Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:54 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:My major problem with this is that people are fucking CELEBRATING his actions during the address. There was some event a couple of days later where an entire crowd chanted "You lie! You lie!" at the speaker as a show of support.

His apology can't possibly be sincere if he's going to say sorry and then turn right around and reap the benefits from his despicable actions.

They're all just really big fans of Morbo.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Lumpy » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:56 pm UTC

No, yeah, those are the rules called "Decorum in the House and in Committees", and seem to be directed towards conduct during House debates, with the justification that it's embarrassing and distracts from substantive discussion.


Yes, one of the good reasons they call each other "Gentle(wo)man from the Great State of X" instead of by their names is that it helps set up a barrier so that it's less personal.

If congress can take punative measures against its own members, serious opposition will be hamstrung.


Oh, hell. America has been a tyranny since 1811. Also, what JBJ said, about the Constitution saying Congress can set its own rules to punish members for disorderly behavior.

The sad thing is, I can see how people not very involved with politics, that perhaps have hardly ever watched a single C-SPAN debate, might mistake a State of the Union speech for a town hall meeting. It's just that I'm confused on how they could be so inattentive to that yet so passionate when they defend him.
Last edited by Lumpy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:02 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:59 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:*shrugs* I'm not a US citizen, I don't know your constitution by heart.

But if your constitution says that, then it is wrong.


What do you mean by 'wrong'? Because it's sure as fuck CONSTITUTIONAL.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:12 am UTC

Diadem wrote:But if your constitution says that, then it is wrong.

Says the guy whose own constitution establishes an official state religion...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:16 am UTC

I didn't notice this the first time. Not to dogpile, but:
Diadem wrote:*shrugs* I'm not a US citizen, I don't know your constitution by heart.

But if your constitution says that, then it is wrong.
How on earth is a system allowing for politicians to censure other politicians for abuses of power and various other shenanigans wrong? I can see how such a system can be hijacked for political purposes - I doubt there's ever been a censure that hasn't been, in some large part, politically motivated - but so long as the politicians are being punished for real offenses, I don't find it troubling. I mean, are there examples of Democrats getting away with this sort of thing because they have a majority, now? Are there examples of Republicans getting away with it when they had a majority?

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Lumpy » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:30 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Diadem wrote:But if your constitution says that, then it is wrong.

Says the guy whose own constitution establishes an official state religion...


I see where you were headed with this, but a more accurate jibe would be "Says the guy whose own constitution says that its Knesset would have control over its own procedures, whose Knesset has Rules of Procedures analogous to the rules of Congress, which also govern proper behavior and etiquette, and that at the very least during formal occasions you should shut up."1

Of course, I am illiterate in Israeli politics, but I know that most parliaments in the world have similar provisions, which meant I did not have to go very far to check.

1 Mahler, Gregory S. The Knesset: Parliament in the Israeli political system. Associated University Presses, Inc. 2005.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Diadem » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:45 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Diadem wrote:But if your constitution says that, then it is wrong.

Says the guy whose own constitution establishes an official state religion...

Wait, you're personally attacking me for something some guy wrote over 160 years ago just because said guys happened to live in the general vicinity of the place where I was born? Are you trying set a new record for ridiculosity?

Also you're utterly and completely wrong. I'm curious where you got that idea from.




The Great Hippo wrote:I didn't notice this the first time. Not to dogpile, but:
Diadem wrote:*shrugs* I'm not a US citizen, I don't know your constitution by heart.

But if your constitution says that, then it is wrong.
How on earth is a system allowing for politicians to censure other politicians for abuses of power and various other shenanigans wrong? I can see how such a system can be hijacked for political purposes - I doubt there's ever been a censure that hasn't been, in some large part, politically motivated - but so long as the politicians are being punished for real offenses, I don't find it troubling. I mean, are there examples of Democrats getting away with this sort of thing because they have a majority, now? Are there examples of Republicans getting away with it when they had a majority?

