Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Atticus]

It would have been smart of Obama to call out Wilson on the spot.

 

he probably would have been criticized for being too black or not black enough in his method of doing so, depending on one's brand of bigotry.

[watch me fall]

Has Obama commented on the outburst yet? I haven't read or seen any follow up of the speech, other than reading Wilson's apology.

[ih8music]

It would have been smart of Obama to call out Wilson on the spot.

I thought Grandma Nancy was going to go over to Wilson, pull him by his ear and make him sit in a corner after he shouted that.

[Edie]

Rep. Wilson shouts to Obama during speech: 'You lie'

 

 

In a minor defense of Wilson, in the sentences just prior to the "heckle", repubs were all grumbling and some were being pretty vocal in their displeasure. Poor ole Joe was probably expecting the other guys to kinda chime in with him, and no one else did. Pretty comical, actually.

[sureshot]

It would have been smart of Obama to call out Wilson on the spot.

 

I disagree 100%. Obama took the high road, and I cant imagine the amount of self control that took. Thats cool under pressure if I've ever seen it.

 

BTW, I read today that Wilsons Democratic opponent has received over $200,000 in grassroots donations since last nights outburst. Furthermore, his website has been taken offline, his phone lines are ringing busy, and he's been called out by his own party. I imagine he's had better mornings then this one.

[watch me fall]

This isn't Wilson's first outburst. He's definitely known for being an ass, even within his own party, but people continue to vote for him.

[myboyblue]

It would have been smart of Obama to call out Wilson on the spot.

I don't know how smart but it sure of hell could have been funny if done right. Calmly ask him to come up and explain himself.

 

Has Obama commented on the outburst yet? I haven't read or seen any follow up of the speech, other than reading Wilson's apology.

Obama has accepted his apology but took the high road.

 

I know nothing of Wilson but venture a guess that he is a bit of a buffoon.

[Sir Stewart]

I didn't mean Obama should've engaged in a back and forth with Wilson - I meant it seemed like the kind of 'teachable moment' he talks about. All he replied with was 'That's not true.' Well, he knows there is a loud, doubtful percentage of the population which feels exactly the way Wilson felt at that moment. He could've used the outburst to his advantage, and addressed the sentiment directly.

[bleedorange]

I didn't mean Obama should've engaged in a back and forth with Wilson - I meant it seemed like the kind of 'teachable moment' he talks about. All he replied with was 'That's not true.' Well, he knows there is a loud, doubtful percentage of the population which feels exactly the way Wilson felt at that moment. He could've used the outburst to his advantage, and addressed the sentiment directly.

 

He couldn't do that, though, because it was a lie.

[myboyblue]

YOU LIE!

[Sir Stewart]

He couldn't do that, though, because it was a lie.

 

So I guess I'm calling out Obama. Don't tell my wife!!

[ikol]

True – but it’s sort of unheard of here.

 

Haven't Dems booed Bush during his State of the Union?

 

There are plenty of reasonable, sober reasons to be skeptical of Obama’s plan, unfortunately, the opposition has chosen to ignore them in favor of death panels and forced abortion clinics – if they want to make asses of themselves, I’m all for it, and more than willing to help further their cause.

 

I haven't heard anyone mention forced abortions, but there are legitimate concerns that under the proposed legislation taxpayer funds would be used to fund abortions. Obama simply stating that it isn't true doesn't sufficiently address those concerns.

[plasticeyeball]

 

 

I haven't heard anyone mention forced abortions, but there are legitimate concerns that under the proposed legislation taxpayer funds would be used to fund abortions. Obama simply stating that it isn't true doesn't sufficiently address those concerns.

 

i've heard that argument and i agree that just stating it isn't true isn't enough, however, on the other side of the coin, taxpayer funds are used to fund many things that many people disagree with, no?

 

i myself would like to read some of this legislation first hand. it's doubtful that any person can just opt for an abortion and choose the government funded version or maybe apply for a grant to cover my abortion.

[Good Old Neon]

Haven't Dems booed Bush during his State of the Union?

 

To my knowledge – no, though it’s certainly possible. With that said, there’s a difference between booing someone, and shouting “you lie.” Which, coming from a politician, well, kettle meet pot and all that. And let's face it, assuming they did, the fucker deserved to be booed.

 

I haven't heard anyone mention forced abortions, but there are legitimate concerns that under the proposed legislation taxpayer funds would be used to fund abortions. Obama simply stating that it isn't true doesn't sufficiently address those concerns.

 

I’d have a little more understanding, and a little less contempt for the “ no way is my tax dollars going to fund abortion” crowd if they were even just a little consistent, because, for whatever reason, the same crowd that equates abortion with murder, is usually the same crowd that is 110% in favor of increasing “defense” spending, or like, conducting and/or supporting wars. Which is to say, I get the sense that their opposition to abortion has more to do with what they hear at church, and their desire to strictly adhere to the word of god - lest they find themselves in hell - and less to do with actually saving lives, which, if we were to adopt universal health care coverage, we might actually achieve – saving lives. Many of abortions most vocal opponents, are the very same folks who put their full support behind whatever war it is we’re fighting this week – with little to no regard for the thousands upon thousands of civilians who find themselves forever and irreversibly collaterally damaged.

[plasticeyeball]

 

 

I’d have a little more understanding, and a little less contempt for the “ no way is my tax dollars going to fund abortion” crowd if they were even just a little consistent, because, for whatever reason, the same crowd that equates abortion with murder, is usually the same crowd that is 110% in favor of increasing “defense” spending, or like, conducting and/or supporting wars. Which is to say, I get the sense that their opposition to abortion has more to do with what they hear at church, and their desire to strictly adhere to the word of god - lest they find themselves in hell - and less to do with actually saving lives, which, if we were to adopt universal health care coverage, we might actually achieve – saving lives. Many of abortions most vocal opponents, are the very same folks who put their full support behind whatever war it is we’re fighting this week – with little to no regard for the thousands upon thousands of civilians who find themselves forever and irreversibly collaterally damaged.

 

 

I think I just said the same thing, only in 1 sentence.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Do our tax dollars support capital punishment, or do they just pass a hat...?

[Winston Legthigh]

Do our tax dollars support capital punishment, or do they just pass a hat...?

depends on what state you live in.

[Good Old Neon]

We could just make it so that the unemployed dude who spends all his days down a the clinic, protesting, could just check a little box on his W2 that says in no way shape or form should his tax dollars be used to fund abortion.

[Tweedling]

Well......does anyone know if he is lying?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Well......does anyone know if he is lying?

 

Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating? from factcheck.org

 

edited to add:

 

Letters in response to the article from Planned Parenthood and the National Right to Life Committee

 

edited again:

 

In case you were wondering about whether he was lying about immigration.

[Good Old Neon]

Do our tax dollars support capital punishment, or do they just pass a hat...?

 

Well, capital punishment is ok because the guy being electrifried is guilty, and not innocent like them little babies. And besides, even if he is wrongfully convicted, it’s ok because he’s in the loving arms of god now – and god don’t make no mistakes. But then that got me to thinking, if someone claims theys found the lord, and been forgiven, how is it then that it’s ok to go ahead and fry him anyway? Isn’t the central tenet of the bible forgiveness, and that we should turn the other half of our faces? And if so, how is it that we can justify killing someone who’s been saved, even if he is guilty?

 

Best not think such thoughts.

[Guest Jules]

We could just make it so that the unemployed dude who spends all his days down a the clinic, protesting, could just check a little box on his W2 that says in no way shape or form should his tax dollars be used to fund abortion.

What W2?

[Winston Legthigh]

Best not think such thoughts.

Such thoughts have already been documented. From the current Pontiff:

 

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

 

There is quite a bit of diversity amongst Catholics as to their duties regarding abortion. For myself, I've never impregnated anyone, so I've never been in the situation of being a part of that decision. I'm married now, and when my betrothed gets knocked up, we'll have the kid. That's how I view acting out my beliefs. I don't support imposing my beliefs on others, and so I don't let it factor in my voting decisions.

[Good Old Neon]

What W2?

 

Precisely.

[ikol]

i've heard that argument and i agree that just stating it isn't true isn't enough, however, on the other side of the coin, taxpayer funds are used to fund many things that many people disagree with, no? i myself would like to read some of this legislation first hand. it's doubtful that any person can just opt for an abortion and choose the government funded version or maybe apply for a grant to cover my abortion.

 

Whether it's OK to use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions is certainly up for debate, but the issue here is that Obama is trying to mislead people that have misgivings about this into believing that their tax money will definitely not fund abortions.

 

With that said, there’s a difference between booing someone, and shouting “you lie.” .

 

I would think that booing someone is worse. At least "you lie" is somewhat constructive as it offers a reason for one's disapproval. Booing is basically just saying "fuck you." Not that either is acceptable, but like you seemed to imply, it's OK as long as you agree with the heckler.

 

I’d have a little more understanding, and a little less contempt for the “ no way is my tax dollars going to fund abortion” crowd if they were even just a little consistent, because, for whatever reason, the same crowd that equates abortion with murder, is usually the same crowd that is 110% in favor of increasing “defense” spending, or like, conducting and/or supporting wars. Which is to say, I get the sense that their opposition to abortion has more to do with what they hear at church, and their desire to strictly adhere to the word of god - lest they find themselves in hell - and less to do with actually saving lives, which, if we were to adopt universal health care coverage, we might actually achieve – saving lives. Many of abortions most vocal opponents, are the very same folks who put their full support behind whatever war it is we’re fighting this week – with little to no regard for the thousands upon thousands of civilians who find themselves forever and irreversibly collaterally damaged.

 

You really don't see the difference there? Regardless of whether you support a given war, can't you admit that reasonable arguments can be made in favor of war? Going to war is a decision made by a democratically-elected government that is meant to benefit all citizens through ensuring their protection. Arguments of whether any given war lives up to this aside, ensuring common defense is explicitly the main purpose of government. Even if you favor abortion on demand, an abortion is a personal choice made by an individual with no input from voters (kinda the whole purpose of "pro-choice") and meant mainly to benefit that individual. What possible argument could you make that tax money should fund this, especially when even most pro-choicers "personally oppose abortion"? I mean, at least convenience isn't a commonly used justification for war.

 

Do our tax dollars support capital punishment, or do they just pass a hat...?

 

I'm against that too.