Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Aetius » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:14 pm UTC

Obama called Kanye a jackass. When will the outcry for a nationally televised apology begin?

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

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:14 pm UTC

And, EnderSword, are you seriously trying to take yet another discussion completely off-topic by ignoring the question of etiquette and apology and instead trying to turn this into yet another debate about the details of healthcare reform?


Has nothing to do with healthcare reform, it speaks only to the Truth of the statement itself. He called him a Liar after he Lied...or at the Very least after he believed he lied.

You Should be able to call the President a Liar after the President Lies.

I did address the ettiquette and apology - He breached an ettiquette I think shouldn't exist, and he should Not have apologized...and if he does apologize only apologize for yelling..not apologize for calling it a lie.

If the guy in the restaurant announces to everyone, "Hey everybody, I would like to take this opportunity to say I'm sorry to the waiter for any offense I may have caused," he is not apologizing to the public, he is just publicizing his apology to the waiter.


Are you saying he should like apologize TO the public though? Why?
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5943
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:20 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:Obama called Kanye a jackass. When will the outcry for a nationally televised apology begin?
That was off the record ( a private opinion), got relayed via twitter and then taken down, but not before it reached the news. If he had public announced it during some speech then yes there should be probably be outcry. What Kanye did was incredibly stupid though, and he has apologised.
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
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Garm » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:21 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:Has nothing to do with healthcare reform, it speaks only to the Truth of the statement itself. He called him a Liar after he Lied...or at the Very least after he believed he lied.

You Should be able to call the President a Liar after the President Lies.

I did address the ettiquette and apology - He breached an ettiquette I think shouldn't exist, and he should Not have apologized...and if he does apologize only apologize for yelling..not apologize for calling it a lie.


But he didn't lie. Like I said before you're really stretching the definition here.

Why are we ignoring etiquette because we find it inconvenient? There's a point to all the rules, the traditions, and mores. We can't just ignore them cuz we don't like them.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

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

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Aetius » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:25 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
Aetius wrote:Obama called Kanye a jackass. When will the outcry for a nationally televised apology begin?
That was off the record ( a private opinion), got relayed via twitter and then taken down, but not before it reached the news. If he had public announced it during some speech then yes there should be probably be outcry. What Kanye did was incredibly stupid though, and he has apologised.


My point is that moral indignation in situations like this is pretty much always an exercise in jackassery, because no one is simultaneously so perfect and so frail that they can justify it. Obama understands this, which is why he accepted the apology and moved on.

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

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:26 pm UTC

But he didn't lie. Like I said before you're really stretching the definition here.


Yes, He did. It's not even a stretch. It's an outright untrue statement. These changes will apply to illegal immigrants. The statement is false and he was making the statement that the opposite statement was false.
You can say he probably meant something more narrow, but he said something very broad. It was not true.

Why are we ignoring etiquette because we find it inconvenient? There's a point to all the rules, the traditions, and mores. We can't just ignore them cuz we don't like them.


So sanction him under the rules. Do the rules require a public apology?
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

The only responsibility Rep. Wilson has is to the people of South Carolina. If South Carolina wants a fuckwad representing them in Congress, that is their right. If not, he'll be voted out next year. Representative Wilson is not responsible to you, or to the President, he is there on behalf of the people of his district.

That said, his To Do list probably looks like this:

Derail President's biggest push on health insurance reform: Check.
Dominate media coverage for a week: Check.

So yeah, let's put the brakes on everything until he apologizes personally to everyone in the country.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:33 pm UTC

Really, calling a political rival a liar is far from the worst thing that has come out of a politician's mouth in Washington. Unless he actually violated a rule, he owes no one anything. If he did violate a rule, he is only obligated to the extent required to reparation.

Now, do I think what Wilson did was childish? Yes. If his constituents don't like it, they can feel free to vote someone else in at the end of his term. However, if they don't care (or even agree), then that is their business.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Owijad » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:34 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:Obama called Kanye a jackass. When will the outcry for a nationally televised apology begin?

I really like your opinion, and I'ma let you finish, but I just wanted to say EnderSword is way better at sidetracking the conversation.

EnderSword wrote:So sanction him under the rules. Do the rules require a public apology?

No. But the public is not a judicial body, and this isn't about documented rules.

Joe Wilson damaged the tone of public discourse for personal gain. We want to make sure he loses a lot more than he gains to discourage this kind of jackassery.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

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

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:40 pm UTC

Joe Wilson damaged the tone of public discourse for personal gain. We want to make sure he loses a lot more than he gains to discourage this kind of jackassery


He derailed a speech from the throne. A One-way, unaccountable, undebated speech delivery while everyone sits quietly and listens.

And you're now admitting what is often denied...you don't want him to apologize because you're offended...you want him to apologize to humiliate and punish him. - He doesn't owe you or anyone else that apology, that's just political manuevering, and he won this round.

He broke a rule, punish him according to the rule he broke. It's his call on whether to apologize or not, I think he weakened his hand for no reason by apologizing.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Owijad » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:54 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
Owijad wrote:His behavior embarrassed and offended me, personally. I'd kind of like a sincere apology.

And you're now admitting what is often denied...you don't want him to apologize because you're offended...you want him to apologize to humiliate and punish him. - He doesn't owe you or anyone else that apology, that's just political manuevering, and he won this round.


It's hard to know what to say to that. It sounds like you think I'm lying about being offended because I have a seeecret agennnda.
It also sounds like you think it's okay for him to politically maneuver by dragging down the tone of public discourse, but not okay for anyone else to politically maneuver by trying to make sure that behavior isn't rewarded. He hasn't won this round, because this round isn't over. Your whole argument is about saying "Guys shut up and let the round end while Joe Wilson is still ahead!"

edit
Spoiler:
EnderSword wrote:He derailed a speech from the throne. A One-way, unaccountable, undebated speech delivery while everyone sits quietly and listens.

Yes, that is what he did. You know, like the opposite of how adults behave when someone else is talking.
Last edited by Owijad on Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:15 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:55 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
Joe Wilson damaged the tone of public discourse for personal gain. We want to make sure he loses a lot more than he gains to discourage this kind of jackassery


He derailed a speech from the throne. A One-way, unaccountable, undebated speech delivery while everyone sits quietly and listens.


One-way? Find me a two-way speech, please. That's what a speech IS.
Unaccountable? No, of course not. People tore his speech apart right afterwards and looked at individual lines and said "nu-uh!" You just can't do that while he's fucking delivering it.
Undebated? Every point in that speech has been part of the health care discussion and will continue to be.
While everyone sits quietly and listens... because that's how you show respect, and you give the President a certain amount of respect no matter who they are and what they're saying. I don't care if Obama stands up and says, "And I want to make sure this bill kills all of the grandmothers," you let him finish before you start talking back.

And you're now admitting what is often denied...you don't want him to apologize because you're offended...you want him to apologize to humiliate and punish him. - He doesn't owe you or anyone else that apology, that's just political manuevering, and he won this round.


He deserves to be humiliated and punished because he offended a lot of people; the punishment must be harsh to counterbalance the support he's been given.

He broke a rule, punish him according to the rule he broke. It's his call on whether to apologize or not, I think he weakened his hand for no reason by apologizing.


Of course it's his call. Nobody's suggesting throwing him in leg irons and forcing him to say he's sorry. We're just saying that if he doesn't, he's a colossal asshole.
Image

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Garm » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:14 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
Joe Wilson damaged the tone of public discourse for personal gain. We want to make sure he loses a lot more than he gains to discourage this kind of jackassery


He derailed a speech from the throne. A One-way, unaccountable, undebated speech delivery while everyone sits quietly and listens.

And you're now admitting what is often denied...you don't want him to apologize because you're offended...you want him to apologize to humiliate and punish him. - He doesn't owe you or anyone else that apology, that's just political manuevering, and he won this round.

He broke a rule, punish him according to the rule he broke. It's his call on whether to apologize or not, I think he weakened his hand for no reason by apologizing.


Read the rest of the thread. JBJ already posted the rule that Wilson broke but for the sake of clarity:

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the president a “liar.”
• call the president a “hypocrite.”
• describe the president’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the president has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the president as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the president’s part.”


Also, what part of this don't you understand:

The bills before Congress declare illegal immigrants to be ineligible for subsidized benefits.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opinion/11fri2.html
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:20 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Also, what part of this don't you understand:

The bills before Congress declare illegal immigrants to be ineligible for subsidized benefits.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opinion/11fri2.html


I think the argument is that they still benefit because purchasable insurance will be more affordable and better. Kind of like how if you improve all of the roads illegal immigrants will benefit (even though it doesn't cost more to benefit them) because you can't stop them from walking/driving on your improved roads.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby mosc » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:27 pm UTC

I love when officials tell other people to let something go. Like they should have some say in what people care about or not. Answer the fucking criticism in whatever you see fit but don't bitch at people for giving it. The guy made an ass of himself on the biggest stage he's got but frankly being told to "get over it" pisses me off even more. Often the drama gets inflated most by declaring that somebody else is being over sensitive. I hate when people attack the person rather than the issue.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

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 8:28 pm UTC

He derailed a speech from the throne. A One-way, unaccountable, undebated speech delivery while everyone sits quietly and listens.


It's amazing how the format of State of the Union speeches have been delivered for 75 years without being attacked until now until some people want to defend the one guy in the movie theater that jumps up in the middle of a documentary to yell at the filmmaker for lying. See, they have this thing called "the Republican response," at the end, and if you've ever watched C-SPAN, you'd know members of the House of Representatives are all given five minutes of what is called "morning business" in which they can spend all their time talking about whatever they want, even the local football team. The proper thing to do would have been to save it for then.

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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:39 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:I did address the ettiquette and apology - He breached an ettiquette I think shouldn't exist, and he should Not have apologized...and if he does apologize only apologize for yelling..not apologize for calling it a lie.
Buh? I don't understand what you're saying here. No one's arguing that Wilson accusing the President of lying is the breach of etiquette; the breach of etiquette was accusing the President of lying during the President's speech. You don't interrupt lecturers in the middle of their lecture; you wait until they're finished, then you call them a lying-liar-pants-on-fire. If Wilson had done that, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Really, it would be nice of Congress to move on and forgive Wilson and not make a big deal of it - magnanimous, really - but he breached etiquette. He broke rules. According to the regulations, he's supposed to apologize to Congress for doing so. The fact that Congress is holding him accountable for breaking rules can be described as Congress being a little anal retentive, but he knew (or should have known) how this works when he signed up for the job, so hey. This is on him, not on anyone else.

I don't get the whole 'apologize to the public' thing, anyway. That seems like completely missing the point. What, you think he should apologize to all of America? He didn't wrong the American people; he wronged his colleagues. I suppose you could say that in a roundabout way, breaking congress decorum is wronging America - but that seems a little weird to me. Like you're stretching it.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26833
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:48 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:Now your just making adhoc arguments.
The cry was "publically apologize!"

I could be completely misinterpreting what everyone else has said elsewhere in this thread, but I'm pretty sure that from the very beginning quite a few of us saw "publicly apologize" as being different from "apologize to one person and then tell everyone you did so".

Now your calling for him to apologize to America, and your grandma, and the rest of congress?

He needn't apologize to my grandma, as she's been dead for years. And I'm pretty sure the rest of Congress is made up of Americans, so just apologizing to one would be sufficient. (It need not even be to all of America. The rest of Congress is who he interrupted and whose etiquette and rules he breached. It would be *nice* if he apologized to the public, since we were also watching at the time and also embarrassed by and for him. But I understand if he's too cowardly to do that.)

This is an argument about having a consistant political ideology versus hardcore partisanship. If you demand he be flogged naked on TV, guess which camp your in.

Uh huh, because naked public flogging is totally the same as taking less than a minute out of your day to apologize. And so saying that someone should apologize is totally comparable to saying they should be stripped and assaulted on live television.

Fuck off, asswipe. (And don't go whining about how that's a personal attack and you were always "above" such. Suggesting that I'm a hardcore partisan who would as soon see Joe Wilson flogged naked on TV as anything is a personal insult. You're not above it and you never have been. You're just more backhanded and supercilious about it.
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:05 pm UTC

Buh? I don't understand what you're saying here. No one's arguing that Wilson accusing the President of lying is the breach of etiquette; the breach of etiquette was accusing the President of lying during the President's speech.


Yes they certainly are doing that, Read just above you. They cut and pasted the rules. Calling the President a Liar is actually against the rules.

The bills before Congress declare illegal immigrants to be ineligible for subsidized benefits.


Had he said 'Subsidized' he'd be correct. He didn't say that. He said the proposed reform would not apply to immigrants. - They can buy the insurance he's proposing. It would apply to immigrants..only the subsidy does not. Aka, 90% of the bill applies to them same as everyone else they just don't get tax credits.
It's simply a false statement...how egregiously flase doesn't really matter, nor does the specific topic matter.
It was a false statement that wilson still thinks is false...so when he talks about it he is correct to point out he still thinks its not true and only apologize for the outburst, not the statement.

Also should be aware that calling the President a liar is not the same as saying the President lied.

One-way? Find me a two-way speech, please. That's what a speech IS.


That's the point, the President only delivers speeches. The president does not debate, there is no appropriate occassion to question the president to his face.
It's the institution of that which is wrong to begin with. If he had a speech today and he'd be at Question Period tomorrow it'd be different.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Owijad » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:06 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
Buh? I don't understand what you're saying here. No one's arguing that Wilson accusing the President of lying is the breach of etiquette; the breach of etiquette was accusing the President of lying during the President's speech.


Yes they certainly are doing that, Read just above you. They cut and pasted the rules. Calling the President a Liar is actually against the rules.


While he is talking.

Oh, never mind.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby guenther » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:10 pm UTC

This issue illustrates very well my theory that the biggest problem we face is the irrational divide in politics.

People defend spending stupid amounts of energy on stupid issues. This does more than waste time because it encourages the other team to defend spending stupid amounts of energy on stupid issues.

I think that if people could see the issue objectively without them or their team being involved, they'd say "Sure he shouldn't have yelled that, but shouldn't everyone get back to the health care debate". But when it is their team, it's not hard to find lots of reasons for justifying spending stupid amounts of energy.

Polarizing issues create an irrationality that people have a really hard time seeing past. It seems like a human nature thing, and it steals power from those that really understand the challenges we face and puts it in the hands of those that are good at manipulating emotions. I have no idea what the solution is.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:12 pm UTC

Owijad wrote:
EnderSword wrote:
Buh? I don't understand what you're saying here. No one's arguing that Wilson accusing the President of lying is the breach of etiquette; the breach of etiquette was accusing the President of lying during the President's speech.


Yes they certainly are doing that, Read just above you. They cut and pasted the rules. Calling the President a Liar is actually against the rules.


While he is talking.

Oh, never mind.


Wait, the copy and pasted rules refer to what members can or can't say while the president is talking? Does that mean they are allowed to say this stuff:

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”


While the president is talking? It seems unlikely that these statements would be allowed in the middle of a speech. It seems more likely that all of the copy pasted rules refer to what members can say during sessions in general.
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:Yes they certainly are doing that, Read just above you. They cut and pasted the rules. Calling the President a Liar is actually against the rules.
Oh, I beg your pardon; if the rule is just that you can't call the President a liar, I agree that it's a stupid, counterproductive rule, and enforcing it is enforcing a stupid, counterproductive notion. I thought the issue was that he interrupted the President in the midst of a lecture; he should certainly suffer some punishment or censure for that; but stating that the President is lying?

For me, the litmus test would be: If he had waited till after the President finished speaking, then said - on his own time (or in time given to him) "that was a lie" - would he be facing the same situation? If so, then yeah, it's a stupid rule. If not - if it was the act of yelling "That's a lie!" during the speech that really got him in trouble - then I don't feel there's any issue with Congress demanding an apology.
guenther wrote:I think that if people could see the issue objectively without them or their team being involved, they'd say "Sure he shouldn't have yelled that, but shouldn't everyone get back to the health care debate". But when it is their team, it's not hard to find lots of reasons for justifying spending stupid amounts of energy.

Polarizing issues create an irrationality that people have a really hard time seeing past. It seems like a human nature thing, and it steals power from those that really understand the challenges we face and puts it in the hands of those that are good at manipulating emotions. I have no idea what the solution is.
One of the first things I learned when I got schooled (however briefly) in administration tactics was that in any disagreement between two parties, both parties are probably obstacles. If someone's truly interested in solutions - in forward motion - they'll swallow their pride and let whatever it is go. Wilson could apologize, and we could move on. Congress could stop demanding an apology, and we could move on. From the perspective of a problem-solver, I see Wilson apologizing as the best solution, if only because it requires the least effort (it's easier for one person to let go of their pride rather than a whole bunch of people).

I realize this isn't contradicting what you're saying; I just wanted to point out that, from the perspective of a problem-solver, there are no 'right' parties or 'wrong' parties. There are parties who are interfering with progress and parties who are not. From that perspective, everyone involved in this situation is interfering with progress.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Owijad » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:38 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote: While the president is talking? It seems unlikely that these statements would be allowed in the middle of a speech. It seems more likely that all of the copy pasted rules refer to what members can say during sessions in general.


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.

My point really was that it's not that you can never call a colleague a liar, just that it makes the House grumpy if you do it while adults are talking.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:01 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote: While the president is talking? It seems unlikely that these statements would be allowed in the middle of a speech. It seems more likely that all of the copy pasted rules refer to what members can say during sessions in general.


As was pointed out earlier in the thread, If you establish that someone you are discussing legislation with is a liar, then the discussion effectively ends as do all further discussions with the accuser and the accused, because who can tell which one of them is the liar in most political arguments? Also the accusation is laid at a member of government, and making those kinds of accusations is to (attempt to) nullify the people that that representative represents.

By calling a fellow in the Congress a liar the assertion is made that it is impossible to negotiate legislation with that person in good faith. By calling the President a liar the assertion is made that the situation reports he gets from his cabinet are false and or his condensation of those reports to Congress (either in the State of the Union, or in Joint Sessions) are fraudulent and useless.

Now politicians have maligned each other since the dawn of the profession, however Congressional Chambers is a house of law and to be a speaker in those chambers is to assume, to a certain degree, an oath to speak the truth. Congresspersons can assert that their opponents are liars, conspirators, traitors, whatever they want outside of the Capital Building all they want, but making that assertion in-chambers means that you must truly believe the opposition isn't acting in good faith. It's a ticket to a complete breakdown of the congressional method of legislation, a colonial era codification of Godwin's Law before there were Nazis to equate people to.
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
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby tzvibish » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:04 pm UTC

What i still don't understand is how Congress can decide that his apology wasn't "good enough," and that they'll only be happy with a floor apology. What will that accomplish? He won't be treated any differently. The people won't think of his actions differently, and it still won't be sincere. Where is the "rule" that says that the only way to properly atone for interrupting the president is specifically an apology from the floor? I don't believe there is one. The only thing Congress has to gain from demanding a floor apology is to politically hurt the Republican Party. I haven't yet seen any other reasonable explanation ("Congress is genuinely good and cares about its members' moral responsibility" is not a valid reason).
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:16 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:What i still don't understand is how Congress can decide that his apology wasn't "good enough," and that they'll only be happy with a floor apology. What will that accomplish? He won't be treated any differently. The people won't think of his actions differently, and it still won't be sincere. Where is the "rule" that says that the only way to properly atone for interrupting the president is specifically an apology from the floor? I don't believe there is one. The only thing Congress has to gain from demanding a floor apology is to politically hurt the Republican Party. I haven't yet seen any other reasonable explanation


It's codified in the Rules of Decorum, and congress decides his apology wasn't sufficient by a -vote- on a Resolution of Censure.

("Congress is genuinely good and cares about its members' moral responsibility" is not a valid reason).


Nobody is saying this. Now what there is a lot of is -popular, public- outrage at (supposedly) responsible (and theoretically) adults behaving more and more like petulant children while they're engaged in doing their job of leading the country. Mr. Wilson just happens to be the poor bastard that crossed the line that tripped public outrage. Congress has dealt with this and is moving on, at least as far as business in-chambers goes. It's the citizenry that's had enough nonsense by our so-called leaders.
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
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:36 pm UTC

I think the overall of it is that the man didn't actually offend anyone, he broke potentially rule 2 ettiquette rules and the only reasons for demanding an apology are punitive and political.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:37 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:Obama called Kanye a jackass. When will the outcry for a nationally televised apology begin?
Yo Kanye, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Joe Wilson has one of the best inappropriate outbursts of all time.

Okay, got that out of my system. What irritates me far more than the lack of an apology to the public and to congress - which is very much in order but whatever - is capitalizing on the outburst for political gain. I don't know if Wilson has yet (you can bet he'll try to when he's up for getting voted the fuck out of government), but many congressional Republicans and a lot of their allies (or at any rate, anti-health reform forces) have.

Also, Kanye was a jackass (and a liar - that video is crap and the song is worse). What Obama said was true.
Last edited by netcrusher88 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:42 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26833
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:38 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:I think the overall of it is that the man didn't actually offend anyone

[citation needed]

Breaking rules of etiquette and a lot of people getting angry about it doesn't count as offending anyone?
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:39 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Now politicians have maligned each other since the dawn of the profession, however Congressional Chambers is a house of law and to be a speaker in those chambers is to assume, to a certain degree, an oath to speak the truth. Congresspersons can assert that their opponents are liars, conspirators, traitors, whatever they want outside of the Capital Building all they want, but making that assertion in-chambers means that you must truly believe the opposition isn't acting in good faith. It's a ticket to a complete breakdown of the congressional method of legislation, a colonial era codification of Godwin's Law before there were Nazis to equate people to.
Hm, that's actually an interesting point (and I apologize if it's already been brought up!) - I hadn't considered this from the perspective that calling someone a liar in the House reveals a fundamental breakdown of trust that renders governmental progress nearly impossible. I still have problems with punishing someone just for saying something like "you're lying!", but I can at least understand the position of those pushing for an apology a little bit better.
EnderSword wrote:I think the overall of it is that the man didn't actually offend anyone, he broke potentially rule 2 ettiquette rules and the only reasons for demanding an apology are punitive and political.
It also sets clear rules of decorum; if Wilson can get away with this, can't anyone else? By creating clear rules and boundaries - and enforcing them - we make it clear what is and isn't acceptable. If all I have to do whenever I interrupt you and shout "YOU LIE!" in the middle of your speech is give you a private apology - well, maybe I'll have a set of private apologies engraved on index cards and start doing it more often.

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

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby EnderSword » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:47 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Breaking rules of etiquette and a lot of people getting angry about it doesn't count as offending anyone?


Uh...no?

The Great Hippo wrote:It also sets clear rules of decorum; if Wilson can get away with this, can't anyone else? By creating clear rules and boundaries - and enforcing them - we make it clear what is and isn't acceptable. If all I have to do whenever I interrupt you and shout "YOU LIE!" in the middle of your speech is give you a private apology - well, maybe I'll have a set of private apologies engraved on index cards and start doing it more often.


But that's not a rule, there are rules. In this case it becomes more a matter of opinions. Its up to people to decide whether it's acceptable to them or not. He's not being forced to do it, he's just making a judgement based on pressure whether to do it or not.
I don't think he should have made the private or public apologies at all, was a very weak move. As someone mentioned, he's responsible only for his constituents, and his constituents will largely think what he did was fine. The same people who think it was fine to do to Obama would think it was wrong to do to Bush, and vice versa without a lot of overlap.
Both the shouting and outrage are politically motivated. Overall he probably wins more points than he lost...and had he refused to apologize he would have gained even more.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26833
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:21 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Breaking rules of etiquette and a lot of people getting angry about it doesn't count as offending anyone?

Uh...no?

Then please explain what the hell you're talking about when you use that word.
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)

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 11:25 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
EnderSword wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Breaking rules of etiquette and a lot of people getting angry about it doesn't count as offending anyone?

Uh...no?

Then please explain what the hell you're talking about when you use that word.

I was going to say something similar, but with 400% more vitriol.
"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
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:30 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
EnderSword wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Breaking rules of etiquette and a lot of people getting angry about it doesn't count as offending anyone?

Uh...no?

Then please explain what the hell you're talking about when you use that word.


I think what he's saying is that people are pretending to be offended (i.e. lying) as an excuse to launch an attack on him in an attempt to hurt him politically.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:39 pm UTC

The thing is that Joe Wilson is not accountable to congress. Nor to the president. He's only accountable to the public. By passing a motion against him, and demanding an apology, congress is overstepping the bounds of its authority. That is no light matter. It is one of the pillars of democracy. If congress can take punative measures against its own members, serious opposition will be hamstrung.

Congressmembers can of course give their opinion on what happened, and make it clear that they think he should apologize. But by passing a resolution on it, they are overstepping the line.
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
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:47 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:The thing is that Joe Wilson is not accountable to congress. Nor to the president. He's only accountable to the public. By passing a motion against him, and demanding an apology, congress is overstepping the bounds of its authority. That is no light matter. It is one of the pillars of democracy. If congress can take punative measures against its own members, serious opposition will be hamstrung.

Congressmembers can of course give their opinion on what happened, and make it clear that they think he should apologize. But by passing a resolution on it, they are overstepping the line.

Dude, seriously, read the fucking Constitution
Article 1, Section 5 wrote:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Last edited by JBJ on Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Joe Wilson apologized; Move on.

Postby Diadem » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:49 pm UTC

*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.
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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:51 pm UTC

Owijad wrote:I really like your opinion, and I'ma let you finish, but I just wanted to say EnderSword is way better at sidetracking the conversation.


netcrusher88 wrote:Yo Kanye, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Joe Wilson has one of the best inappropriate outbursts of all time.


I think Kanye may have set a record for creating the fastest meme of all time. It was a "thing" less than an hour after it happened.

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 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:But that's not a rule, there are rules. In this case it becomes more a matter of opinions. Its up to people to decide whether it's acceptable to them or not. He's not being forced to do it, he's just making a judgement based on pressure whether to do it or not.
I don't think he should have made the private or public apologies at all, was a very weak move. As someone mentioned, he's responsible only for his constituents, and his constituents will largely think what he did was fine. The same people who think it was fine to do to Obama would think it was wrong to do to Bush, and vice versa without a lot of overlap.
Both the shouting and outrage are politically motivated. Overall he probably wins more points than he lost...and had he refused to apologize he would have gained even more.
Even if this is not specifically against the rules, we obviously don't want a situation where politicians feel like they can yell whatever they want during someone else's time to speak. Censuring him makes sense; making it clear that - "No, that isn't acceptable, and doing it will result in very real consequences" - is a good thing. How can you say it isn't? Or am I misinterpreting you, here?

I mean, this whole thing about him not being 'beholden' to congress is ridiculous. Of course he's beholden to congress and the federal government. How on earth can anything get done on a federal level if we claim that congress can act however they want so long as it's in line with their constituents' desires? Certain elements of decorum are necessary for us to move forward; otherwise, one guy from Bumblefuck county could have gummed up the entire works of the Federal government because his constituency didn't like the notion of giving the women the right to vote.
Diadem wrote:Congressmembers can of course give their opinion on what happened, and make it clear that they think he should apologize. But by passing a resolution on it, they are overstepping the line.
You do know that censuring politicians - passing resolutions against them, etc - is something that happens somewhat regularly? For offenses as small as fixing parking tickets?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ivnja, measure and 20 guests