House Admonishes Wilson (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
this is just going to incite the far right in america, which rep. wilson is clearly playing to. i would have ignored his idiocy and allowed is 15 minutes to run out but this might actually extended his infamy
 
He shouldn't be admonished for what he said. He should be admonished for where he said it.
 
I'm not sure he should even be admonished. He apologized to the President, apology accepted.

If you want to make something go away, move on to the next subject.

I think this probably is certain Dems being more partisan than they should. It was being spearheaded quite vociferously by the Dem from S. Carolina.
 
yakbladder said:
I'm not sure he should even be admonished. He apologized to the President, apology accepted.

If you want to make something go away, move on to the next subject.

I think this probably is certain Dems being more partisan than they should. It was being spearheaded quite vociferously by the Dem from S. Carolina.
Click to expand...

I think that in a way you can't just let it pass. I understand the whole point of letting it disappear, but you have to follow through with rules for a reason.

If you don't follow through with rules, it makes the rules pointless.

What's to stop the next guy from shouting down the President in a similar fashion, if the worst he has to do is apologize half-assed?
 
julius said:
I think that in a way you can't just let it pass. I understand the whole point of letting it disappear, but you have to follow through with rules for a reason.

If you don't follow through with rules, it makes the rules pointless.

What's to stop the next guy from shouting down the President in a similar fashion, if the worst he has to do is apologize half-assed?
Click to expand...

I can see that side of the story, and I certainly agree with following the rules because every step further goes down that slippery slope. It's just that I think when even Pelosi says "move on" that it must have been personal.

The problem is that in the quest of the idiots of the world to make politics become a one-upsmanship I have zero doubts that this will eventually become a rallying cry when GOPs regain control of one side and seek to flail a Dem. And then the Dems will seek to do so to the GOP again, and etc. etc. etc. Except each time I think it will be some case slightly less worthless and each time the intensity of the reprimand will be greater.
 
yakbladder said:
I can see that side of the story, and I certainly agree with following the rules because every step further goes down that slippery slope. It's just that I think when even Pelosi says "move on" that it must have been personal.

The problem is that in the quest of the idiots of the world to make politics become a one-upsmanship I have zero doubts that this will eventually become a rallying cry when GOPs regain control of one side and seek to flail a Dem. And then the Dems will seek to do so to the GOP again, and etc. etc. etc. Except each time I think it will be some case slightly less worthless and each time the intensity of the reprimand will be greater.
Click to expand...

That is a possibility (one upping, and rallying cries, etc).

Our government, no matter who is in charge, has turned into a glorified waste of time.
 
Phew, now people won't lose their jobs, house, car, etc.

Way to go, House! :ohno:
 
julius said:
That is a possibility (one upping, and rallying cries, etc).

Our government, no matter who is in charge, has turned into a glorified waste of time.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the impeachment of Bill Clinton to a lesser degree. Support/Opposition divided along party lines, monumental waste of time
 
It was a stupid thing to do and I think he should be admonished. But now I hope everyone can move on and deal with the real issues confronting this country.

Obama is a big boy and can handle being disrespected . . . this says more about Wilson's inablity to show leadership. Time to move on.
 
yakbladder said:
I'm not sure he should even be admonished. He apologized to the President, apology accepted.

If you want to make something go away, move on to the next subject.

I think this probably is certain Dems being more partisan than they should. It was being spearheaded quite vociferously by the Dem from S. Carolina.
Click to expand...

The House Chamber is not the House of Commons. Actions should be taken to maintain a certain level of decorum. I happen to believe that the House should make the rules that apply to the members of the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address apply to all members of Congress. No cheers, no applause, no booing, no hooting, no hollering, no hallelujahs, nothing. Listen to what the man says, and don't drag out the fucking speech just because you think your constituents are watching.
 
I would be a terrible politician. Not only would I refuse to apologize, but I would actually sing a little song and do a little dance entitled "go fuck yourself."
 
Natebishop3 said:
I would be a terrible politician. Not only would I refuse to apologize, but I would actually sing a little song and do a little dance entitled "go fuck yourself."
Click to expand...

:lol:

I was thinking the same thing. Instead of apologizing, this Wilson sap should have pointed out that Obama was lying. Which, since that "loophole" for illegals is being addressed and removed by the White House, he was to some degree.
 
PapaG said:
:lol:

I was thinking the same thing. Instead of apologizing, this Wilson sap should have pointed out that Obama was lying. Which, since that "loophole" for illegals is being addressed and removed by the White House, he was to some degree.
Click to expand...
Again, he shouldn't apologize for what he said, just where he said it. The fact that Wilson and every other so-called "Representative" in the building also happens to be a professional liar does not lessen the fact that Obama is indeed a professional liar.
 
PapaG said:
Phew, now people won't lose their jobs, house, car, etc.

Way to go, House! :ohno:
Click to expand...

That's how I felt when Clinton was being impeached.
 
PapaG said:
Me too. What a gigantic waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

If they planned on trying to remove him from office, the time and money would have been closer to worth it, IMO. Not necessarily because I think he should have been removed from office, but because impeaching a President while never actually intending to remove him from office to begin with accomplishes nothing more than political posturing.
 
PapaG said:
Which, since that "loophole" for illegals is being addressed and removed by the White House, he was to some degree.
Click to expand...

Are you really going to try and take that angle?

Do we need to go back into that thread again?
 
yakbladder said:
Are you really going to try and take that angle?

Do we need to go back into that thread again?
Click to expand...

Which angle? The White House is trying to close that loophole that apparently doesn't exist. :dunno:
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

Article I, Section 5

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.

Article I, Section 6

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

Article I, Section 5

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.

Article I, Section 6

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Click to expand...

Well, the speech was a joint session, wasn't it? The House was actually in session, although similar comments (Pete Stark comes immediately to mind) were made about Bush while the House was in session.
 
julius said:
That's how I felt when Clinton was being impeached.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It made the Republicans look petty and desperate. When you're confident of your policy prescriptions, you shouldn't need to resort to tactics like the Republicans did back in the late 90s.
 
yakbladder said:
Are you really going to try and take that angle?

Do we need to go back into that thread again?
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to see the obvious loophole? It exists. I know what the language says, but without enforcability, you can't uphold that part of the law. That's why the Democrats rejected the amendments that would have closed those loopholes.
 
PapaG said:
Well, the speech was a joint session, wasn't it? The House was actually in session, although similar comments (Pete Stark comes immediately to mind) were made about Bush while the House was in session.
Click to expand...

I am quite sure the house has the power to punish Wilson. It's obviously a partisan vote only possible because they have enough to pass it.

Though there were many times Ted Kennedy said things about people while on the senate floor that would have gotten his ass sued for libel, but was protected by Article I, Section 6:

and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

 
Main Entry: ad·mon·ish
Pronunciation: \ad-ˈmä-nish\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English admonesten, from Anglo-French amonester, from Vulgar Latin *admonestare, alteration of Latin admonēre to warn, from ad- + monēre to warn — more at mind
Date: 14th century
1 a : to indicate duties or obligations to b : to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner
2 : to give friendly earnest advice or encouragement to

Seems politely appropriate, why the outrage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top