Parenting Club - Parenting Advice, Parenting Message Boards, Baby Message Boards, Pregnancy Message Boards, TTC Messge Boards
Shop for Baby Items | Parenting & Family Blogs

Rep. Wilson shouting out "You Lie"


MommyToAshley wrote: I am sure many of you have heard about this or watched the speech Obama gaveto congress, but in case you didn't, here's the clip:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/oba...tml#cnnSTCVideo

ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif This goes back to what we were talking about being disrespectful. I can't believe a representative would think it is ok to shout that out to the President of the United States, let alone do it on a national and international stage. It's ok to disagree, but I can't believe the disrespect. I read that he apologized, but I am still in disbelief and not sure that is enough.

lovemy2 replied: I agree - all flies in the face of encouraging youths to be respectful - sad - a grown man acting like that especially in that setting.....

Celestrina replied: growl.gif It doesn't surprise me when I see people acting like that at the neighborhood meetings because anyone can come. A representative should know how to control himself. It doesn't matter how much you disagree, to act like like that goes beyond rude and disrespectful.

momofone replied: I saw that too - what were those documents some people were holding up in the air. ?

MommyToAshley replied:
When Obama asked Republicans to share their health care ideas during the speech, they raised those papers in the air. I took it to mean that they have ideas too, but that the administration is not willing to listen or compromise and is trying to push the bill through on their own terms. I am not so sure I think that was the appropriate stage for that either.

A&A'smommy replied: I'm SERIOUSLY embarrassed for his family!!! blush.gif

MommyToAshley replied:
Can you imagine? I am sure they are all embarrassed.

I heard this morning that he had to take his website down because there were so many complaints on the website. And, they took the phone off the hook at home and the office because there were so many people calling in to complain. ... rightfully so.

momofone replied:
Thank you. Does anyone know when the public option would be available is it years away or sooner?

A&A'smommy replied: apparently he did opologize afterwards

DansMom replied:
momofone, I think he said that some sort of public option would be available in four years, and in the meantime they would try to get high risk people (people who actually can't get insurance in the current scheme due to pre-existing conditions) on an emergency kind of coverage---something that has had bipartisan support in the past, if I understood him.

That was an upsetting moment. Very ugly. I could see Obama working through the moment and holding himself together.

momofone replied:
Thanks.

boyohboyohboy replied: I do not agree with Obama's policy. Not as a nurse, or a mom...but that being said I think that when the senator yelled out in the middle of the president of the united states addressing the entire congress it was completely disrespectful and absolutely inappropriate.
I think there was or is a much better time to present his side of the case.

I also felt that it was handled with complete composure, although Obama, also acted very surprised by the outburst he kept his cool. He didnt address it or acknowledge it.
I felt pelosi and biden, kept staring and making faces, and maybe had they acted with the cool composure that Obama did, it might not have been so prolonged..but did you think there wouldnt be an apoligy today???
come on he was verbally beaten up as soon as those cameras were off, dont you think..

Calimama replied: Wow, really classy. rolleyes.gif

bluebear replied:
Ditto. If anything it was a cry for attention

my2monkeyboys replied: It seems our Congressmen, Senators, Representatives, etc have always had a knack for being rude... dry.gif blink.gif

jcc64 replied: I think it was the logical extension of what started during those awful town hall meetings.
In the end, the only thing it accomplished was to make Wilson look like the idiot that he obviously is.

redchief replied: I'm sure good ol' Mr. Wilson is being well and fully ostracized despite his apology. In the end his faux pas will eventually drown into the background and future presidents will remember it with mirth. "Remember when Wilson shouted out, 'You lie!' Please refrain from that tonight my colleagues...."

And of course it's and extension of the anger and resentment that moderates and conservatives have been voicing at town meetings, but that doesn't excuse the outburst. Town meetings are simply that type of forum - the place where the ticked off can rail at their so-called representative. Let us not forget that regardless of the party from which the representative hails, most of his constituency does not fully share his/her views. In most (except for the very rural and the very urban) congressional districts, the constituency sees itself as moderate. When a piece of strongly leaning legislation is being debated, right or left, you can count on the moderates to grumble, and you can count on the opposite side of the aisle to be loud and ornery. Quite simply (and there is more than ample proof) the majority of this country doesn't want this health care plan. They feel it will be too expensive (I agree), the extent of the reform is too great (I agree), and the politicians aren't listening to what WE want (I wholeheartedly agree).

MommyToAshley replied:
I actually think it will be the end of his career in politics. I heard several democrats come out and say they were surprised when they heard who shouted it because it was out of character for him and he's always striked them as being pleasant and well-mannered. I don't know much about his record, but I feel bad for him if this one moment of bad judgement will ruin his career.

jcc64 replied:

I don't know anything about him either, but the magnitude and scope of the stupidity was pretty breathtaking, don't you think? I mean, these are all seasoned politicians acutely aware of being in the limelight. If it was a temporary brain fart, which I sincerely doubt, it was epic, don't you think?
As a person who gets up in front of a rough crowd (8th graders) every day, it's disheartening to see our "leaders" exhibiting such rudeness and bad behavior. How can we expect our kids to show respect and self-restraint when these grown men can't control themselves for the duration of 1 speech?? I hope he is run out of town---I have no sympathy for him.

cameragirl21 replied: While I admit that our politicians have a way of embarrassing us as Americans at times, particularly in the case of Rep Wilson engaging in the type of conduct we would normally see on an elementary school playground, I am truly relieved that they don't opt to remove their shoes and throw them at our president's face.
It's heartening to see that in spite of all the vitriol thrown at our president these days and in spite of just how partisan things have become, this is still America afterall, and we are a civilized nation.
Idk if shouting out something like this should be the end of someone's career but I'm glad that it's enough to lead to gasps and such whereas in other nations, shoe throwers are not only not an embarrassment, but rather, they are considered heroes.

redchief replied:
If Ted Kennedy can get away with leaving a dead girl under a bridge, Wilson should be forgiven for a little bit of verbal vomit during an unprecedented and unnecessary convening of a joint session of Congress.

mckayleesmom replied:
I thought he left her in a lake? dry.gif

jcc64 replied:

Ok, Ed, now you're sounding less like the reasonable guy that you are, and more like Glen Beck.
And since you seem to want to move this discussion toward partisan sniping, I will respond by saying that if we as a country should be asked to forgive Bush for convening a costly and unnecessary war, without which we may have been a better position to fund this whole health care crisis, then I think we can exhibit a little patience when Obama convenes the Congress for one important speech. It's abundantly clear at this point that if Obama found a bunch of baby birds on the ground and put them back in their nest, his opponents would spin it into a dangerous act of government meddling designed to crumble the very fabric of America.


And who's to say Ted Kennedy got away with it, anyway? You're a devout Catholic, you believe in the afterlife--don't you think he'll pay a heavy price if he's got blood on his hands?

Crystalina replied: This guy was an idiot. Plain and simple. I shouldn't say "was" because he still is what he is at the end of the day. It was almost like some sort of turrets or something. I can only laugh now because it was pretty obvious that when the last of the two words left his lips he was done. How could anyone take him as a professional after that? A joke is more like it. dunce.gif

And yes, Obama was taken by surprise but I'm sure he didn't expect some twit to have a random outburst like that. emlaugh.gif I felt bad for him. He'd have to think on the spot...Do I give a comeback? Do I act like I didn't hear it? Do I jump over this podium and give him a good *smack!* for making me lose my train of thought and momentum? ....I'm glad he handled it the way he did though. clapsmiley.gif

redchief replied: His reward or lack thereof in the afterlife will fit his crimes, as judged by God, not me. What gets me is that our government has already nearly canonized this, the least of the Kennedy's.

Hmmm... Seems to me I recall a bipartisan Congress and a president convening a war in Iraq, but I know that little bit of political fact is inconvenient for liberals to admit. I also seem to recall that the vote to go to war was overwhelmingly, bipartisanly in favor. These votes took place in 2002, so in case there is some foggy recollection, the vote was as follows: Senate in favor 77-23; House in favor 296-133. The liberals didn't recant until 2006 - a little late but what's a few years, right?

If President Obama were to return the little birds to their nest one of two things would happen. Either the mother would destroy them or they would live to fly from the nest and crap all over everyone's cars. Either way people can draw conclusions that Obama bears the blame. Isn't that kind of a fitting comparison to what's going to happen when we stop chasing terrorists and demagogues back to their nests. I suppose we should just butt out and let Iran and North Korea build and stockpile nuclear arms, ignore global concern and resulting sanctions, and feed their economies by training, arming and inserting terrorists into other countries. So, what would be right? Should Obama put the birds back in the nest, or let them starve on the ground?

Want to know something really funny? I have no idea who Glen Beck is, except that he's a Fox News commentator. I've never listened to or watched him - not even once. rolling_smile.gif

The statement I was answering was, "I actually think it will be the end of his career in politics." Since the least of the Kennedy's has been a recent central figure in the health care debate, I found comparing his historical abominable misbehavior to Wilson's relevant to the partisan nonsense happening in Washington right now. You can't tell me the liberals were surprised that conservatives would be dead set against another money eating medical bureaucracy. The Dems expected the backlash and hoped it would backfire in the conservatives faces. What the Democrats didn't expect was the wholesale abandonment of their moderate constituency. Sure the far right are to blame for the disruption of hundreds of "town meetings," and they don't deny it. But the far right number too few to account for the incredible fall from grace that has beset the liberal majority.

On Mr. Wilson (I don't even know the chap's first name... I'll have to look it up)... Whatever happens to him will happen. I just don't believe he's politically dead; at least not yet. There is a wise adage that says "to the victor goes the spoils." Mr. Wilson's future lies in the hands of his constituency, not a ticked off White House. Ostracization isn't necessarily deadly to member of Congress either. Biden, Liberman and McCain will tell you that - they've all sat in that hot seat at one time or another. Remember, the winner gets to write the history books.

smile.gif By the way, I've missed our debates. smile.gif

jcc64 replied:

Who ever said there exists a liberal majority?? Not me, certainly, and I among many, don't even count Obama as a liberal. He's a moderate in my book, and spends way too much time trying to build consensus and cajole a party whose only clear objective is to see him go down in a ball of flames so it can regain the White House. They have no interest in working with him because they don't want him to succeed, at any cost to the country, and I think Obama should be taking a page out of GWB's playbook at this point. Forget the consensus, follow your agenda and do what the majority of this country elected you to do last year.
I think you grossly overestimate my esteem for congressional Democrats, Ed. I think they're all a bunch of incompetent losers. I know they voted for the war, because they lacked the ____s to question Bush post 9-11, but in the end, it WAS Bush's asinine agenda (or more accurately, Cheney's) they were agreeing to. Who's to say what's worse: coming up with an atrocious idea, or blindly following along). Fwiw, I'm against Obama's policy in Afghanistan, too. We don't belong over there.
If I can say anything positive about the Republican party, it's that they know how to win. They roll up their sleeves, dive in the mud, close ranks, and tow the party line, however misguided it may be. I fully admire their cohesiveness. Democrats, lacking all of the above, will shoot themselves in the foot every time, and are doing so as we speak. The country was poised to embrace reform, desperate for it, actually; but the Democrats (there's the reason their party logo is a jacka$$), pi$$ed that away by allowing the Republican spin machine to co-opt the debate-- spreading distortions, scare tactics, and misinformation all over the place. Obama was way too slow on his feet to respond, imo.
Once again, insurance companies and big pharma will be allowed to run roughshod over what's best for our families and futures. And the American people don't even realize they're allowing themselves to be robbed blind. Everybody's so concerned about the cost of health care reform, but I never hear anyone talking about the astronomical waste and fraud that already exists in the current system. Aren't you sick of paying for that? That's not theoretical--a "what if?"--it's already here. And don't you want to know that if you pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a policy over a lifetime that you can count on it being there for you when and if you ever need it? (b/c as it now stands, more than likely, it won't)
I can certainly understand why Congress will always put the interests of corporations ahead of our own, but I can never wrap my head around why ordinary, middle class people allow it to continue. I guess there will always be someone ready to steal from you if you allow it to happen. And if we let go of this opportunity for reform, we're allowing our own health and well being to be stolen right out from beneath us.

redchief replied: Even though my insurance pays for the majority of my prescription costs, yes, I'm sick of it. Unfortunately Obama's bill won't hurt the pharmaceutical companies' bottom line at all. In fact, the drug companies stand to benefit greatly from everyone having insurance and they're lobbying heavily for a reform package that includes drug allocations. Regardless of final form they'll probably come out smelling like a rose. The insurance companies are lobbying against a government option. They don't want to compete with the government; it will affect their bottom line. Take that away and the insurance companies will come on board because then they see $$$ in the bill.

You're right about the Dems too. They don't stick together well, and that's a direct consequence of their constituency, which you pointed out in the first sentence. Most Americans are moderate to conservative. That's well supported and documented fact. I know that sticks in the craw of well wishing liberals such as yourself because you truly believe the federal government can fix all of the country's social ills, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

One thing I saw in your last thread is that you see last November as a mandate to federalize. I see it on much simpler terms. I saw an independent backlash against a federal government that could not seem to cope with a failing economy and was seen increasingly as a bully administration. I saw no mandate, and in fact there were plenty of clues that no such mandate existed. Every time McCain took on a liberal platform plank in Obama's candidacy, McCain made gains. But Obama did scale back his so-called mandates to much more general terms as his candidacy evolved, mostly in response to his weakening position. In the end, the independent majority did move for change and gave the presidency to the democratic party. Especially after that election, the moderate majority realizes their political clout, and they have become much more involved than ever before.

I speak what I see. I consider myself conservative and often find myself at odds with republican moderation, but I also know that there's no chance of a third party taking hold in this country, so I go with who I feel will grow government the least. I didn't shout down anyone in a town meeting, but I did write my senators and congressman in opposition to the current health care bills being considered. Unfortunately my Senators will vote with the dems.

jcc64 replied:

When did I ever say that, b/c that's not how I feel.

What I do believe is that people are inherently greedy, self-interested, and cannot ever be trusted to do the right thing where money's involved. Accordingly, the gov't has a role in protecting the interests of those citizens (most of us) who are not well-connected enough in Washington to protect themselves.

Just wondering who you think IS capable of fixing the country's social ills.

redchief replied: Don't worry, I'm going to answer your question, but you're not going to like the answer. My greater question is... If the government will protect those who are not well-connected enough to to protect themselves, who will protect THEM from the government? See, this is my problem with the liberal establishment. They see a mandate for government involvement where I don't. In my opinion, most of the problems people face today are at least indirectly, and often directly attributable to the federal government.

How? High insurance premiums are in many cases a result of government regulation that prohibits the singling out of any one segment of population. Are the regulations wrong? Perhaps not, but they didn't solve the problems for those who can't afford the increased cost now did they? They just made it harder for people who could get coverage before to afford it. Call that leveling the playing field if you will, that's what happened.

How? Federal and state judges have permitted exorbitant personal injury settlements in cases where bad things have happened to good people under the care of a doctor. Do these people deserve compensation for their loses? Perhaps, but it seems to me that most physicians do their best to improve the health of their patients. Are mistakes made sometimes? Sure, healing is still not an exact science. High malpractice insurance premiums are one of the leading causes of the "health care crisis." (And there's nothing in the current bills circulating in congress to fix it.) What should happen here? Should people who have suffered loss due to physician error get paid a lot of money? Maybe, but that's a double-edged sword. Someone has to pay for that. Those costs have to finally be covered by the consumer in one way or form. Would tort reform fix that? It would help, but then Sally won't be able to get her millions when her child got cerebral palsy when he was injured at birth.

How? Medicare has been losing money for years due mostly to poor management and a system that is easy prey for the greedy. There's not enough staff to chase down the cheaters, and the courts have made it difficult to prove criminal intent.

How? Social Security is a joke. It won't be there when it's time for me to retire.

How? The federal deficit was $407 billion last year. It will top $482 billion this year. In ten years, due to spending by our current federal government and not inclusive of new programs not on the table, in ten years it will top $9 TRILLION. I can't even imagine a number that large. When do we start paying off the debt? Or do we just leave it to our kids?

Who can fix the social ills of society? Only society, as in the community, can do that. No one White House administration can. No congress can, and I dare say that states would even find the task nearly impossible. There are 307 million people in this country! It's too big for a central government to handle. What do you think took communism down in Russia?

What we must do is become responsible as well as righteous. If there are people in need, the community must provide for them. We can do it cheaper and quicker than the federal and state governments can. For what should we rely on the central governments (federal and state)? The ability to feed and clothe, and provide basic medical care for kids whose parents can't do it themselves... that is money, but without the duplication of efforts that are DYFS and other silly government bureaucracies. Let the cities and counties do this. They know their people.

All I'm saying is that it's nice when our government feels the need to help us. But when it costs more than we can afford to pay, how are they helping us? If New York City has a hurricane tomorrow, what do you think will happen? Who will be in charge in your neighborhood? What will the government's role(s) be?

TLCDad replied: Why are you guys talking from one extreme to another.

Lets be honest here. Most (but not all) far right-wingers are poorly educated in common world issues and some what greedy people. Most left-wingers (liberals) are maybe more educated but have some ethical problems and almost as bad poor judgement.

The perfect and IMHO only answer is split down the middle half government and half free market place. That is the most common sense. You can't have free market without some goverment intervention and you will have a mess with complete goverment control. The Bush adminstration let the free market go nuts and see what happened. Everyone keeps forgetting about that. If we had more regulation then this mess probably would not of occured.

This goes for the health care reform as well. We need free market as much as we need some goverment regulation and control. This brings on competition and fair value.

I do agree with the right that included in all this, we need to allow insurance companies to cross state lines and we need tort reform. Drs. still should not get away with incompetence such as drinking on the job or leaving instruments in the body but from what I hear I guess some of these lawsuits are out of control.

jcc64 replied:

But they won't Ed, because if we're being completely honest here, lots of folks believe "people in need" are not casualties of circumstance but are instead morally deficient, lazy, or otherwise deserving of their own misery. They're not interested in "providing for them", and resent being asked to do so. I've heard it again and again right here on this board. For every person gaming the system, buying doritos with food stamps or not exhibiting enough "personal responsibility" in some other form, there are countless others (many of them children) whose misfortune is attributable to nothing more than one too many cases of extremely crappy luck, lack of access to education, poor health, etc...
So I don't believe that we can trust in people's better instincts because at the end of the day, greed and self-interest will trump altruism every time. Volunteering at a soup kitchen here and there isn't gonna solve the magnitude of all of our social ills, it just isn't.
I don't defend out of control medical malpractice suits in any way, shape, or form, btw. Ita that they play a big part in how medicine gets practiced in excessive ways here. And I know massive gov't programs are imperfect solutions. But we need to start somewhere, and I'd rather have SOME kind of protection, however flawed it may be, than none at all. B/c otherwise, it's really just survival of the fittest, and I don't want to live in a jungle.

coasterqueen replied:
Wow is all I can say to that. huh.gif


And Ed, I completely agree with you in so many ways. You just say it more effectively than I ever could.


Go tort reform!!!!! Stop the frivolous lawsuits. There is a population out there just itching to sue for anything and everything. What they don't realize is we ALL pay the price.

redchief replied: Depending upon your perspective that could be an accurate assessment. I think that a federal government agency with no ground forces can do little to ascertain whether or not this is the case, and so government programs are doomed to failure for that very reason. Taxpayers see the waste and cry foul when their hard-earned tax money goes to people that simply refuse to do what they do - work hard. They complain, their representatives listen, funding gets pulled or regulations change to combat misappropriation. This almost always evolves into additional oversight which costs more money and pads the government payroll further which further incites the masses to rebel. It's an unending cycle. Give the money to the counties along with rules for appropriation and have them distribute. That's how we do it in emergency services and it's more efficient and capable than state or federal offices.

You're right, we can't trust in people's better instincts. That extends to the government when they start talking "federal program." The states aren't much better. The heads of state see these programs as places to seat political cronies in thanks for helping them gain office. These appointments (called oddly enough, czars dry.gif ) rarely account for anything good and often the people placed in the positions below them are dedicated but scared to death of their own job positions and so feed them the information they think the figure heads want to hear. Politics is ugly and that's not going to change soon. Take the politics out of it and distribute grant money fairly and equitably. This is, of course, is easier said than done, but at least if local aid were a grant program, the money might have a chance to actually help the people that need it.

Danalana replied: This is good stuff...I SO wish I knew enough about politics to be a part of the debate, but I don't!


CommunityNewsResources | Entertainment | Link To Us |Terms of Use | Privacy PolicyAdvertising
©2018 Parenting Club.com All Rights Reserved