There's nothing wrong with punishing politicans for corruption and 'other shenanigans'. But if you put that power in the hands of congress you're guaranteeing that it will be done in a way that is biased as fuck. If anyone is given that power, it should be the judiciary. And then only for things that break the law.

I'm not saying there can't be houserules. But allowing congress to expulse its own members is a very bad idea.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:49 am UTC

I was thinking he was Danish, actually, but I think we're both wrong and he's from the Netherlands.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:54 am UTC

Diadem wrote:There's nothing wrong with punishing politicans for corruption and 'other shenanigans'. But if you put that power in the hands of congress you're guaranteeing that it will be done in a way that is biased as fuck. If anyone is given that power, it should be the judiciary. And then only for things that break the law.

I'm not saying there can't be houserules. But allowing congress to expulse its own members is a very bad idea.
Wait, who on earth is talking about expulsion? Why are we even mentioning expulsion? What does expulsion have to do with this? In the history of congress, I don't think any member has been actually ever been expelled. I do agree that the power of expulsion is a little far, and undermines the notion of democratically elected officials, but that's irrelevant - we're not talking about expulsion. We're talking about censure. We're talking about Congress' right to look at something a member did and say "You know, we all got together and voted on it and determined that what you did? Was totally wrong, and not at all cool. And we're putting how uncool it was in in the record."

I mean, do you even know what being censured means? It means... nothing. It means a bunch of people glare at you and tell you that you did a bad thing. But as far as the law is concerned, there's no penalty - no loss of power. We just write something down in your record. Basically, it's congress' way of saying: "Yo. Dude. What you did? Totally unprofessional."

Fuck, man, it's basically a goddamn spanking - but they don't even use the paddle. Instead, they just throw Pelosi up on a podium and she gives you a stiff finger waving while finding creative ways to say "You've been very bad!".
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:56 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Diadem » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I was thinking he was Danish, actually, but I think we're both wrong and he's from the Netherlands.

If it ain't Dutch, it ain't Much, baby :)

But even if I had been Danish... What does the whatever errors the constitution of the country I'm from contains have to do with the errors in the US constitution? Sure, in the land of the blind One-Eye may be king, but that does not give him good depth perception.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Aetius » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:57 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Wait, who on earth is talking about expulsion? Why are we even mentioning expulsion? What does expulsion have to do with this? In the history of congress, I don't think any member has been actually ever been expelled..


One Senator in the 18th century for treason, 14 Senators at the outset of the civil war, 3 House members at the outset of the civil war, and then Mike Myers in 1980 for corruption.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:58 am UTC

Aetius wrote:One Senator in the 18th century for treason, 14 Senators at the outset of the civil war, 3 House members at the outset of the civil war, and then Mike Myers in 1980 for corruption.
Consider myself corrected! And thanks; I didn't bother looking it up before saying that (I thought that expulsions from congress would be something that I'd remember). Doesn't affect my point in the slightest bit, but it's still good to note!

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby JBJ » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:08 am UTC

Diadem wrote:There's nothing wrong with punishing politicans for corruption and 'other shenanigans'. But if you put that power in the hands of congress you're guaranteeing that it will be done in a way that is biased as fuck. If anyone is given that power, it should be the judiciary. And then only for things that break the law.

I'm not saying there can't be houserules. But allowing congress to expulse its own members is a very bad idea.

Here's the list that Lumpy provided again that has 40+ occasions where congress exercised its power to punish its own members. Show me which ones were, as you said, "biased as fuck." We've been doing it for around 200 years. If it is guaranteed to be biased, surely a number of those examples will fit the bill.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5100
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby pseudoidiot » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:44 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I mean, do you even know what being censured means? It means... nothing. It means a bunch of people glare at you and tell you that you did a bad thing. But as far as the law is concerned, there's no penalty - no loss of power. We just write something down in your record. Basically, it's congress' way of saying: "Yo. Dude. What you did? Totally unprofessional."

Fuck, man, it's basically a goddamn spanking - but they don't even use the paddle. Instead, they just throw Pelosi up on a podium and she gives you a stiff finger waving while finding creative ways to say "You've been very bad!".
In other words: "This is going on your permanent record!"
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Ixtellor » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:51 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Fuck, man, it's basically a goddamn spanking - but they don't even use the paddle. Instead, they just throw Pelosi up on a podium and she gives you a stiff finger waving while finding creative ways to say "You've been very bad!".


What exactly do you want to happen?
So far we have 2 different apologies, 1 public, 1 private, and an offical resolution calling him out for his behavior.

Do you think he should lose a committee position? Go to jail? Be fined X dollars?

Do you think if you get mad enough and make enough clever posts his Republican consituents will see your well reasoned logical thoughts and turn against him? (See XKCD comic from 2 days ago)

If you live in South Carolina, vote against his dumb, probably hint of racist, ass. If you don't send money to his opponant.


Ixtellor

P.S. My dark overlords with coal black hearts... yea, yea I get it.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

Arete
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:13 am UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Arete » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:10 pm UTC

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Senate_Rule_XIX_-_Debate

It would seem to me that he's in clear breach of rule XIX.

User avatar
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:25 pm UTC

Joe Wilson isn't a Senator.

I'm sure he broke some rule though.

But overall, it worked. - After his outburst, language has now been added to the bill saying that citizenship had to be verified before buying into the insurance, which was an amendment he proposed twice and it got rejected.

The specific details of a bill aside, him doing it got what he wanted, but ended up embarrassing him even in victory because he apologized.
Had he stuck to it, saying he was doing it in protest or some noble sounding thing, he'd be in a better position even if its a silly one.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:01 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Fuck, man, it's basically a goddamn spanking - but they don't even use the paddle. Instead, they just throw Pelosi up on a podium and she gives you a stiff finger waving while finding creative ways to say "You've been very bad!".

What exactly do you want to happen?

Can you read?

Seriously. Are you literate?

Because I'm pretty sure multiple people have said multiple times throughout this thread that what we would like is a public apology to Congress at least, and perhaps to the rest of us. Which could take all of 15 seconds.

And incidentally, the comment that this was a mere slap on the wrist was in response to Diadem's assertion that our congressional rules are horrific and ruin all possibility for real debate because they allow Congress to punish its members so harshly, or whatever. So Hippo pointed out that this really wasn't a harsh punishment at all, and doesn't do any of the terrible things to democracy that Diadem was claiming. He wasn't saying that Wilson deserved far more than the slap on the wrist.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Freakish » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:34 pm UTC

You want him to publicly lie and say that he is sorry for calling the President a liar (Or for speaking at an inappropriate time or for being rude or for breaking the rules), and possibly apologize to the entire country.

It's just stupid to demand that someone bullshits you an apology.
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Ixtellor » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:46 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Can you read?

Seriously. Are you literate?


No. My dark overlords read the posts to me, then I roll dice to determine a reply, which they type for me.
(D 20 for the hard questions, D 4 for the easy ones)

gmalivuk wrote:Because I'm pretty sure multiple people have said multiple times throughout this thread that what we would like is a public apology to Congress at least, and perhaps to the rest of us. Which could take all of 15 seconds.


He has repeatedly said he is not going to apologize AGAIN. I guess 3 was the magic number for apologies.
Because he refused to apologize he got a resolution passed against him. Which I call due process.
Accusation, Trial, Hearing, Punishment.

But I suppose if he were to do an insincere apology for a 3rd time, then we can let it go?

Politically... this is what Republicans use against us progressive liberals time and time again. They make us look like cry babies, and people who refuse to move on after 2 apologies AND a resolution... makes us look like cry babies.


Ixtellor

P.S. If your curious, I rolled a 15.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Malice » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:But overall, it worked. - After his outburst, language has now been added to the bill saying that citizenship had to be verified before buying into the insurance, which was an amendment he proposed twice and it got rejected.


that... it... gmuh.

So now you have to be a citizen of this country in order to buy things with money. Good to know.
Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:43 pm UTC

Malice wrote:So now you have to be a citizen of this country in order to buy things with money. Good to know.

Don't worry. What we've prohibited them from doing will soon be mandatory for us. CHAAAANGE!

User avatar
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:16 pm UTC

Malice wrote:So now you have to be a citizen of this country in order to buy things with money. Good to know.


Uh....Yes? Did you not already know that?

Illegal immigrants are not allowed IN the country at all. Of course they're not allowed to come in and buy insurance that's being paid for buy citizens, them being there in the first place is already illegal.

Let alone going in and buying something meant only for citizens...isn't that true in all countries? I know in Canada people counterfeit health insurance cards for illegal immigrants often enough that it no longer counts as an acceptable form of ID in some provinces.

The guy yelled, people over-reacted and drew attention to the issue he yelled about and he got his issue addressed and added to the bill.
1 Point for Wilson.

Still think he should have refused any apology from a political point of view, but he still comes out ahead on this.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:24 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:Of course they're not allowed to come in and buy insurance that's being paid for by citizens,

Actually, it's a common misconception that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Many of them do, and many are afraid to file a tax return and end up overpaying. Some are tax cheats, as are some citizens (i.e. Treasury Secretary), but "They didn't pay for it" is a weak argument at best.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:And incidentally, the comment that this was a mere slap on the wrist was in response to Diadem's assertion that our congressional rules are horrific and ruin all possibility for real debate because they allow Congress to punish its members so harshly, or whatever. So Hippo pointed out that this really wasn't a harsh punishment at all, and doesn't do any of the terrible things to democracy that Diadem was claiming. He wasn't saying that Wilson deserved far more than the slap on the wrist.
Yeah, I'm seriously confounded as to where Ixtellor is getting the notion that I think Wilson deserves something more harsh than this. I think I've been pretty clear on my fairly neutral position from the very beginning? I don't think Wilson 'deserves' anything; I think Congress has the right to censure people for breaking decorum, especially when they refuse to offer a formal, official apology to Congress for the transgression.

As for the whole 'how many times should Wilson apologize?!' debacle, keep in mind - saying 'I'm sorry' on TV is different than formally apologizing to Congress. A formal apology would probably be part of the record in the same way a censure would be. So either you have the record reflecting that an official did something stupid and formally said they were sorry, or you have the record reflecting that an official did something stupid and congress told them that it was stupid. Either way, the record should reflect that the incident was dealt with, rather than left hanging.

I don't see the problem here.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5940
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Angua » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:31 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
Malice wrote:So now you have to be a citizen of this country in order to buy things with money. Good to know.


Uh....Yes? Did you not already know that?

Illegal immigrants are not allowed IN the country at all. Of course they're not allowed to come in and buy insurance that's being paid for buy citizens, them being there in the first place is already illegal.

Let alone going in and buying something meant only for citizens...isn't that true in all countries? I know in Canada people counterfeit health insurance cards for illegal immigrants often enough that it no longer counts as an acceptable form of ID in some provinces.

The guy yelled, people over-reacted and drew attention to the issue he yelled about and he got his issue addressed and added to the bill.
1 Point for Wilson.

Still think he should have refused any apology from a political point of view, but he still comes out ahead on this.
Yes, but the illegal immigrants are buying it illegally. Therefore they are working against the healthcare reform bill. Illegal immigrants can buy private insurance too if they have the money. They can also turn up in hospitals. This won't be changing anything for them, they'll still be buying insurance illegally.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Malice » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:40 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
Malice wrote:So now you have to be a citizen of this country in order to buy things with money. Good to know.


Uh....Yes? Did you not already know that?

Illegal immigrants are not allowed IN the country at all. Of course they're not allowed to come in and buy insurance that's being paid for buy citizens, them being there in the first place is already illegal.


So because it's illegal to walk into the country, it should be an additional crime to, after you've walked into the country, walk into the nearest Wal-Mart and buy a gallon of milk?

Let alone going in and buying something meant only for citizens...isn't that true in all countries? I know in Canada people counterfeit health insurance cards for illegal immigrants often enough that it no longer counts as an acceptable form of ID in some provinces.


The difference being that in this case, I assume you're talking about the free government health insurance, not private insurance that they've paid for with their own money.
Image

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby JBJ » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:43 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
Malice wrote:So now you have to be a citizen of this country in order to buy things with money. Good to know.


Uh....Yes? Did you not already know that?

Illegal immigrants are not allowed IN the country at all. Of course they're not allowed to come in and buy insurance that's being paid for by citizens, them being there in the first place is already illegal.

Let alone going in and buying something meant only for citizens...isn't that true in all countries?

So, if Canadians go to the US for health care, and pay for it, that would be wrong too? If that's the case, then you guys are setting a great example.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:56 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Actually, it's a common misconception that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Many of them do, and many are afraid to file a tax return and end up overpaying. Some are tax cheats, as are some citizens (i.e. Treasury Secretary), but "They didn't pay for it" is a weak argument at best.


It's against the law for them to be there. That's is a stupid argument...their entire presence is illegal. If a small minority decide to pay taxes good for them, they're atoning for flagrant breaching of the law I guess?
It's not a matter of 'They didn't pay for it' at all..if they want it they'd have to pay full price for it.

It's a matter of "Hey, WTF are you doing here?" - You've already got massive immigration issues, if you make their access to all these things unfettered then you're just making it easier and more desirable for them to go to your country.

Yes, but the illegal immigrants are buying it illegally. Therefore they are working against the healthcare reform bill. Illegal immigrants can buy private insurance too if they have the money. They can also turn up in hospitals. This won't be changing anything for them, they'll still be buying insurance illegally.


This is the key Wilson was yelling about...No, They were not buying it illegally because the bill never said they couldn't buy it.
NOW the bill says it's illegal because they added his amendment. Prior to that it didn't contain any requirement on citizenship.

So because it's illegal to walk into the country, it should be an additional crime to, after you've walked into the country, walk into the nearest Wal-Mart and buy a gallon of milk?


Wal-Mart for Milk would be fine. Government program who sells milk cheaper to underpriviledged citizens, yes that'd probably be a crime.

The difference being that in this case, I assume you're talking about the free government health insurance, not private insurance that they've paid for with their own money.


Exactly, so illegals could still buy private care, but couldn't opt in to a government subsidized plan.

So, if Canadians go to the US for health care, and pay for it, that would be wrong too? If that's the case, then you guys are setting a great example.


Not sure I follow you. She paid for health care, not government run health care insurance. Just buying the healthcare itself wouldn't involve the use of any government funds, buying gov't healthcare insurance would.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:05 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
So, if Canadians go to the US for health care, and pay for it, that would be wrong too? If that's the case, then you guys are setting a great example.


Not sure I follow you. She paid for health care, not government run health care insurance. Just buying the healthcare itself wouldn't involve the use of any government funds, buying gov't healthcare insurance would.


It's the bit about Americans going to Canada for cheaper healthcare, especially busloads of American seniors buying prescription drugs.

Mind you the Pharma industry would like to put a stop to the practice of people looking for cheaper meds from out-of-country vendors, y'know because the capitalist ideal of better products at lower prices will cripple their industry....
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:31 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:It's against the law for them to be there. That's is a stupid argument...their entire presence is illegal. If a small minority decide to pay taxes good for them, they're atoning for flagrant breaching of the law I guess?
It's not a matter of 'They didn't pay for it' at all..if they want it they'd have to pay full price for it.

It's a matter of "Hey, WTF are you doing here?" - You've already got massive immigration issues, if you make their access to all these things unfettered then you're just making it easier and more desirable for them to go to your country.
Beg your pardon - but it's not fair to describe this as a 'small minority'. Any illegal immigrant who buys things in this country (outside of a few states with, curiously enough, very low illegal immigration rates) is paying sales tax. Also, any illegal immigrant who receives a paycheck over-the-table is paying taxes. Those two overlapping groups alone constitute a very significant fraction of illegal immigrants. Cite.

User avatar
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:44 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Beg your pardon - but it's not fair to describe this as a 'small minority'. Any illegal immigrant who buys things in this country (outside of a few states with, curiously enough, very low illegal immigration rates) is paying sales tax.


That's a serious stretch...you've demonstrated they pay the taxes they can't avoid. Also, of illegal immigrants who pay taxes over the table..I wonder what percentage get tax Refunds by filing?
Your link seems to indicate 1.4 Million filed taxes using this number, While there's about 11-12million in the US.
I assume the others do pay sales tax, but there's really no way to opt out of sales tax.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:46 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:Also, of illegal immigrants who pay taxes over the table..I wonder what percentage get tax Refunds by filing?
Probably the 1.4 million who filed taxes?
EnderSword wrote:That's a serious stretch...you've demonstrated they pay the taxes they can't avoid.
How is that relevant to the question "Do a significant portion of illegal immigrants pay taxes"?
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:47 pm UTC

What does not being able to opt out have to do with anything? There's no easy way to opt out of regular taxes, either. But the point is that they do pay taxes, and they most certainly help the businesses they work for, so saying they deserve nothing in return is a bit disingenuous.

Of course, this is still that off-topic tangent EnderSword seems so keen on dragging the entire thread onto...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby setzer777 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:49 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:What does not being able to opt out have to do with anything? There's no easy way to opt out of regular taxes, either. But the point is that they do pay taxes, and they most certainly help the businesses they work for, so saying they deserve nothing in return is a bit disingenuous.

Of course, this is still that off-topic tangent EnderSword seems so keen on dragging the entire thread onto...


I suppose it is somewhat relevant in that he's making the argument that Joe Wilson's outburst actually helped accomplish something - namely additional restrictions on illegal immigrants in the bill.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:52 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What does not being able to opt out have to do with anything? There's no easy way to opt out of regular taxes, either. But the point is that they do pay taxes, and they most certainly help the businesses they work for, so saying they deserve nothing in return is a bit disingenuous.

Of course, this is still that off-topic tangent EnderSword seems so keen on dragging the entire thread onto...


I suppose it is somewhat relevant in that he's making the argument that Joe Wilson's outburst actually helped accomplish something - namely additional restrictions on illegal immigrants in the bill.
Yeah - I don't catch the relevance, either. And, honestly, I doubt that Wilson's outburst was a motivation behind adding this part to the bill. Unless it was added on to make him look bad.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:04 pm UTC

The specifics of the bill have no pertinence as to whether or not Mr. Wilson is a jackass in-session.

Although I do find it amusing that in William Gibson's "Neuromancer", a non-character/urban legend by the name of "Wilson" was immortalized for doing something incredibly stupid by the phrase "Pulling a Wilson".
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Philwelch » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:58 am UTC

Belial wrote:
Dauric wrote:A public apology would in some way imply an apology to the citizens of the United States for acting like a dick in front of us all in one of our collectively most hallowed places.


Yeah, that too. Generally, heckling the president at a congressional address is considered a pretty big breach of decorum.

And the thing about rules of decorum and etiquette is that breaking them is an embarassment and an insult to everyone present, not just the person you're being a dick directly to.


It wasn't even a solemn occasion, like the State of the Union or a wartime address during a national emergency. It was a nationally televised stump speech where Obama's using the congressional chamber and the pomp and circumstance of an address to Congress as a backdrop. Saying "Joe Wilson broke the decorum of a solemn proceeding" is a fucking bullshit argument when the entire setting is a political facade designed to protect a grandstanding politician from any sort of questioning. Democracies far healthier than our own actually do heckle their heads of government in similar settings.

Aetius wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Wait, who on earth is talking about expulsion? Why are we even mentioning expulsion? What does expulsion have to do with this? In the history of congress, I don't think any member has been actually ever been expelled..


One Senator in the 18th century for treason, 14 Senators at the outset of the civil war, 3 House members at the outset of the civil war, and then Mike Myers in 1980 for corruption.


Plus James Traficant in 2002 for corruption. Speaking of breaches of House decorum, this is what he said during a committee hearing considering his expulsion before the matter was brought to a vote by the full House:

James Traficant wrote:I want you to disregard all the opposing counsel has said. I think they're delusionary. I think they've had something funny for lunch in their meal. I think they should be handcuffed to a chain-link fence and flogged, and all of their hearsay evidence should be thrown the hell out, and if they lie again, I'm going to go over there and kick them in the crotch. Thank you very much.


Joe WIlson, eat your heart out.
Last edited by Philwelch on Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:05 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:02 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What does not being able to opt out have to do with anything? There's no easy way to opt out of regular taxes, either. But the point is that they do pay taxes, and they most certainly help the businesses they work for, so saying they deserve nothing in return is a bit disingenuous.

Of course, this is still that off-topic tangent EnderSword seems so keen on dragging the entire thread onto...


I suppose it is somewhat relevant in that he's making the argument that Joe Wilson's outburst actually helped accomplish something - namely additional restrictions on illegal immigrants in the bill.
Yeah - I don't catch the relevance, either. And, honestly, I doubt that Wilson's outburst was a motivation behind adding this part to the bill. Unless it was added on to make him look bad.


He proposed it twice, it was rejected twice, He called attention to it, got people like us talking about it and it was added immediately after. How do you doubt that motivation?
It doesn't really matter what the amendment is, he wanted it and he got it...How would adding it make him look bad?
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:12 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:It wasn't even a solemn occasion, like the State of the Union or a wartime address during a national emergency. It was a nationally televised stump speech where Obama's using the congressional chamber and the pomp and circumstance of an address to Congress as a backdrop. Saying "Joe Wilson broke the decorum of a solemn proceeding" is a fucking bullshit argument when the entire setting is a political facade designed to protect a grandstanding politician from any sort of questioning. Democracies far healthier than our own actually do heckle their heads of government in similar settings.
Are you proposing that it's acceptable for people to interrupt other people during speeches in Congress? And that when this happens, we shouldn't take steps to prevent that from happening in the future?

Though I'm happy to accept that healthy democracies can have heckling, I don't consider heckling to be a sign of a healthy democracy. I think it's a healthy sign when representatives are allowed to speak their peace in their allotted time, and interrupting them to throw out accusations like this are discouraged at the very least, and formally censured at most.
Philwelch wrote:
James Traficant wrote:I want you to disregard all the opposing counsel has said. I think they're delusionary. I think they've had something funny for lunch in their meal. I think they should be handcuffed to a chain-link fence and flogged, and all of their hearsay evidence should be thrown the hell out, and if they lie again, I'm going to go over there and kick them in the crotch. Thank you very much.


Joe WIlson, eat your heart out.
Man, the voices in James Traficant's head qualified as an entire third wing of the federal legislative branch all of their own.
EnderSword wrote:He proposed it twice, it was rejected twice, He called attention to it, got people like us talking about it and it was added immediately after. How do you doubt that motivation?
It doesn't really matter what the amendment is, he wanted it and he got it...How would adding it make him look bad?
Old trick: Person complains about X, we ignore him until he gets belligerent - as soon as he finally snaps and does something ridiculous like this, we immediately fix X and say "We were planning on fixing that the whole time; I mean, Christ, why are you such a douche?".

Kind of like gaslighting someone. Let them complain about it until they look ridiculous, then immediately fix it and state that it was never a problem in the first place, and the complainer is just crazy.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests