• 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 passes resolution criticizing Wilson

lisa-benson_victor-valley-daily-press.jpg

___________________________________________________________________________
 
Harshaw said:
Besides, though there's no consensus on the actual numbers, most agree that 60-70K is quite lowball.
Click to expand...

Well...."most" wingnuts anyhow. We here in the reality based community have no problem accepting the estimate of the DC Fire Dept. But feel free to accept the estimates of Glenn Beck et al. Are they up to four million yet?
 
Scorpion89 said:
If you don't know the difference between what is and isn't Constitutional then I cxan;t help you. Articl I Section 5 States that the House can set there own rule in accords with the US Consatitution and Billof Rights. Which means they can't have a rule that stops any memeber of the House Excersissing his or hers 1st Adm Right which Rep. Wilson was doing. As I have stated Article II Section 3 ther is nothing in there stating that the President can't be interupted.

Oh as for are Founding father guess you don't kno wmuch about them then huh. John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton used to have shouting matchs with each other when Congress was in session. When John Adams was the Vice President Hamilton shout him down in a debate on the floor.
Click to expand...

Why do you continually make posts that are irrelevant?

It never says anywhere in article I section 5 that it has to be in accord with the constitution since IT'S A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior."
 
REO SpeedDealer said:
Well...."most" wingnuts anyhow. We here in the reality based community have no problem accepting the estimate of the DC Fire Dept.
Click to expand...

Well, of course; you'll cling to whatever number suits your worldview best. We already established that. Hell, I knew that was a given with the very first post of yours I read. If you could find someone who says it was 2,000 people or less, you'd go with that.

All I can tell you is that any movement which can get enough people to fill the Mall is not any fringe. I know you desperately need to believe it is, but that's your own insecure folly. Like I said; not going to worry about it much. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
pro-bipartisan said:
Why do you continually make posts that are irrelevant?

It never says anywhere in article I section 5 that it has to be in accord with the constitution since IT'S A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior."
Click to expand...

Ah but what is Disorderly Behavior as I have already pointed out this has gone on in the past. The House and Senate can't stimmy Free Speech which is what Rep. Wilson used. The reason I keep citing Article I Section 3 is because it talks about the duty of the President to give Speechs to the Joint Session of COngress and if they Founding Fathers wanted the Presidentr to not be interupted they woul dhave notted it in this section. Hence Rep. Wilson used his 1st Adm Right which the House now has violated. Why do you all on the Left can't folloow this very simple discussion.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Ah but what is Disorderly Behavior as I have already pointed out this has gone on in the past. The House and Senate can't stimmy Free Speech which is what Rep. Wilson used. The reason I keep citing Article I Section 3 is because it talks about the duty of the President to give Speechs to the Joint Session of COngress and if they Founding Fathers wanted the Presidentr to not be interupted they woul dhave notted it in this section. Hence Rep. Wilson used his 1st Adm Right which the House now has violated. Why do you all on the Left can't folloow this very simple discussion.
Click to expand...

You still don't understand that the supreme court has ruled numerous times that our first amendment right is restricted. And the founding fathers probably didn't think someone would be THAT disrespectful.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
You still don't understand that the supreme court has ruled numerous times that our first amendment right is restricted. And the founding fathers probably didn't think someone would be THAT disrespectful.
Click to expand...

Ummm . . . Congress used to be several orders of magnitude more disrespectful than that.
 
Well, this all real cute. Funny, in fact. However, the real question before our Libbo brothers and sisters, is, where the hell were all of you when Pete Stark claimed that American soldiers were, "blowing up innocent civilians for his [The President] ammusement"? Why was there no outcry when Pete Stark called GWB a liar, on the house floor?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM"]YouTube - Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor[/ame]
 
apdst said:
Well, this all real cute. Funny, in fact. However, the real question before our Libbo brothers and sisters, is, where the hell were all of you when Pete Stark claimed that American soldiers were, "blowing up innocent civilians for his [The President] ammusement"? Why was there no outcry when Pete Stark called GWB a liar, on the house floor?

YouTube - Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor
Click to expand...

Was former-president Bush making a speech? No, so your point is irrelevant.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Ah but what is Disorderly Behavior as I have already pointed out this has gone on in the past. The House and Senate can't stimmy Free Speech which is what Rep. Wilson used. The reason I keep citing Article I Section 3 is because it talks about the duty of the President to give Speechs to the Joint Session of COngress and if they Founding Fathers wanted the Presidentr to not be interupted they woul dhave notted it in this section. Hence Rep. Wilson used his 1st Adm Right which the House now has violated. Why do you all on the Left can't folloow this very simple discussion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would be kind enough to share with us what law school you graduated from with a specialization in Constitutional Law? Otherwise your pontification/interpretation of our Constitution is....less than compelling.;)
 
Devil505 said:
Perhaps you would be kind enough to share with us what law school you graduated from with a specialization in Constitutional Law? Otherwise your pontification/interpretation of our Constitution is....less than compelling.;)
Click to expand...

When you decide to apoligizes to me for calling me a Nzi till then all bets are off
 
pro-bipartisan said:
Was former-president Bush making a speech? No, so your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Well, if you'll go back and read the rules, it says nothing about whether, or not, the president is present and/or making a speach. So, my point is extremely relevant.

the question still stands. Where were you all and why the faux outrage, now?
 
pro-bipartisan said:
You still don't understand that the supreme court has ruled numerous times that our first amendment right is restricted. And the founding fathers probably didn't think someone would be THAT disrespectful.
Click to expand...

Our you kinding what you didn't read my post about how Adam,Hamilton,Madison and Jefferson would have shouting matchs. Or how about the fact that in the past Congress would always ask the President question during a Joint Session of Congress wow what the hell do they teach in Social Studie and US History these days.
 
apdst said:
Well, if you'll go back and read the rules, it says nothing about whether, or not, the president is present and/or making a speach. So, my point is extremely relevant.

the question still stands. Where were you all and why the faux outrage, now?
Click to expand...

People say bad thigns about Obama all the time but it didn't make major news until it happened during a speech, understand?
 
Scorpion89 said:
Our you kinding what you didn't read my post about how Adam,Hamilton,Madison and Jefferson would have shouting matchs. Or how about the fact that in the past Congress would always ask the President question during a Joint Session of Congress wow what the hell do they teach in Social Studie and US History these days.
Click to expand...

...links saying people shouted at the president when he was making a speech to Congress?
 
apdst said:
Well, if you'll go back and read the rules, it says nothing about whether, or not, the president is present and/or making a speach. So, my point is extremely relevant.

the question still stands. Where were you all and why the faux outrage, now?
Click to expand...

Your other point is irrelevant too, what does Bush's incident have to do with this one? Just because nothing happened in a previous event doesn't mean somethign shouldn't happen this time...
 
Scorpion89 said:
When you decide to apoligizes to me for calling me a Nzi till then all bets are off
Click to expand...

No "Bets" are required.
Since your understanding of what is & what is not protected free speech is at a layman's level, I suggest you have no creditability to be lecturing others on these matters.
As pointed out to you, both the House & Senate have Constitutional authority to limit or even end speech when their rules call for it.( It actually occurs almost every day in both chambers)
 
Last edited:
pro-bipartisan said:
Your other point is irrelevant too, what does Bush's incident have to do with this one? Just because nothing happened in a previous event doesn't mean somethign shouldn't happen this time...
Click to expand...

So, you're cool with the wild ass hypocrisy of your own party?

The main relevancy, is that a US Congressman called our troops murderers, basically, on the house floor. If you're cool with that, then It speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Well, of course; you'll cling to whatever number suits your worldview best.
Click to expand...

Now, now...don't we all. Unfortunately for you my world view is supported by actual numbers supplied courtesy of the actual authorities.

Yours are, sadly, pulled out of Glenn Beck's arse.:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
So, you're cool with the wild ass hypocrisy of your own party?

The main relevancy, is that a US Congressman called our troops murderers, basically, on the house floor. If you're cool with that, then It speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
Click to expand...

"My own party"? When did I state I was a democrat? And what does hypocrisy have to do with Wilson calling Obama a liar? And when did I say I was "cool" with what I did? Don't make so many assumptions, it will bite you in the ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom