Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

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 3:52 am UTC

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?".


Doesn't tend to work when you vote against it a couple times though, and when you actualy didn't want to include it. I know what you mean, but I don't think there's a chance this one comes off that way.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Soralin » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:30 am UTC

EnderSword wrote:
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.

So buying a postage stamp(government program) or a bus ticket(subsidies) should be illegal then?

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby folkhero » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:12 am UTC

Wow, 2 days and already over a gross of posts. Who would have thought, "he didn't apologize in the way or medium I wanted," would be such a hot button issue?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

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 7:59 am UTC

EnderSword wrote:Doesn't tend to work when you vote against it a couple times though, and when you actualy didn't want to include it. I know what you mean, but I don't think there's a chance this one comes off that way.
I think it's pretty easy to bet on this, mostly because people don't tend to think too deeply about these issues. Wilson said the President lied about illegal immigrants being covered by the bill; someone asks: "Is that true?" - the response: "Nope." The conclusion? Wilson's a douche.

You can point out that a more accurate response might be "Not anymore, it's been fixed since Wilson yelled about it", but now we're starting to get into the complexities of legislation. I actually fully expect plenty of people to criticize Wilson for doing this because the amendment is now going through. A lot of people won't parse it as 'It happened because of what Wilson did', they'll parse it as 'it was what Obama was talking about when he said illegal immigrants won't be covered'. Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, Wilson will become the liar.

Of course, I'm assuming this was somebody's goal. I'm probably just barking up a crazy tree here. I'm just sayin', I don't think it's far fetched for someone to think like this.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Belial » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:53 am UTC

Soralin wrote:
EnderSword wrote:
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.

So buying a postage stamp(government program) or a bus ticket(subsidies) should be illegal then?


Or, you know. Corn.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

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 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:38 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
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.


HEY HIPPO, check this out. (Ixtellor wants candyzbarz)

We already had this debate in several other threads.
Very very few illegals, if any, get tax rebate checks. The head of SS, has said on a few occasions, one of the only reasons SS hasn't gone bankrupt yet, is the fact that soo many illegals pay income taxes they never get back.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows if illegals are a net gain or net drain nationally. Without out a doubt, in Texas, California and a few other states, they lose billions in subsidizing illegals, but nationwide nobody knows the numbers, because of all the taxes they pay and then never receive refunds or services they pay for, its estimated that a few states make a profit.

But at the least, everytime your mad about illegals being here, just remember Social Security is making a fortune off them.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

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 3:04 pm UTC

Soralin wrote:
EnderSword wrote:
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.

So buying a postage stamp(government program) or a bus ticket(subsidies) should be illegal then?


Those aren't resitricted to citizens, so no. For those 2 particular programs, there's benefits to having the system be open to everyone including tourists, illegals etc... and they aren't legally restricted.
This would be more paralel to allowing people to use counterfeit student ID cards to buy a cheaper bus pass. Or Pretending you're a resident of a certain state or country in order to attend a state university for Cheaper.
Something restricted to certain people by law being used by others not in that group. - I know you're mostly grasping at silly examples here, but you seem to be missing the key distinction of 'Thing restricted to certain people to begin with'


I think it's pretty easy to bet on this, mostly because people don't tend to think too deeply about these issues. Wilson said the President lied about illegal immigrants being covered by the bill; someone asks: "Is that true?" - the response: "Nope." The conclusion? Wilson's a douche.

Of course, I'm assuming this was somebody's goal. I'm probably just barking up a crazy tree here. I'm just sayin', I don't think it's far fetched for someone to think like this.


For 'someone' to think like that, of course. But for it to come off that way in general, I can't see any way it could in this case.

The reason the actual attached issue matters in this case, is because I think you'd find the 'outrage' at him yelling out is going to fall fairly cleanly on party lines. Exact same thing with a Democratic Rep vs. a Republican President would generally get the same people to change their opinions to the opposite of what they're saying now. I think a fairly small percentage would find it wrong in both cases or demand an apology in both cases. (More people would find it fine in both cases though)
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

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 4:09 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:Wow, 2 days and already over a gross of posts. Who would have thought, "he didn't apologize in the way or medium I wanted," would be such a hot button issue?


It's politics, man. Anything to make the other side look bad and "stand by your man".
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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:21 pm UTC

Ixtellor: please stop calling undocumented workers "illegals", as though they're not even human beings. At least throw a noun in there like "illegal immigrants" or something. Otherwise it comes off sounding like someone talking about the gays or Japs or some kind of equally insulting shit.
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 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:24 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Ixtellor: please stop calling undocumented workers "illegals", as though they're not even human beings. At least throw a noun in there like "illegal immigrants" or something. Otherwise it comes off sounding like someone talking about the gays or Japs or some kind of equally insulting shit.
DELICIOUS CANDY-BAR RESCINDED.

As an aside, I'm not sure how much I like 'undocumented workers', because it implies that the issue is that they're working without documentation (also, it implies all illegal immigrants have jobs). Rather, I'm suddenly struck by fondness for the term 'undocumented immigrants'. It's both accurate and avoids demeaning language.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:30 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:As an aside, I'm not sure how much I like 'undocumented workers', because it implies that the issue is that they're working without documentation (also, it implies all illegal immigrants have jobs).

Yeah, and I guess that "undocumented workers" could also technically apply to prostitutes and drug dealers and anyone else who, citizen or not, does some kind of work that isn't legally permitted.
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
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Diadem » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Ixtellor: please stop calling undocumented workers "illegals", as though they're not even human beings.

Doesn't the very act of being (somewhere) illegal make you a human being? Animals can't be illegal. I've never heard a mexican prairie dog crossing the border described as illegal. The term 'illegal' implies a legal framework, which implies a moral framework, which implies humanity.
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: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:37 pm UTC

I don't give a fuck what it logically implies. "raghead" implies human, too, because it's only used to describe people. But it's still hella offensive, because you're identifying a person entirely by one small characteristic, and removing any humanizing words from the label as well.

(Also, you're factually wrong anyway. There are plenty of places an animal could be illegally, and I'd be correct to say you have brought illegal wildlife into this country or somesuch.)
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
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:51 pm UTC

I think 'Illegal Aliens' makes them sound the most non-human :)

Don't really think 'Illegal Immigrants' to decsribe people who immigrated illegaly is that demeaning though...it's kind of demeaning in the exact way its intended to be...to indicate they broke the law in exactly the way they broke the law. I'd agree just saying 'Illegals' without the other noun is a bit over-reaching since it implies everything about them is illegal,

Undocumented Immigrant makes it sound like someone just forgot to record them or something, I think its a bit too apologetic. They did break the law they broke. how bad that is is perhaps up to you, but there's no real doubt in the fact they are illegally immigrated, so I don't know that it has to be softened really.

Undocumented worker is good for that because it can apply to citizens and non-citizens and refers more to the specific act of being paid under the table etc.. which could apply to anyone, and doesn't necessarily imply an illegal immigration status.

As for illegal animal...of course you can have an illegal animal. You can have an illegal monkey, or illegal tiger or something or in some places an illegal dog. So just 'Illegal' doesn't logically imply it human...or even alive. My friend has both illegal tires on his truck and uses illegal narcotics.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

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 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:55 pm UTC

Today I saw an ad where some Republican political action committee attacks Obama for lying by saying that if you have an insurance plan, you will not lose it under the new healthcare plan. The ad notes the idea that unfair government competition could be detrimental to some insurance companies, causing them to alter their plans.

It then goes on to to falsely imply that the public option would be a complete government take-over of healthcare. Ironically, that is the original point Obama was trying to rebuke when he said you wouldn't lose your health care plan. The criticism of the statement was that he keeps saying this as if he is trying to, or doesn't address, the criticism of unfair market competition, which I personally disagree with, by pointing to private and public schools as evidence, but it's a fair point nonetheless.

