• 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

Voidwar said:
Is there something magical about a "draft bill" that makes it so no one can lie about what it currently contains ?
Click to expand...



obama-unicorn.jpg



Duh.. Don't you believe in hope and change?


:shock:
 
Voidwar said:
Your little stories about time machines are not an answer to the question you were asked.

Here it is again.
Click to expand...

There's nothing time machine about it. Its not my fault you don't seem to have a grasp of the english language and the meaning of words. You keep dancing around the part that would actually make his statement false that hasn't been proven yet.

No there's nothing magical about draft bills, but the fact remains he was speaking in the future tense and about things he is proposing. There's nothing to say he was speaking of what the senate was working on. Again how is his statement about his proposals not insuring illegal aliens false? How many illegal aliens have been insured by his proposals?
 
PogueMoran said:
No there's nothing magical about draft bills
Click to expand...

Oh my god you touched that question you feared so much.

So if there is nothing magical about them, then someone could lie at Time X, about what was or was not in one, at Time X, couldn't they ?
 
Voidwar said:
Oh my god you touched that question you feared so much.

So if there is nothing magical about them, then someone could lie at Time X, about what was or was not in one, at Time X, couldn't they ?
Click to expand...

I touched it the first few times you asked it but you ignored my answer. No if someone states something at time X about something in time Y X=/=Y so math as well as english isn't your forte.
 
PogueMoran said:
I touched it the first few times you asked it but you ignored my answer. No if someone states something at time X about something in time Y X=/=Y so math as well as english isn't your forte.
Click to expand...

There you are trying your Time Travel again, trying to invent and insert "Time Y".

THERE IS NO TIME Y.

This incident occured on WEDNESDAY.

There is only Time X.
 
Voidwar said:
There you are trying your Time Travel again, trying to invent and insert "Time Y".

THERE IS NO TIME Y.

This incident occured on WEDNESDAY.

There is only Time X.
Click to expand...

Yes there is time Y. Again his statement was that:
There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would (time y future tense) insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false.

If you're arguing that would insure illegal immigrants is time x then you would have proof that illegal immigrants have been insured by his proposals. Which you can't prove. So again he was speaking about something in the future and not the present. Which makes your question moot as you don't seem to understand the structure of his statement
 
PogueMoran said:
Yes there is time Y.
Click to expand...

Not in the question you were asked.

This incident occured on Wednesday.

Your attempt to insert your timetravel semantics antics is ludicrous.
 
Voidwar said:
Not in the question you were asked.

This incident occured on Wednesday.

Your attempt to insert your timetravel semantics antics is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Yeah not in the question You asked but in reality of the context of the discussion. Time travel semantics? Again you use that as if you make any sense here. In the context of what Obama said and not what you have conjured up. He was talking in time X about something that would take place in time Y. Hence the word WOULD not DOES one signifies future tense, the other signifies present tense. Also the singular case of insure when used in context with would denotes future tense.

If he was speaking about the present in the case of the bill he would be saying insures. So again you're arguing that he is lying about something that hasn't happened yet. You can keep going pretending like somehow your argument makes any lick of sense but the reality of the situation is you're arguing about something that hasn't happened.

Its rather disingenuous of you
 
Lost in all this is that Wilson was 100 percent factually accurate.

And I don't recall the respect Dems gave Bush during his speeches. Seems like it was OK then.

This is what happens when we elect an incompetent fool as president whom virtually no one respects.
 
Erod said:
Lost in all this is that Wilson was 100 percent factually accurate.

And I don't recall the respect Dems gave Bush during his speeches. Seems like it was OK then.

This is what happens when we elect an incompetent fool as president whom virtually no one respects.
Click to expand...

In order for Wilson to be right about Obama's statement Illegal Immigrants would have to be insured under his health care efforts which has not happened yet. So there's nothing factual about Wilson's violation of house rules. Even so under our current system illegal immigrants can buy coverage.

Dems may have booed the president which wasn't against house rules but republicans also booed Obama before Wilson's violation of house rules.

Yes that is exactly what happens when you elected Bush president no one respected the incompetent fool
 
Erod said:
Lost in all this is that Wilson was 100 percent factually accurate.

And I don't recall the respect Dems gave Bush during his speeches. Seems like it was OK then.

This is what happens when we elect an incompetent fool as president whom virtually no one respects.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that at the time it was accurate what Wilson said. He just chose the wrong way and the wrong time to bring attention to it.
 
jallman said:
Yeah, I agree that at the time it was accurate what Wilson said. He just chose the wrong way and the wrong time to bring attention to it.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. The result of what happened is to place this particular issue under a microscope. Maybe it was calculated, but gutsy nonetheless.
 
PogueMoran said:
Yeah not in the question You asked but in reality of the context of the discussion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in reality, this entire event occured on Wednesday, so there is no timetravel crap.

He lied, on Wednesday, about what "THE THING" did or did not contain, on Wednesday.
 
Voidwar said:
Yeah, in reality, this entire event occured on Wednesday, so there is no timetravel crap.

He lied, on Wednesday, about what "THE THING" did or did not contain, on Wednesday.
Click to expand...

The only part of your argument was that he gave the speech on Wednesday. The rest of your argument fails as he was talking about something that has not occurred yet. In order for it to be a lie illegal immigrants would have to have gotten coverage under his health care efforts. Again you're not making sense. You're the one throwing around time travel. I'm analysing his sentence structure and explaining what it meant in English. Once again his statement was talking about how people say that illegal immigrants would get coverage under his health care measures. In order for his statement to be false Illegals would have to get coverage under his plan which once again hasn't happened yet. So to recap, you refuse to prove your argument and continue this filibustering over some side argument you made up. No illegals have been covered under his plan thus far which makes your statement inaccurate and, frankly at this point, utterly retarded.
 
jallman said:
That's pretty much all Washington is.

And yeah, called out might offend your tender sensibilities but that's exactly what he did. He brought a storm of attention to it...the wrong way, granted, but still...that's what he did.
Click to expand...
i don't know why you people think i have tender sensibilities. it might be fun to watch obama wipe the playground with wilson's face.
 
liblady said:
it might be fun to watch obama wipe the playground with wilson's face.
Click to expand...
That's tough to do from behind a teleprompter ...
 
PogueMoran said:
The only part of your argument was that he gave the speech on Wednesday. The rest of your argument fails as he was talking about something that has not occurred yet.
Click to expand...

Blatant falsehood.

He was talking about "THE THING", and you know it.

"THE THING" was existant, and did not contain an enforcement mechanism, and Obama knew it.
 
Voidwar said:
Blatant falsehood.

He was talking about "THE THING", and you know it.

"THE THING" was existant, and did not contain an enforcement mechanism, and Obama knew it.
Click to expand...

Nothing blatantly false about it. The only part of your argument that applies was that he gave a speech on wednesday. SAVE is not enforcement but verification. Its measures are stringent and cause 18,000 eligible people in one state to lose medicaid coverage because of an error in SAVE. Out of the money spent they found 8 illegal immigrants who abused the system and got medicaid. 18,000>8 so its not cost effective. Again an "enforcement mechanism" has nothing to do with his statement of people claiming illegal immigrants would be insured by their reform efforts which haven't even taken place yet. In order for his statement about them not getting coverage to be false, illegal immigrants would have to get coverage after their health care reform efforts passed. So again your argument lacks merit.
 
PogueMoran said:
Nothing blatantly false about it. The only part of your argument that applies was that he gave a speech on wednesday.
Click to expand...

Too bad for you its the only part that matters.

Obama lied, on Wednesday, about what was or was not in "THE THING", on Wednesday.

Your time machione doesn't work any better than the one the dems used to back down. They couldn't go back to Wednesday and put the enforcement mechanism in there when they got called out on it, so on Friday they announced they were backing down and putting it in.

If the enforcement mechanism had been in there on Wednesday, they would not have needed to back down and put it in on Friday.
 
Voidwar said:
Too bad for you its the only part that matters.

Obama lied, on Wednesday, about what was or was not in "THE THING", on Wednesday.

Your time machione doesn't work any better than the one the dems used to back down. They couldn't go back to Wednesday and put the enforcement mechanism in there when they got called out on it, so on Friday they announced they were backing down and putting it in.

If the enforcement mechanism had been in there on Wednesday, they would not have needed to back down and put it in on Friday.
Click to expand...

Yeah him giving a speech on Wednesday is the only part that matters. Nevermind that nothing in his statement was a lie. You're just going to keep claiming it was a lie just because.

Obama didn't lie once again in order for it to be a lie the health reform would have to be passed and illegal immigrants would have to get coverage. You keep trying to dance around this but in the context of the statement anything you have said just doesn't meet the merit of the argument.

You're also making a logical fallacy that correlation means causation. You might have an argument if the bill got out of committee and then they went back and ammended it but then you would still need illegal immigrants to get coverage under the reform for his statement to be a lie.

You can claim the sky is green from now until next thursday it still won't change the fact that its blue. Again keep trying to argue something you've completely lost in. You're spinning around in circles
 
Last edited:
PogueMoran said:
Yeah him giving a speech on Wednesday is the only part that matters. Nevermind that nothing in his statement was a lie. You're just going to keep claiming it was a lie just because.
Click to expand...

He knew there was no enforcement mechanism in "THE THING" when he made his false claim about "THE THING".

I certainly will keep calling this lie a lie.
 
Voidwar said:
He knew there was no enforcement mechanism in "THE THING" when he made his false claim about "THE THING".

I certainly will keep calling this lie a lie.
Click to expand...

SAVE isn't an enforcement mechanism its verification. Enforcement has nothing to do with illegal aliens supposedly getting coverage which hasn't happened yet. Again that would be like you saying its going to rain on friday but me calling you a liar because I see no rain clouds today. Until friday happens there's no way to tell what you're saying is a lie as it hasn't happened yet. He didn't make a false claim about the thing as there is no "thing" yet. The "thing" hasn't made it out of committee yet. All you have is a draft, an unfinished work. Do you call an unfinished manuscript a book? A screenplay a film? Again you don't seem to understand how bills work or how legislation comes about. You're willing to call the president a liar because that's what you want to believe but you have yet to prove he is lying.

The only lie is the one you're perpetuating.
 
Voidwar said:
Was it in "THE THING" on Wednesday ?

No ? Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

"The thing" was never a finalized bill again there's nothing to say your supposed end all do all was never going to be in the bill. Again your "thing" in the "Thing" has nothing to do with if illegal immigrants were ever going to receive coverage which is what the statement was about. Until they received coverage under the health care reform his statement was not a lie no matter how much you keep trying to dance around that.
 
PogueMoran said:
"The thing" was never a finalized bill
Click to expand...

Oh, a "finalized bill" :roll:

I told you, ALL of your semantic antics and attempts to rename are covered by "THE THING".
Thats why I invented "THE THING", to account for and pre-emptively include any bait n switch or added word technicality ploys you might attempt.

The very nature of "THE THING" is that it eliminates your opportunity to employ your semantic antics.

Obama lied, on Wednesday, about what was or was not in "THE THING" on Wednesday.

No time travel, No semantic antics, so you are all out of escape moves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom