He just as well screamed that instead of, "You lie!" Same difference.

If your district were filling up with spics faster than 25 inch rims at a chop shop, you'd probably be nervous about the brown plague too.

No congressman or senator ever booed Bush, and they certainly never showed the disrespect of shouting at him during a national address. They didn't have to. Everybody knew he was being dishonest, sending thousands of men and women to die in the desert on a lie.

Oh, and President Obama wasn't lying. Learn to read, and then to think for yourself. Listen to more NPR. Seriously.

Anyways, no worries. It's just that refreshing the tree of liberty can get a little slippery.

Besides, everybody needs a legacy, the majority of ours becoming infamy.

(I.e., we really do need to think about growing up and behaving like adults [cough].)

No congressman or senator ever booed Bush,

<link>

Perhaps you could explain to us how you extrapolate You Lie to mean Nigger. I'm not sure how you make that determination.

Jack

The sooner you "moderates" figure out that we are not just dealing with hyperpartisans, we are dealing with mentally ill sociopaths - who are experiencing rapid mass clinical regression - the sooner maybe we can deal with it before we get another Timothy McVeigh.

No congressman or senator ever booed Bush? Dear Lord. Not to mention the swastikas, bloody head-wound posters, late night comedy "snipers wanted" jokes, Harry Reid liar accusations, etc

Still, you're doubtless correct, Dems treated Bush with oodles of respect.

And Obama was lying through most of the speech. Shamelessly. Though he did take time out to engage in threats and name-calling. Also, there were applause breaks. So he didn't lie the whole time.

Of course, the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office are stacked with racists, so no wonder they called him a liar. I was waiting for Obama to say "We're calling you out, CBO!"

You should try listening to actual news, Switters. I'm like, seriously.

"No congressman or senator ever booed Bush" Bwahahahahaha! Perhaps you should have actually listened to some of his speeches instead of merely wipe your ass with the transcripts. Bush was occasionally booed by the liberal faction of congress during some of those events.

Quoting socialist minded NPR to back up a socialist president is like quoting Rush Limbaugh to back up Rumsfeld. Moron.

Joe Wilson works in the committee that keeps TRYING to make sure that no illegal aliens ARE included in this medical boondoggle plan and House democrats keep REMOVING those protections, and so Wilson KNEW that Obama was lying. Perhaps you should do a bit of INDEPENDENT research before you begin shooting off your mouth about either health care reform OR racism, you smarmy little maggot.

Yes, you REALLY DO need to think about growing up and behaving like an adult . . . but you won't.

is the highest form of patriotism racism (updated).

Ignorant people shouting at TVs in airports. Ignorant armed protestors defending insurance companies. Ignorant Senators shouting at the President. A man kills a doctor and plans to claim justifiable homicide.

If you view this as more than partisanship. if you view this as the sort of mass hysteria and stoked pathology that led modernist germany to regress to nazi germany and cosmopolitan balkans to become a hell hole of seige and genocide - then you need to ask one simple question:

How does this story end?

Will it take care of itself? Taper off and fizzle out perhaps? Will calls for "maturity" get the goons to self-police and the crazies to self-medicate?

I don't think so.

I think this story ends one way and one way only, by geting worse and worse until a whole bunch of people get hurt.

Calling you talented. Of course, that puts too much weight on my words, but it's always interesting to be wrong.

One unfortunate thing about the fray is that people often wish to specialize their posting in the ways they are boring. The interesting specialized knowledge/thought/character is too much like work. I suppose the best posters are motivated so strongly not by their pleasure in posting but by some compulsion to explain that they will even do work on the fray. Best example: Moloch, who was persistently willing to waste his time.

I don't believe I've ever hidden that fact here.

But, seeing as how I'm not really associated with a party as much as I'm proud of our President the way I've never been before, and seeing as how you're obviously the most cogent member of this weird faction of the neo-Republicans here, I'll be honest with you.

Your guy lost. Ours won. Spectacularly. He's doing a good job. It's just that he's doing too much at the same time too fast and too well for anyone to notice.

Oh, and you talk way too much.

So now dissent is racism? I thought dissent was being unpatriotic. Dissent isn't racism. Racism is. Dissent in the face of truth is manic retardation. 8 years of that has left all y'all backed into the corner you've so generously painted yourself (into).

Hauteur,

The confusion here stems from the fact that an amendment to require ‘citizen checks’ was defeated. From, that many critics have concluded (absent evidence and in contradiction to the explicit language of the bill) that illegals will get coverage. That’s simply a lie—it’s Wilson who lied, not Obama.

The reality is that the house bill explicitly states that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" are not eligible to receive subsidies. Wilson and his ilk posit that absent a citizenship test explicit prohibition of illegal immigrants from getting subsidies is meaningless but the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that and the evidence is arrayed against him. Thus, the extraordinary claim ‘you lie’ requires extraordinary proof in the direct face of explicit language refuting Wilson’s claim.

No private insurance plan under the current system has such a citizenship test requirement and they’re not flooded with illegal immigrants, ditto food stamps, public assistance, etc.

The President is being asked to prove a negative (prove that illegals won’t get access under this plan!) which is pretty much impossible but the real kicker here is that best available evidence (closest example, Medicare) suffers no such problems and I don’t hear anyone calling for its abolition or that if caters to illegal immigrants. (Though curiously I do hear people instructing their representatives “Don’t you let the government touch my Medicare [as if it weren’t a government program]).

Moreover, under the existing system we are obliged to provide health care to illegal immigrants in emergency rooms that we all pay for at a far higher price. Certainly less efficient, more expensive and less useful all the way around.

While I recall bush being booed I never recall any President being heckled like that at a joint session address. I don't think it served him (or the GOP) well.

to see if ghost dings you the same way she dinged a&s, or if there's a double standard.

Not that it matters much.

not heckling. As for 'explicitly states' that's just a cover so that one WON'T have to go back and provide iron clad safeguards to ensure that taffy spined liberal administrators won't pull an ACORN style wink and nod and then FIND ways around the grand 'explicitly states' ruse.

Personally I don't care if illegal aliens get free health care. It's just that Saint Obama WAS caught in a lie -- just like Bush was frequently caught -- and instead of acknowledging it the Left is doing precisely what the Right did in trying to either cover it up, claim that hot is really cold, or by attacking the person that pointed out the emperor's lack of full attire.

As for whether or not the incident will do the GOP any long term good; long, looooong after everyone has forgotten about who the heck Joe Wilson was there will be banners and tee-shirts and bumper stickers floating around stating; Obama, you lie! That sort of thing does make a slight political difference over time. Eventually the voter begins to believe in the claim's veracity.

Well, you're right on half of what I think, but I've been even more consistently in favour of not requiring people to consistently act. That is, it's not a double standard if I only police when I feel like it or based on distincions which may be important to me. For example, a large part of my problem with a&s's post is that it implicitly impugned a group of people in the same way switters' top post attacks an individual. The former is far more offensive to me on moral ground (yes, I sound like an idiot). Switters' top post is stupid and boring (and, re: earlier standards, entitled), so my problem with it is more like my argument years ago against Fritz' sense of entitlement in language. I do sometimes think I am the language police (yes, amusing), and I wouldn't mind that/

Anyway, for the record, although I have said this before: I am often quiet when I object most strongly.

Incidentally: bad form. I rarely post in the morning and almost never before 11. Your post reads like an attempt to preempt any claim of consistency I could make (which shouldn't even be necessary); that is, I'm only replying because you faulted yadda. Or perhaps I'm contrarian and won't fault just because you said yadda. Likewise, you could have thought nothing had you noticed my post. So, your attempt to judge (and I mean, in your heart of hearts) is very heavily weighted against your suspicions (re: double standards) being falsified. That's fairly scummy, if true, however, I will write it off as stupidity.

So, let's say you should think you owe me one. I'd like an explanation on what double standard you think there might have been.