Now that those people have looped back around to the original point Obama was trying to rebuke, we have the final link in the chain of the cycle. Illegal immigration is kind of like that---I'm inclined to agree with most points Republicans make on it, except for when it comes to English being an official language, but even when I agree with them, I can't really agree with them, because they come off so stupid.

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 5:19 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:Don't really think 'Illegal Immigrants' to decsribe people who immigrated illegaly is that demeaning though...it's kind of demeaning in the exact way its intended to be...to indicate they broke the law in exactly the way they broke the law. I'd agree just saying 'Illegals' without the other noun is a bit over-reaching since it implies everything about them is illegal,

Undocumented Immigrant makes it sound like someone just forgot to record them or something, I think its a bit too apologetic. They did break the law they broke. how bad that is is perhaps up to you, but there's no real doubt in the fact they are illegally immigrated, so I don't know that it has to be softened really.
Well, we identify people for what they sometimes do (chefs are chefs, assuming they do it every day; murderers are murderers for only doing it once); the way I parse this term is that what an illegal immigrant does is illegal. All the time. Every time. When they cross the street? They're doing that illegally. When they eat a sandwich? Illegal. When they pick their nose? ILLEGAL.

I like undocumented immigrant because it seems more precise in this regard. They did something illegal, but their existence in of itself is not against the law; they performed a criminal act, but that criminal act does not reflect on all the actions they take afterward.

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 6:07 pm UTC

There you get to extremes on both sides.

Republicans have very well known extremists who are tied directly to the party, but the Democratic extremists tend to but unlinked to the party itself.
Still in either case when an extremist talks, they generate discussion amongst the moderates and people then try and figure out where they stand and make some decisions.

In the illegal immigration debate, you've got some people who just plain don't want any immigrants and others who if you let them would throw the borders wide open. but more in the middle is topics like 'Well we need some control over it' or 'We really should make sure people are learning our language' etc... which are moderate and practical points.

Someone screaming out 'You Lie' at a specific point did draw attention to that point - And while you've got some extremism at both ends, the result kind of brings the general populace in. Bringing a little attention on this one probably makes most people say "Oh, you're right, I don't want illegal immigrants to be allowed to buy it" and then the Dems have to decide if that's a hill they feel like dying on.

The economic issues are hard enough to dispute because no one can actually say what will happen, only what they think might be the impact since there's no way to accurately know what it will do. It might cause unfair competition, it might not, it might raises costs, it might lower them. No one really know, they're just trying to do what they think would work.
But questions like the immigration issue are actual 'ought to' issues as opposed to 'how to' issues. It's easier to say 'I don't think illegl immigrants ought to be allowed to buy it' because that's more a political and philosophical question...the question of 'Will illegal immigrant's participation financially harm the plan?' is more a matter of debate.

Again you can generalize this to all issues, and its why it was probably effective this time...you've got tons of potential discussion points on a bill which contain murkiness and economics and so forth, but there's a few points that are just 'Ought to' issues. And if you think you're probably in the majority on the ought to issue, and you snap attention to that point, you'll probably win that point even when it would have been otherwise lost in the shuffle.

the way I parse this term is that what an illegal immigrant does is illegal.


I'm not sure why you'd parse it that way. To me that reads as if their immigration is..And continues to be...illegal. So it does indeed reflect on their continued status. That doesn't imply their other actions are illegal to me, but it does properly denote that they have engaged in and continue to engage in an illegal activity.
Their existance isn't against the law...but their presence is.
Undocumented is actually imprecise, you may in fact be documented and still be there illegally, it doesn't make any reference to illegal action.

If you break into a house and then don't steal anything and hangout there, you're still committing a crime perpetually.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

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 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:41 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
Soralin wrote:
EnderSword wrote:
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.

So buying a postage stamp(government program) or a bus ticket(subsidies) should be illegal then?


