• 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

Lets go with a dodge sprinter average cost new $38,580.
Why the hell would I buy new vans ? ? ? ?

Now hiring all the personel lets say 1 for every 3 immigrants.

You think it takes one guy a year and a half to deport 3 people ?

Who hasn't thought this thru again ?

My rough sketch was off the cuff, but your objections are see - thru silly.

It isn't about money, its about enforcing the law.

But you're okay with the higher taxes for something that doesn't personall affect you

It affects all of us in the U.S.
 
I've mentioned reagan giving amnesty to illegals several times Void hasn't addressed it either time.

I've no need to bother with your off topic red herring. Peddle it elsewhere.
 
Why the hell would I buy new vans ? ? ? ?
Well you want to make sure the job is done unless you want to do it on the cheap.

You think it takes one guy a year and a half to deport 3 people ?

That's not what I said. You thought it would take a year and half to do this. So if we deport all 12 million you'd want at least one guard per 3 people. So eventually it adds up.

Who hasn't thought this thru again ?

You. You tried to say it would be the cost of vans and zipties. Not even close to thinking it through on your end.

My rough sketch was off the cuff, but your objections are see - thru silly.

It isn't about money, its about enforcing the law.

Not silly I was thinking about the sheer logistics which its obvious you haven't thought through. So how much are you willing to pay in taxes to see this through and continue to see it through?

It affects all of us in the U.S.
It doesn't affect me one bit. Explain how it affects you
 
I've no need to bother with your off topic red herring. Peddle it elsewhere.

Its not off topic. You seem to think Obama is going to provide health care for illegals which he hasn't stated. You think he's going to grant amnesty to illegals. Which he also hasn't said. Reagan granted amnesty and you have no opinion about it. Selective outrage
 
Pull it from the same place you pull your accusations.



Absense of evidence does not qualify as evidence of absense, rookie.

Absense of outrage and only one sided outrage surely shows your hackery. You only attack one side as is obvious by now
 
Absense of outrage and only one sided outrage surely shows your hackery. You only attack one side as is obvious by now

No, its not. What is obvious is your complete inability to show evidence of the claims you make about me. Its part of a pattern of not being able to answer direct questions, or running away from them, as you were doing on pages 23, 24 m and 25 of this very thread.
 
No, its not. What is obvious is your complete inability to show evidence of the claims you make about me. Its part of a pattern of not being able to answer direct questions, or running away from them, as you were doing on pages 23, 24 m and 25 of this very thread.

So anyway....getting back on topic for everyone......How many Republicans joined the Dems in admonishing Wilson?....I think it was 8.... wasn't it? (8 who joined with an almost unanimous Dem vote to reject Wilson's inexcusable rudeness) So while some here defend Wilson's incivility, the House of Reps...as a body..thought it was definitely wrong...& said so.
 
Last edited:
So anyway....getting back on topic for everyone......How many Republicans joined the Dems in admonishing Wilson?....I think it was 8.... wasn't it? (8 who joined with an almost unanimous Dem vote to reject Wilson's inexcusable rudeness) So while some here defend Wilson's incivility, the House of Reps...as a body..thought it was definitely wrong...& said so.
Good for them. Anything else?
 
No, its not. What is obvious is your complete inability to show evidence of the claims you make about me. Its part of a pattern of not being able to answer direct questions, or running away from them, as you were doing on pages 23, 24 m and 25 of this very thread.

Yeah it is. I've showed evidence over and over again. You seem to want everyone to answer your questions while you ignore their questions. Repeatedly I've asked you questions you've ignored only to come back saying you won't answer mine until I answer yours and when I answer yours you still refuse to answer mine. It's obvious by now that you can't debate but instead decide to make up your own definitions for words. Like for instance a lie. When someone says one thing and it takes a certain condition to be true and that said condition hasn't happened yet you weasel your way around and try to redefine the condition. Then you go on and on about the SAVE program which you've already conceded doesn't even work as if its some do all end all procedure.

We know you hate immigrants, its obvious by now but really how much of your money are you willing to spend to get rid of them?
 
Repeatedly I've asked you questions you've ignored only to come back saying you won't answer mine until I answer yours and when I answer yours you still refuse to answer mine.

Your litany of complaints is tedious. You ran away from my question for three straight pages in the "pg 24" region, so enjoy your glass house.

It's obvious by now that you can't debate but instead decide to make up your own definitions for words.

Sorry pal, it is YOU who uses Semantic Antics and Timetravel to try and escape the facts.

We know you hate immigrants, its obvious by now but really how much of your money are you willing to spend to get rid of them?

I deplore illegal aliens.

What the law costs to enforce is what I will spend.
 
Your litany of complaints is tedious. You ran away from my question for three straight pages in the "pg 24" region, so enjoy your glass house.

I ran from nothing I asked you questions several times earlier than page 24 and you avoided it and then wanted everyone to answer your questions.

Sorry pal, it is YOU who uses Semantic Antics and Timetravel to try and escape the facts.

There's nothing semantic about it. I had to explain things to you because apparently you have a problem with the dictionary definition of what a lie is. So I broke it down to you with context and you still failed to understand. Even a 3 year old could have understood where the truth lays but you, no you ignore it because you want to believe what you want to believe. There was no time travel. When someone says something about health care reform efforts and how people say they could insure illegals it would take illegals getting insured for him to be a liar. You were speculating on something that didn't happen. So again it is you trying to weasel your way around the definition of the word Lie.

I deplore illegal aliens.

What the law costs to enforce is what I will spend.

Okay give me all your money and I'll put it towards kicking out illegals
 
There's nothing semantic about it.

Sure there was. You were squirmin around with "draft bill" and "finalized bill", and I stopped all your semantic antics with "THE THING".

But none of it got you out of the fact that Obama lied, on Wednesday, about what was or was not in "THE THING" on Wednesday.
 
Sure there was. You were squirmin around with "draft bill" and "finalized bill", and I stopped all your semantic antics with "THE THING".

But none of it got you out of the fact that Obama lied, on Wednesday, about what was or was not in "THE THING" on Wednesday.

I was calling a spade a spade. Until it comes out of committee it is a draft bill. Obviously you have no idea how bills are created and how a law becomes a law. I was calling it exactly what it was. I know language is something that is hard for you to understand. There was nothing semantical about it I called it what it was and you got all uptight.

No Obama didn't lie no matter how much you try to change the definition of the word it doesn't make you anymore correct than you were a few weeks ago when you lied. In order for it to be a lie illegal aliens would have had to have gotten insurance between then and now under the health reform efforts which still have yet to be completed. So because they haven't gotten insured by it you just continue looking clueless.
 
Sure there was. You were squirmin around with


Look Voidwar....We are not in the Basement here so why must you add insults & personal attacks to most of your posts?
They do nothing to bolster your argument but simply detract from it instead.
 
I was calling a spade a spade. Until it comes out of committee it is a draft bill. Obviously you have no idea how bills are created and how a law becomes a law. I was calling it exactly what it was. I know language is something that is hard for you to understand. There was nothing semantical about it I called it what it was and you got all uptight.

I already burned you down on this. . .

Your attempt to call it a "draft bill" is your semantic antics.

I defeated them with my all inclusive term "THE THING".

No Obama didn't lie no matter how much you try to change the definition of the word it doesn't make you anymore correct than you were a few weeks ago when you lied. In order for it to be a lie illegal aliens would have had to have gotten insurance between then and now under the health reform efforts which still have yet to be completed. So because they haven't gotten insured by it you just continue looking clueless.

I already burned you down on this as well . . .

Your attempt at time travel is just as easily defeated.

Obama lied, ON WEDNESDAY, about what was or was not in "THE THING", ON WEDNESDAY.
 
I already burned you down on this. . .

Your attempt to call it a "draft bill" is your semantic antics.

I defeated them with my all inclusive term "THE THING".

Its not semantics I'm calling it what it is. Your "inclusive term" is just more of you not understanding how laws are made. Your use of the term thing would destroy your own argument as you think it includes the term finalized bill or law. Now if this thing was passed and Illegal aliens got coverage then his statement would be a lie. Since neither has happened it is not a lie. I know that's hard for your to understand.

I already burned you down on this as well . . .
Only in your own little world of imagination

Your attempt at time travel is just as easily defeated.

Not time travel, calling it what it is. I know the facts are stubborn things in your book and you don't seem to have any concept of the english language. Again in order for his statement to be false Illegal aliens would have had to get insurance through his reform efforts which have not happened yet. So again you're wrong no matter how many times you stomp your foot up and down.

Obama lied, ON WEDNESDAY, about what was or was not in "THE THING", ON WEDNESDAY.
No he didn't lie. Illegal aliens have not got insurance through his reform efforts which have yet to pass. Because they haven't got insurance his statement is not a lie and just keeps making you look desperate. You can't keep redefining words to suit your purpose.
 
Its not semantics I'm calling it what it is. Your "inclusive term" is just more of you not understanding how laws are made.

BULL. Your semantic antics was you squirming around trying to act like a bill can't be lied about before it is a done deal. What is in "THE THING", right at that moment, is certainly a thing that can be lied about, and your attempts to add terms like "draft" and "finalized" were BULL attempts on your part to squirm out of that fact. Your semantic antics were destroyed by "THE THING".

Not time travel, calling it what it is.
+
Again in order for his statement to be false Illegal aliens would have had to get insurance through his reform efforts which have not happened yet.

Bull. Your same squirming tried to move the time to some other time than WEDNESDAY. No Time Travel for you. Obama lied, ON WEDNESDAY about what was or was not in "THE THING" ON WEDNESDAY.

All of your commentary about ANY other time than that Wednesday, is you attempting to time travel out of when the lie happened.

So again you're wrong no matter how many times you stomp your foot up and down.

I'm certainly not wrong, and you are certainly under my stomping foot.
 
BULL. Your semantic antics was you squirming around trying to act like a bill can't be lied about before it is a done deal. What is in "THE THING", right at that moment, is certainly a thing that can be lied about, and your attempts to add terms like "draft" and "finalized" were BULL attempts on your part to squirm out of that fact. Your semantic antics were destroyed by "THE THING".

No bull again you don't seem to understand how the english language works. You seem to be focusing on something totally unrelated. Again if one says that illegal aliens would be insured by the reform efforts and Obama says that's wrong. Obama is not lying because in order for him to lie about the reform efforts illegal aliens would have had to be insured. I know this is difficult for you. You are trying to redefine what the meaning of lie is to fit your political purpose. You're trying to call something that hasn't happened a lie. I'm not trying to redefine what something is like you are. I was calling it what it is. No squirming here. You keep trying to get around the fact that for it to be a lie illegal immigrants would have had to get insurance which none have yet under the reform efforts. Keep believing in your head that somehow your "thing" defeats the purpose when in fact your all inclusive term destroys your own argument.


Bull. Your same squirming tried to move the time to some other time than WEDNESDAY. No Time Travel for you. Obama lied, ON WEDNESDAY about what was or was not in "THE THING" ON WEDNESDAY.

All of your commentary about ANY other time than that Wednesday, is you attempting to time travel out of when the lie happened.

No bull. Its not some other time people saying his reform efforts would insure illegals were banking on something that hasn't happened. Again in order for his statement to be false Illegals would have to have gotten insurance. The only part of your statement that was true is that he said that speech on that Wednesday but no illegals have gotten insurance, and the health reform efforts haven't come to fruition. No matter how much you wish and will for your statements to be true void, they are not so quit pretending and admit you're wrong.

I'm certainly not wrong, and you are certainly under my stomping foot.
You most certainly are. You're trying to redefine what the word LIE means and you're trying to redefine reality here. I'm not the one jumping up and down calling someone a liar like you are Void. You're wrong your statements are wrong and thusly have been proven wrong. You can't get out of the fact that for his statement to be a lie illegal aliens would have to have gotten insurance from the reform efforts. Again you can't prove which part of his statement is a lie so you just keep repeating ad nauseum that he "lied"
 
Obama lied, ON WEDNESDAY, about what was or was not in "THE THING" on WEDNESDAY.

No semantic antics, no time-travel, no escape for you.
 
Under Section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it appears that it is against the House rules to call the President a "liar", among other things. House Resolution 5 confirmed that these rules remained in effect for the 111th Congress, so Wilson clearly broke that rule. Interestingly, if a Senator had done it, it would not have actually violated any rule.

That said, the House ought to uphold its rules, no matter what the other issues surrounding the debate are, but they need to move on from this issue.
 
Obama lied, ON WEDNESDAY, about what was or was not in "THE THING" on WEDNESDAY.

No semantic antics, no time-travel, no escape for you.


He didn't lie. He talked about his health reform efforts which have not come to fruition. He talked about how the opposition was saying his efforts would insure illegal aliens. Thus far no illegal aliens have been insured under his efforts thus making you the liar. You can swear up and down from here until forever but you can't change the english definition of the word lie no matter how much you pretend. You're wrong and continue to look foolish as you cannot prove this supposed lie.
 
You want to rephrase that?

Sure, I'll rephrase it one more time so pay attention. :)

The sgt. at arms is to enforce the house rules, and when they are broken he can take action. At the time, President Obama was addressing the floor and he could have easily signaled the sgt. at arms to remove Wilson from the room (since Wilson was breaking house rules). It doesn't mean he is the president's servant or something...
 
Back
Top Bottom