• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House plans to admonish Rep. Wilson over insult

Re: Wilson Faces House Vote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "has agreed the House s

I am not conflicted about it, I don't care if the politics of it are bad or good; censuring is the right thing to do.
You just want this to help your guy win an election, nothing more.
 
Re: Wilson Faces House Vote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "has agreed the House s

You just want this to help your guy win an election, nothing more.


You're wrong. As several people have noted, it may 'politically' not be in the best interests of the Democrats to pursue it. However, it IS the right thing to do.
 
There's nothing to say that save wasn't ever going to be in the bill to begin with.

Only the FACTS.

The provisions were out when he made his false claim.
 
Only the FACTS.

The provisions were out when he made his false claim.

I wasn't aware that a finalized bill ever made it out of committee for you to determine save was ever out of the bill. Again until the bill was finalized and voted out of the committee you have nothing but speculation and drafts.

Again since you avoided the question how exactly is save going to stop illegals from getting treatment and having us pay for it?
 
I wasn't aware that a finalized bill ever made it out of committee for you to determine save was ever out of the bill.

The bill had a current status at the time he spoke of it.

At that time, no SAVE provisions.

So if you make the claim the bill will deny care / benefits to illegals, at that time, you are lying, as you know there is no enforcement mechanism.

Getting caught in his lie is the only reason the provisions were put back in, and anyone with sense knows it.
 
The bill had a current status at the time he spoke of it.

At that time, no SAVE provisions.

So if you make the claim the bill will deny care / benefits to illegals, at that time, you are lying, as you know there is no enforcement mechanism.

Getting caught in his lie is the only reason the provisions were put back in, and anyone with sense knows it.

Current status? Ha. Move that goalpost. Again until it came out of committee it was a draft so there's no saying what would have been put in or taken out. He didn't make a claim that nothing in the draft will he said in the bill. So again he's making a comment on what would be the finalized bill.

Again you avoid the question how exactly would save stop illegals from getting coverage?
 
Current status? Ha. Move that goalpost.

I am not moving anything.

The bill he was talking about, when he was talking about it, had had the SAVE provisions voted off.

The fact that he got caught in his lie is the only reason the administration caved and added the provisions.
 
Again you avoid the question how exactly would save stop illegals from getting coverage?

I'm not avoiding anything, and if you want to educate yourself on the SAVE program, I'll help get ya started . . .

USCIS - SAVE
 
I am not moving anything.

The bill he was talking about, when he was talking about it, had had the SAVE provisions voted off.

The fact that he got caught in his lie is the only reason the administration caved and added the provisions.

There is no bill we have a draft of a bill. Until it comes out of committee we have no bill. He stated that illegal immigrants will not be covered. Future tense. So again your argument is moot as there's nothing to say SAVE wouldn't have been in the finalized bill
 
There is no bill we have a draft of a bill.

Who is moving the goal posts now ?

I don't care what you want to rename it.

The FACT is , the SAVE provisions had been voted off of, THE THING, Obama was making claims about, at the time he made the claims.
 
I'm not avoiding anything, and if you want to educate yourself on the SAVE program, I'll help get ya started . . .

USCIS - SAVE

I wanted your thoughts. So again how does SAVE countermand federal law that states that all who enter the emergency room must be treated. Which the argument you were making as to how when a bill says it doesn't cover something that somehow it does.
 
I wanted your thoughts. So again how does SAVE countermand federal law that states that all who enter the emergency room must be treated.

Will you pay me to proctor your lesson ?

SAVE monitors who will recieve benefits form federal entitlement programs.

The law mandating ER care regardless of citizenship, is not a federal entitlement program.
 
Who is moving the goal posts now ?

I don't care what you want to rename it.

The FACT is , the SAVE provisions had been voted off of, THE THING, Obama was making claims about, at the time he made the claims.

You are. I'm stating the facts here about what's realistic. Voted off? The bill hasn't even been voted out of committee much less voted on. I assume you have the names of the yay and nay votes for the save provision that was "voted off". Obama said that the bill will not. Again future tense. You wanted to play word semantics so using your logic he wasn't talking about the draft
 
Will you pay me to proctor your lesson ?

SAVE monitors who will recieve benefits form federal entitlement programs.

The law mandating ER care regardless of citizenship, is not a federal entitlement program.

Other than the fact that those who can't pay get it for free so again I'm asking you how exactly will save countermand law? Anyone smart enough to beat the system as you seem to claim they will do en masse will be smart enough to beat save. So even save, according to your logic, will allow illegals to get coverage
 
You are. I'm stating the facts here about what's realistic. Voted off? The bill hasn't even been voted out of committee much less voted on.

It is not my job to educate you on how the amendment process works.

Your attempt to claim that one cannot lie about the current state of A THING, is simply your semantic falsehood.
 
Other than the fact that those who can't pay get it for free so again I'm asking you how exactly will save countermand law? Anyone smart enough to beat the system as you seem to claim they will do en masse will be smart enough to beat save. So even save, according to your logic, will allow illegals to get coverage

Do your own homework regarding SAVE.

And refrain from making up faulty logic and then creditting it to me.
 
It is not my job to educate you on how the amendment process works.

Your attempt to claim that one cannot lie about the current state of A THING, is simply your semantic falsehood.

No you're saying he was lying about the present after playing word games using your same word games he said people say it would insure illegal immigrants. Once again future tense. Otherwise he would have said that people say it does insure. See the difference? Do I have to school you on the english language? You're the one playing semantics and moving the goalposts
 
Do your own homework regarding SAVE.

And refrain from making up faulty logic and then creditting it to me.

You seem to know all about save why can't you answer my question? You want me to do your homework for you. You make a statement, act as if save will make a difference then won't back it up
 
No you're saying he was lying about the present after playing word games

You are playing the games.

The THING Obama was talking about, did not have the SAVE provisons in it, at the time Obama was making the claim.

Everything else, is you running away from that fact.
 
pounding you flatter than unborn origami

You seem to know all about save why can't you answer my question? You want me to do your homework for you. You make a statement, act as if save will make a difference then won't back it up

The website backs it up, I don't need to.

You are getting whipped so bad, you are trying to make the point that some illegals might manage to cheat their way around SAVE.

Some people will get away with speeding too. Should we repeal speed limits ?
 
You are playing the games.

The THING Obama was talking about, did not have the SAVE provisons in it, at the time Obama was making the claim.

Everything else, is you running away from that fact.

You don't know the thing he was talking about as there is no final bill. Again the senate finance committee has been working on a bill and so any guesses as to what is actually going to be in it before it gets out of committee would be just as stupid as those thinking Obama was going to indoctrinate our kids during his school speech before he gave it. You seem to avoid the fact he was speaking in the future tense.
 
You don't know the thing he was talking about as there is no final bill.

Simply False.

The THING Obama was talking about, was the current version of the bill, and he made a claim about that current version, that was a falsehood.

The farther you go to defend this falsehood, the worse you and Obama look.
 
Re: pounding you flatter than unborn origami

The website backs it up, I don't need to.

You are getting whipped so bad, you are trying to make the point that some illegals might manage to cheat their way around SAVE.

Some people will get away with speeding too. Should we repeal speed limits ?

So in other words you can't back up what you say. That seems to be your idea about the draft that we should just not stop it because some people will get away even though the draft stated that noncitizens will not be covered. Again the point you're arguing is now contradicting you
 
Back
Top Bottom