Those aren't resitricted to citizens, so no. For those 2 particular programs, there's benefits to having the system be open to everyone including tourists, illegals etc... and they aren't legally restricted.
This would be more paralel to allowing people to use counterfeit student ID cards to buy a cheaper bus pass. Or Pretending you're a resident of a certain state or country in order to attend a state university for Cheaper.
Something restricted to certain people by law being used by others not in that group. - I know you're mostly grasping at silly examples here, but you seem to be missing the key distinction of 'Thing restricted to certain people to begin with'


So, you're essentially saying, "It should be a crime for illegal immigrants to buy things that the law says they're not allowed to buy." Tautology is tautological.
My original point was, assuming you're paying for it with your own money, this government health insurance isn't any different from buying milk or corn; it's a product put out for sale. Restricting illegal immigrants from using it actually runs along the lines of Hippo's notion (and your sentiments on the previous page, ES) that once they're in the country, everything they do is illegal. And that's not correct, and it's not right, either.
Image

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 9:33 pm UTC

So, you're essentially saying, "It should be a crime for illegal immigrants to buy things that the law says they're not allowed to buy." Tautology is tautological.


Well exactly, which is why I was a bit surprised when someone questioned it as untrue.

My original point was, assuming you're paying for it with your own money, this government health insurance isn't any different from buying milk or corn; it's a product put out for sale.


The difference is in whether or not it government subsidized or not, and whether or not those subsidies are intended for non-citizens. So for instance something like public transit is also meant to serve tourists and other visitors as well as the local population, and the use of the services can only be considered additive since you're paying into a fixed service.
Insurance pools on the other hand would require payouts from the government, and its scope would be population dependant.
The idea of an insurance pool is to pay in then some use more than others, so depending what the premiums were and the economics of it, it could either be additive or it could detract. It's a government service not intended for non-citizens.

That's why I also made the distinction between buying 'Health Care' vs. 'Health Care Insurance' outright paying for the product is fine, but paying for a premium to grant you access to a pool of funds that is government run and subsidized is something else.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

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 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:41 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
My original point was, assuming you're paying for it with your own money, this government health insurance isn't any different from buying milk or corn; it's a product put out for sale.


The difference is in whether or not it government subsidized or not, and whether or not those subsidies are intended for non-citizens. So for instance something like public transit is also meant to serve tourists and other visitors as well as the local population, and the use of the services can only be considered additive since you're paying into a fixed service.
Insurance pools on the other hand would require payouts from the government, and its scope would be population dependant.
The idea of an insurance pool is to pay in then some use more than others, so depending what the premiums were and the economics of it, it could either be additive or it could detract. It's a government service not intended for non-citizens.


Well, according to Obama, it won't be government subsidized, except in the sense that they will pay certain people's premiums for them. The program still gets by on the equation where (payouts) + (expenses) = (premiums).
I have no problem with limiting subsidized insurance to citizens; but there's no reason to prevent somebody from paying into, and thereby helping, the not-for-profit organization.
In addition, public health is a public good. If an undocumented immigrant can't afford private insurance, and is prevented from buying public insurance, then their only alternative is to be unhealthy. And that brings costs on the rest of us, from the spread of disease to the money and space they'll take up at the ER.
In other words, there's no practical reason why it should be intended for non-citizens only, and as far as I can tell the philosophical reason ("we don't want immigrants using government money") doesn't have a leg to stand on, because they won't be using government money.
Image

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 11:20 pm UTC

It's true that he doesn't intend to give credits for their premiums, but the program itself will be subsidized still.
Even in the 'Expenses = Premiums' idea, they're still gonna 'kick start' it with government funds, and you can be pretty certain government funds will be pumped into it over time once it becomes a political football thing to do.

On a large scale though it also goes to a matter of draining limited resources too, adding an additional 12 million people may give an additional 12 million premiums but also adds to the consumption, and you tend to get diminishing returns on that too. The infrastructure itself can only support so much even with more funds.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests