attacks while ignoring the subject. Speaking of ignoring, go there for a while until you learn to do more than spew accusations.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #182 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Well, he's a lawyer and he created immigration law (S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) as a Representative in 2008...not sure if that's his particular claim to fame, but it is what it is.In fact, here's his contribution for several immigration laws...

02/13/2009\t2009 Economic Package
01/28/2009\t2009 Economic Package
04/29/2008\tConsolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
12/17/2007\tInclusion of Consolidated Appropriations
06/15/2007\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations
09/29/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2007
09/21/2006\tImmigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
09/14/2006\tSecure Fence Act of 2006
06/13/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
06/06/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriation Act, 2007
03/16/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
H2/16/2005\tBorder Security bill
02/10/2005\tReal ID Act of 2005
05/18/2004\tUndocumented Immigrant Emergency Medical Assistance

Really?

Being a US congressman involved with immigration legislation makes someone "an immigration attorney"?



On the first bill you mentioned, Google led me to several summaries including this
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2739
none of which mention any contribution whatsoever by Wilson.

As for the rest of the list - what was his involvement? That he VOTED on the bills?

So the standards are now that any member of congress with a law degree who voted on bills are now immigration attorneys?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #183 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Well, he's a lawyer and he created immigration law (S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) as a Representative in 2008...not sure if that's his particular claim to fame, but it is what it is.

After looking around a bit it actually looks like he voted no on that particular law. Is that the one you really meant to bring up?
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...e/2/votes/226/
Quote:
In fact, here's his contribution for several immigration laws...

02/13/2009\t2009 Economic Package
01/28/2009\t2009 Economic Package
04/29/2008\tConsolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
12/17/2007\tInclusion of Consolidated Appropriations
06/15/2007\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations
09/29/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2007
09/21/2006\tImmigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
09/14/2006\tSecure Fence Act of 2006
06/13/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
06/06/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriation Act, 2007
03/16/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
H2/16/2005\tBorder Security bill
02/10/2005\tReal ID Act of 2005
05/18/2004\tUndocumented Immigrant Emergency Medical Assistance

I have no comment on these, not going to look them all up.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #184 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

Speculation supported by the bar association of immigration attorneys who has no record of Joe Wilson ever practicing immigration law.

Since legal cases are public record there should be easily accessible evidence of Mr. Wilson immigration law case history. However any searches I have tried have not produced a single court document filed by Mr. Wilson.

(I found my own small claims case from 2001...)

All of it is still speculation until a final decision is reached. There will be other research done and by the end of it all there will be a definitive answer, not just a few Google searches and some calls to their buddies in the bar association. He has brought a lot of attention to himself, now we will see if he can stand up to the scrutiny. I hope for his sake he was not lying, or enhancing the truth in regards to this, otherwise there are those who will ensure that it hurts.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #185 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Thanks for the opinions and attacks while ignoring the subject. Speaking of ignoring, go there for a while until you learn to do more than spew accusations.

I learn from the best, bub.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #186 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

[B]Really? So the standards are now that any member of congress with a law degree who voted on bills are now immigration attorneys?

I know, right? I guess by those standards Al Gore really did invent the internet!!!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #187 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I know, right? I guess by those standards Al Gore really did invent the internet!!!

More than that, even.... he has to be credited as a secret co-founder of Yahoo!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #188 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

More than that, even.... he has to be credited as a secret co-founder of Yahoo!

"It is what it is" - That's what I found when I looked up Joe Wilson and Immigration. I have no idea how much of a contribution was made, but there is some sort of connection between the two, and I looked no further and didn't claim any more than "it is what it is".
post #189 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

"It is what it is" - That's what I found when I looked up Joe Wilson and Immigration. I have no idea how much of a contribution was made, but there is some sort of connection between the two, and I looked no further and didn't claim any more than "it is what it is".

Nothing.
post #190 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

"It is what it is" - That's what I found when I looked up Joe Wilson and Immigration. I have no idea how much of a contribution was made, but there is some sort of connection between the two, and I looked no further and didn't claim any more than "it is what it is".

Looked up Joe Wilson and immigration.... where?

I guess it was not by accident that you failed to attribute your source for posting:

Quote:
he created immigration law (S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) as a Representative in 2008.

which has been demonstrated to be completely false.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's Joint Session on Healthcare