What do you think of Rep. Joe Wilson's decision to shout out 'You lie!' during speech

Stay on topic and start a thread on this if you like, please.

 

And his opponent in the next election got $8000 overnight from people who looked him up and sent funds.

Unnecessary.

 

Joe Wilson should get a medal! :thumbs:

 

No, he should be suspended or censured in some other way. A British MP who called his/her head of state a liar would be suspended from Parliament. All three of the poll answers are correct: yes, it was inappropriate and disgraceful conduct; yes, he reflected the frustrations and fears of many middle-Americans; yes, he was within his rights (freedom of speech etc) to say what he said - as long as he's prepared to take the consequences like a man....which brings me to a point: only a year ago, it seemed to some Republicans that for Americans to criticise the President was little short of treason, and now they're reduced to childish heckling; why can't they accept that they received a drubbing at the polls last November and quit with the cry-baby act? A defeated opposition party - which is effectively what they now are on a Federal level - needs to regroup, rethink and relaunch, not keep fighting the battles of yesteryear that they've lost. Democracies need healthy, vibrant oppositions and the Republicans risk a lengthy stint in the wlderness at the rate they're going...which would be a shame.

Just my Limey $0.02:smilewinkgrin:

 

"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt" says the scripture. Another command is to "speak the truth in love".

The SC Rep MAY have been speaking truth when he said that Obama lies, but he did not do it in love nor with grace. He has given the proponents of the government takeover of health care an opportunity to change the subject in the biased media this morning from what Obama wants to do to how evil and low-down the presidents opponents are. This is unfortunate and it may help give Obama new momentum to get his program through.

I'm sure the SC Rep would like to eat his words this morning, but it is too late.

 

The problem with that is that last night's address was one where the floor belonged to congress, not the the President. When a President gives a speech before congress like last night's, he must ask permission to do so. The President comes as a guest before the house. It's not the house going to hear the President. The members of congress are the hosts, and it would be bad form to censure or suspend a host of the house.

The outburst was in bad form and contrary to protocol, but not one warranting disiplinary action.

 

Sport you introduced factcheck. I am just showing that they are irrational.

You have tried to derail every thread on this forum critical of your idol and hero Obama so buzz off!

 

In the British and Canadian parliaments, one has relative freedom of speech, and I can recall some dandies over the years, but one cannot call another member of parliament a liar. That is specifically banned and the person can be ejected immediately by the Speaker of the House.

You might recall the "fuddle duddle" of our former Prime Minister Trudeau when he actually swore in the House. It was the "f" word, but translated as "fuddle duddle".

Cheers,

Jim

 

How do you call a liar a liar with love and grace?

 

This shows how far civility has fallen in our culture. It may be within his rights, but that is not the point. There are polite ways of making an objection known.

Surely, this type of outburst simply convinces many people that conservatives are boorish brutes with no civility about them.

 

I have seen some discussion from the House of Commons. You Brits just call each other liar in more genteel terms.

 

Only with the help of those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys the French

 

Once again with the nonsense.

Sport??!? :laugh:

 

I think the "Dishonorable" Rep. Wilson probably helped the Democrats more than anything else. I also would expect him to be defeated in the next election, but it IS South Carolina we are talking about here. Governor Sanford should take the clown "hiking on the Appalachian Trail".

 

But that's like the Queen making her speech (actually it's written for her by the government) at the State Opening of Parliament: she's there effectively by invitation (or even sufferance*) of Parliament, but woe betide any Opposition MP who heckes his/her Head of State; of course after she's gone home, the MPs all file off back to the House of Commons and have a good old bun fight, but it's Very Bad Form to open one's mouth when Brenda's on the throne making her speech...

*No monarch has even been allowed into the House of Commons (the Queen's only allowed into the House of Lords) since 1642. Mind you, last time that happened, the King tried to arrest 5 MPs and started a Civil War...

 

Oh please...

In 1858, Charles Sumner, self-important arbiter of all that was right Senator from Massachussets, said Douglas (who was present in the chamber) was a "noisome, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator."

Not content to leave his assault on a political level, Sumner's first speech in the Senate was a three-hour oration in which he mocked Senator Butler's speech and mannerisms -- both which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier.

Two days later, Preston Brooks, a congressman from South Carolina and Butler's nephew, confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the Senate chamber. Brooks said, "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine."

As Sumner (who was six feet four inches tall) began to stand up, Brooks began beating Sumner severely on the head with a thick cane with a gold head. Sumner was trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to bash Sumner until he ripped the desk from the floor.

By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and he staggered up the aisle and collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until he broke his cane, then quietly left the chamber. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Keitt who was holding a pistol and shouting, "Let them be!"

 

No, that's different. That's like the President's State of the Union Address, which operates under different rules and protocol. Yesterday's speech was simply a speech.

 

Point taken. Still rude and inexcusable behaviour though. I see John McCain, amongst others has waded in against the Rep for South Carolina...

 

It depends. As Johnv has educated me concerning your political contexts, permit me to return the compliment: it's true that Minister's (and Prime Minister's) Questions in the House of Commons can be something of a bear pit, but that's a debate and it's different when an MP (minister or not) is making a speech, and you never ever call an MP a liar...

 

Like this... "You, Sir, are a liar.".. .LOL.. would that work?

BTW, I love watching English parliament in session reminds me of growing up in Baptist Churches during business meetings!