• 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

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.;)

So now you have to be a Constitutional lawyer to understand the basic concept of free speech? Wrong or right, your argument has so many holes it mite as well be cheese.

Now his comments at the time were disrespectful, but no law or otherwise existed to punish him in the slightest. So passing a resolution now stinks. It would be the equivalent of someone selling drugs before it was illegal, being arrested for those acts because the law changed after the fact. Moronic.
 
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:

:roll: I've never once watched/listened to Glenn Beck. Don't care to.

But I certainly believe what I see in pictures from the event which give a measurable perspective. You may not, but I do.

What I don't do, however, is make assumptions about people based on nothing. This, you obviously do.
 
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



There WAS an outcry, skinny moron was made to go to the well of the House and apologize. Meanwhile whining Boehner was yelling for censure :roll:

Hypocrisy much? Seems like ONE side is consistent, and ONE side suffers from situational ethics:

Stark Apologizes for Saying Troop Deaths Amuse Bush (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
 
The main relevancy, is that a US Congressman called our troops murderers, basically, on the house floor.

Really? A US Congressman yelled out that our troops were murderers in the middle of a speech by Bush?
 
House passes resolution criticizing Wilson - CNN.com
House passes resolution criticizing Wilson

The House of Representatives on Tuesday formally admonished Republican Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting "you lie" during President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last week.

I do not think that this was needed but I understand why they formally admonished this sorry excuse for a Congressman. If he really did apologize as a gentleman instead of bragging that he was forced into an apology I do not think that the House would have taken this action.

Do you guys hink that this piece Congressional trash was worth the time to formally admonish ?

I'm all for this.

The less Congress actually accomplishes the better off America is.
 
So now you have to be a Constitutional lawyer to understand the basic concept of free speech? Wrong or right, your argument has so many holes it mite as well be cheese.
Good evening Blackdog...You caught me as I was just about to head up to bed but let me respond to you first:
I never claimed one had to be a Constitutional lawyer to understand the basic concept of free speech, but if one is going to make complex Constitutional law arguments, & wants to sound credible, some legal training/background would be advisable.


Now his comments at the time were disrespectful, but no law or otherwise existed to punish him in the slightest. So passing a resolution now stinks. It would be the equalivilent of
He wasn't admonished for a violation of any law. He was admonished for breaking House rules.

Good night my friend.:2wave:
 
I've never once watched/listened to Glenn Beck. Don't care to.

But I certainly believe what I see in pictures from the event which give a measurable perspective.

Measurable? So what do you "measure" the crowd to be Dr. Einstein?

3 million?

4 million?

Do tell.:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
 
One question:
Did you find the mutli-million dollar impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton a "colossal waste of time"..... & money, or was that different because he was a Democrat?

I did, but that was for lying to Congress while being under oath. Not for yelling out liar on the hose floor during a speech. Apples and oranges.
 
Measurable? So what do you "measure" the crowd to be Dr. Einstein?

3 million?

4 million?

Do tell.:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

I already said, chief -- those who were visible in the shot were enough to fill the Mall. So, whatever number that would be.

Don't be one of those people who doesn't read posts and/or pretends people are saying things they didn't say. We have plenty enough of those.

But if you're going to insist on being one, let me know now.
 
Good evening Blackdog...You caught me as I was just about to head up to bed but let me respond to you first:
I never claimed one had to be a Constitutional lawyer to understand the basic concept of free speech, but if one is going to make complex Constitutional law arguments, & wants to sound credible, some legal training/background would be advisable.

Not really. If that were the case any comments about the military you have made (for example) are bull**** because you never served correct? That is what your argument sounds like. I had to use a fallacy argument to point out your crap argument. How wonderful your argument is.

He wasn't admonished for a violation of any law. He was admonished for breaking House rules.

Good night my friend.:2wave:

I tell you what. As soon as you figure out the difference between "example" and "literal" you come on back now. :lol:
 
Last edited:
"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.

I've yet to see you support anything that wasn't Libbo'ish. Care to point out where you did?
 
I've yet to see you support anything that wasn't Libbo'ish. Care to point out where you did?

Oh sorry, I didn't know you have read every post I have ever made. I guess you missed the one I made about supporting gun rights? I guess this is what you do after you realize that you have lost an arguement.
 
I rest my case.


What is your case? It was insisted that he apologize or avoid censure, same as with this Wilson GARBAGE. Actually, GARBAGE Wilson's 'resolution' wasn't even as strong as a censure.

Yet, ONE side insisted on censure (Boehner & GOP) of a Democrat, an apology wasn't sufficient. The 'rules of the House must be upheld'. But when the shoe is on the OTHER foot, and it's their guy violating the rules of the house .... no censure and no apology on the Floor of the House.

Democrats insisted on the same thing for both instances.
Republicans did not. Situational ethics.
 
One question:
Did you find the mutli-million dollar impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton a "colossal waste of time"..... & money, or was that different because he was a Democrat?

Clinton broke a law, both with his affair and his purgery.

Willson only spoke the truth: Obama was knowingly and deliberately lying.

So when are they going to admonish Obama for lying?
 
Someday, Somewhere, Somebody will write a book about this little episode in Congressional history.

And the title shall be...

Atlas Yawned
 
Clinton broke a law, both with his affair and his purgery.

Sorry....Wrong on both counts. Show me a link to Clinton being convicted of perjury & show me a law that says that receiving oral sex...... between consenting adults.....violates any law.
Additionally your comments about Obama lying are pure partisan BS.

Clinton may have been accused of perjury, but an accusation is meaningless unless it's followed by conviction in court. ..You know....Like Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury in a court of law.;)
 
Last edited:
Clinton broke a law, both with his affair and his purgery.

Willson only spoke the truth: Obama was knowingly and deliberately lying.

So when are they going to admonish Obama for lying?

This is an issue of respect not truthfullness.
 
Hmm wrong agin the National Park Serive has stated yesterday that is was the largest March in DC on History est. between 1.3 to 1.9 Million. So are you calling the National Park Service Liers now.

Are you still clinging to that lie? Inflated numbers man....a quote taken from the Obama Inauguration....

You should be asking yourself the question: "Why are they so desperately trying to inflate the numbers and mislead you?"
 
Sorry....Wrong on both counts. Show me a link to Clinton being convicted of perjury & show me a law that says that receiving oral sex...... between consenting adults.....violates any law.

Article 134— Adultery

The President is under the UCMJ just like any other militery serviceman. Clinton's adultery was illegal, hence the initial charge and investigation.

Additionally your comments about Obama lying are pure partisan BS.

My comments were pure truth.

Clinton may have been accused of perjury, but an accusation is meaningless unless it's followed by conviction in court. ..You know....Like Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury in a court of law.;)

Clinton settled and lost his licorice for a time.
 
Article 134— Adultery

The President is under the UCMJ just like any other militery serviceman. Clinton's adultery was illegal, hence the initial charge and investigation.

This is rather cavalier interpretation. Which law states the president is covered under the US Code of Military Justice?

§ 802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(13) Lawful enemy combatants (as that term is defined in section 948a (2) of this title) who violate the law of war.
(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and a change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who—
(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(3) received military pay or allowances; and
(4) performed military duties;
is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.
(d)
(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of—
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
(C) nonjudicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).
(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was—
(A) on active duty; or
(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.
(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.
(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not—
(A) be sentenced to confinement; or
(B) be required to serve a punishment consisting of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).
(e) The provisions of this section are subject to section 876b (d)(2) of this title (article 76b(d)(2)).

Can you please highlight which of these the president falls under?
 
Last edited:
Article 134— Adultery

The President is under the UCMJ just like any other militery serviceman. Clinton's adultery was illegal, hence the initial charge and investigation.

No, he's not.

Now, it's true that Clinton DID once try to make the argument that he was "active duty military" in order to avoid something (don't remember exactly what), but that went nowhere. The President is a civilian, and civilian control of the military is exactly the point.

As for perjury, he was found in contempt of court for lying under oath.
 
The President is under the UCMJ just like any other militery serviceman. Clinton's adultery was illegal, hence the initial charge and investigation.
.

The President does not fall under the UCMJ.like other servicemen. Sorry, but you are flat out wrong there.
 
Article 134— Adultery

The President is under the UCMJ just like any other militery serviceman. Clinton's adultery was illegal, hence the initial charge and investigation.
First show me a link saying the President (a civilian) falls under the UCMJ....You are wrong.

2nd
Your own links defines adultery as:
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;



My comments were pure truth.
If they were facts/truth...prove it with links...& I mean PROVE.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom