- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
How many of those duels were fought during a session of Congress?
Even the British Parliament - obnoxious as it is - has rules of order. The US Congress has always had rules of order since its inception, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't know anything about the Japanese Diet, but given your other two flawed examples I think it's highly likely you're mistaken about that one as well.
No governing body can operate without them. It's simply impossible. To claim that they violate the First Amendment (especially when the power to establish these rules is enshrined in the Constitution) is absurd.
How many of those duels were fought during a session of Congress?
From the linked 'Hill' article:
"It is against House rules to impugn the integrity of the president when speaking on the floor or in committee meetings."
Wilson SHOULD apologize on the floor of the House. Failing that, a vote is completely appropriate.
Nevermind that Wilson was factually correct and the Dem Congress had voted the "SAVE" provisions off the bill so there was no legal way to determine residency prior to delivering care.
They might have Rule of Order but hey can speech there mind any bloody time they wish with out worring about being censored over it.
Scorpion89 said:Yes Article 1 Section 5 does give Congress power to set there rules but that doesn't mean that they follow them, guess you don't know much about History of Congress thru early 18th up to early 20th Century.
Scorpion89 said:As for the Diet you recall these folks the one you see always having fist fights.
No it's not...
It will successfully keep people focused on that incident, so they don't focus on what the president actually said about the health care plan.
I mean when have our representatives in Washington ever put the issues above partisan politics?
I already explained this to you twice. Either your reading comprehension is lacking, or you know you have been refuted and are just repeating a position you know to be refuted, which is, in essence, lying.Why are you compounding Wilson dirt bag act with these lies?
Already explained.
Do you know what the SAVE program is ?
USCIS - SAVE
If there is no legal way to determine residency prior to the delivery of care / benefits, then illegals will get them.
The fact that the bill "claims" they won't, is a lie, because the provision to enforce that claim has been voted out.
No Enforcement Provision = No Denial of Care
Nevermind that Wilson was factually correct and the Dem Congress had voted the "SAVE" provisions off the bill so there was no legal way to determine residency prior to delivering care.
NO!! Wilson was the liar on this one factcheck right from the bill " a generic nondiscrimination clause that said insurers may not discriminate with regard to "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."
He already apologized, a lot better than any of the democrats did during the Bush Administration.
I already explained this to you twice. Either your reading comprehension is lacking, or you know you have been refuted and are just repeating a position you know to be refuted, which is, in essence, lying.
My reading comprehension is perfect but one should be vary of yours. "factcheck right from the bill " a generic nondiscrimination clause that said insurers may not discriminate with regard to "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."
Do you know what the SAVE program is ?
USCIS - SAVE
If there is no legal way to determine residency prior to the delivery of care / benefits, then illegals will get them.
The fact that the bill "claims" they won't, is a lie, because the provision to enforce that claim has been voted out.
No Enforcement Provision = No Denial of Care
Which Democratic Congressman/Woman or Senator called Bush a liar during a speech to both houses of the congress ? I know that a female congresswomanperson from Georgia had ran her mouth in an inapproprite manner but she did her dirty deeds outside on Congress. So tell us who or forever SYM ?
You repeat this like it means something in this debate. It does not.
As I have tried to pound into your skull . . .
Feb 2 2005 State of the Union Speech Mr. Bush was Boo not once nut many time's by the Democrats from both side of Congress. Hell Ted Kopple even called them out on this right after words on Nightline.
So where was the call for an Apolgie to Mr. Bush and a threat of censor by the House and Senate then. Oh that's right it was the Left so they can do this type of stuff never mind I'm going ot be the only one who is going to say good for them they were with-in there 1st Adm Right to do this.
What you guys who are bent upon waging a parisan nuclear war is that President Obama has no intent or plan to have illegals covered.
Actually, I'm all for this. The more time they spend beating this irrelevant dead horse, the less time they have to do something destructive.House plans to admonish Rep. Wilson over insult - Yahoo! News
Sometimes my party pisses me off. There is no reason to do this, no point to it, and is just a waste of time.
Don't you think that if you guys do this even the good Republicans will turn in sympathy for the "jerk."
You repeat this like it means something in this debate. It does not.
As I have tried to pound into your skull . . .
I already explained this to you twice. Either your reading comprehension is lacking, or you know you have been refuted and are just repeating a position you know to be refuted, which is, in essence, lying.