The press can't even get the "You Lie!" story right
September 10, 2009 8:48 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Of course, the rude heckling by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is being reported everywhere. And yes, his apology for the extraordinary outburst has been noted. But have you noticed what's been mostly left out from the dispatches? It's the fact that when Wilson called Obama a liar for claiming illegal immigrants would not be covered by proposed health care reforms, Wilson himself was lying.
What's been completely glossed over by the press is the fact that the "You Lie!" was itself built upon a lie. That the rude outburst was yet more GOP misinformation. Instead, too many in the press treat the exchange as a he said/he said. i.e. Obama claimed illegal immigrants won't be covered, and Wilson called him a liar. What are the facts? Which man was telling the truth? The press won't say.
From ABC News:
A Republican member of Congress interrupted President Obama’s speech tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives to yell “You lie!” at the president, in reference to the president’s assertion that his proposals wouldn’t provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.
That's it. ABC never even tries to inform online readers which side was telling the truth.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since the press has spent the whole summer timidly looking away from the orchestrated, right-wing misinformation. What does a Republican have to do these days to get fact-checked by the press?
UPDATED: Politico's Glenn Thrush hailed Wilson's heckling as the night's "defining moment" in a piece headlined, "Wilson's rallying cry." But was Wilson's boorish accusation true? Did Obama "lie" when he claimed Democratic health care reforms would no offer up free care to illegal immigrants? On that count Politico remains politely silent.
As we've seen this summer, right-wing theatrics are far more important than facts.
UPDATED: Credit goes to Time's Michael Scherer, who included this in his "You Lie!" report:
The President's seemingly simple statement, that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line: "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits."












Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular




Brilliant!
(And, as we know, birth certificates aren't valid proof.)
.
Because you need to see what could happen if there was this "proof of citizenship" requirement. What are you suggesting - that only people who look like illegals would have to show citizenship? Have you really thought about the ramifications of such a requirement or you just taking a position without understanding anything about it except that it sounds good.
Open mouth and insert foot. Do tell what does an "illegal" look like?
Simple. An "illegal" is anyone who doesn't look like kydem09.
Keep in mind that they then would spread the virus to other unvaccinated people and weaken herd immunity.
.
To deny care would be wrong, but something obviously needs to be done.
Problem solved.
As for the regular doctor, it was my wife who was in severe pain and her doctor had advised to go to a particular hospital because it was after hours and when we arrived at the building, we were directed to another hospital's emergency room.
I told my wife to say her name was Jane Doe and she lived under the bridge, so that maybe we should get the free medical treatment. She didn't listen to me, and that one visit created significant medical bills for my family. I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Bum had the same problem.
The best thing to do is obviously indemnify the hospital, as well as clinics and/or individual doctors, from taking losses. In other words, insurance.
The reason why she was uninsured was because I was laid off and part of my severance was COBRA, but the company I worked for denied my severance (due to a clerical error) without me knowing and never filed my COBRA paperwork, which left my wife uninsured... and she was unable to get insurance until recently because of a preexisting condition, which caused her to be uninsured at the time... she was turned down by numerous providers, and was only able to get a prescription plan.
I don't want to deny anyone anything. I support health care reform, and am not necessarily against a public option, co-op, or anything of the sorts. I am registered Republican, but I think I will be changing soon. I don't believe in the crap on Fox News and find their reports to be misleading and hypocritical.
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation
* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
Waiting in the emergency room does not mean mild problems or unfairly burdening those (including me) privileged to afford regular medical care. There's so much wrong with that attitude that this list is just a taste:
- Sick people are not the problem.
- Appropriate medical attention takes time, even in emergency situations.
- Emergency room visits are painful and inconvenient; people don't visit the emergency room for kicks.
You. That's right, you foot the bill. The burden gets distributed to insurance companies and government subsidies, which means your tax dollars and increases to premiums get absorbed by the population as a whole. So anyone's assertion that any bill will all of a sudden cause the burden of immigrants' health care to be placed on your shoulders is misinformation, because it has been there for a long time already. Finally, the illegal immigrant population greatly under-uses the health care system ANYWAY for fear of being caught. This leads, sometimes, to extremely communicable diseases (i.e. Tuberculosis) to be spread, when they could be easily treated and contained if caught early. There will always be people immigrating to the US because the world sees it as the "land of opportunity" so I agree, something does need to be done. Let's keep ourselves healthier by making sure that those that slip through the cracks can't infect us with something their afraid to get treatment for.
Also, who cares if illegal immigrants are treated on the gov'ts dime? Those of us who have insurance pay for their care one way or another, either through higher premiums and costs for our insurance or from reduced access to care. It's actually better for crackers like you if those folks are covered....
Those are your words are they not? How would you go about making sure that everyone provides proof? When would they have to provide proof and to whom? Clearly you want something but without know how to make it happen. The fact that illegals might get some coverage by any healthcare reform seem to be more important to you than the fact that millions of Americans would benefit from this legislation.
And as far as someone being turned away in the emergency room for an ear ache - must mean that you have never had a child with ear aches or you would have never written that statement, but I know what you mean - minor health issues, right? That is why we need healthcare reform, so that people whose only access to healthcare is through the emergency room can see a doctor in his office instead.
Why is it that makes some Americans so afraid of a non-citizen somehow benefitting from healthcare legislation or that we might have to pay for illegals general healthcare that they are willing to stop healthcare reform? It doesn't make sense to me at all.
Its simple. When you go to wherever you go to sign up for your public option you will need to show proof of legal residency. How hard is that? If and illegal shows up at a ER we should 1( treat them 2. Call INS 3. Deport them. Simple.
A study by the American Hospital Association revealed that only 9% of illegal aliens ever go to an ER as opposed to 22% of American citizens.
Not only is yours a straw man argument it's not accurate in any respect.
Please display your racism toward the issue of immigration and not health insurance reform.
It helps if you have any idea what you're talking about BEFORE you open your mouth. That's a lesson the childish right wing needs to learn, as they yank their kids from school to avoid being brainwashed by Obama.... to stay in school. Amazing.
To help you stay focused, and understand.
And for the record, the SC senator never did explain why he yelled what he did. Not in any of his statements did he come out and say that proof of citizenship would be required before receiving treatment. Maybe we should just allow the GOP to start carding everybody so they can see who the 'real' Americans are.
Even the doctor's office asks for your social security number and that is checkable.
go back to south carolina. Governor sanford needs you.
every insurance application I've ever filled out required that I put my SSN on it. Seems like the big bad government could verify that.
What? You think that an undocumented foreigner would be able to walk into a doctor's office, say "I'm on the public plan", and get treated?
And when did "ridiculously ignorant" become one half of the two-party system in this country?
Prove it.
According to Republican logic, he already did prove it. The GOPpers asked for a ridiculous, superfluous restriction requiring "showing ze papers" , and Dems didn't go along with the idiocy.
The wingnut mind sees this as "Dems are secretly trying to insure Mexicans !!"
It's fine to argue that Republicans want some language inserted, but if there's no agreed upon proof of citizenship first, it remains useless posturing.
Illegal means illegal.
And proving citizenship is very difficult to do. That is the reason that you want that hazy standard..you can lie and rely with it.
But you know that.
He is saying that many non-citizens are not illegal immigrants, not what you are saying (that illegal immigrants are citizens.)
Lots of non-citizens are here legally, work and pay taxes like citizens, and are entitled to receive the same health benefits.
Asking for citizenship as a requirement is completely off the mark.
That's the point of the previous post.
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
------------------------------------------------------------
i think thats pretty clear that people here illegaly are not covered. until you can show another section of the bill that disputes this part you are doing nothing more than living in your own little clinger world. at least TRY and have some facts
There is no provision in place that requires you residency to be checked. So illegals will be able to sign up for health because no one will check. Many illegals revive work comp why would this be different?
There is no provision in place that requires you residency to be checked. So illegals will be able to sign up for health because no one will check. Many illegals revive work comp why would this be different?
Workman's compensation is an insurance
policy that your employer carries and pays for. A worker---citizen, immigrant or otherwise--- has no legal standing other than as beneficiary. Employers typically don't like it to be used because it affects their premiums. And when a Workman's comp claim is filed, the employer is out of the loop. It becomes a matter between the injured employee and the insurance carrier. Some small businesses may wish to pay for treatment of on the job injuries to avoid any red flags with OSHA or premium increases. And if you are an undocumented immigrant, your employer probably knows already.
That seems pretty draconian to me.
I have lived abroad - in Germany and in the UK. I was never required "to prove citizenship" to get medical care. If the German system were designed along the lines you suggest, I would have had to fly back to the US after having a serious bike accident in Germany that included a head injury.
And this is why people are critical of you for not thinking things through.
But, bottom line, I doubt that many of the occupations taken by undocumented workers are ones that provide health insurance, and few of those workers would apply for a public option that would focus government scrutiny on them during the eligiblity process. Many don't even report crimes done against them for fear that law enforcement would deport them.
For those workers here doing jobs that American citizens do not want are here to make money for the basic necessities. I doubt getting health insurance is on their agenda.
Seems a bit nutty to me.
REALITY: House bill stipulates that those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance. Under the "Individual Affordability Credits" section of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:
SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
(a) DEFINITION. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) --
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Senate HELP bill excludes those "not lawfully present" from federal funding. Under the "Making Coverage Affordable" section of the Affordable Health Choices Act:
(h) NO FEDERAL FUNDING. -- Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
I pasted this from : http://mediamatters.org/research/200909080001
The liar was Joe Wilson and you've become his dupe. Any futher attempt to pass on this lie will be treated with the disdain and scorn it deserves. Stop lying!
This is what you guys don't get. It is in the bill. Illegals are NOT covered.
Wilson is the liar in this case.
Who will do all the crappy jobs?
Who will mow my lawn?
Who will take care of my kid?
Who will work for below minimum wage?
Who can I hate now?
A drain on the economy? Please.
Law enforcement does heed these laws at verifying citizenship.
How are illegals a drain on our economy? I'll tell you how they're not. They come here, they work. Most, or the vast majority of them work under false social security numbers, on which, yes, federal and state income taxes are paid into the system by these workers. As others have mentioned, when they do come here, they have to have a place to live, and therefore, paying rent to local property owners normally. They have to have electricity, so they pay for that. Trash collection, water, sewer, and other requirements for living are bought and paid for.
When they're here, they also need to eat, therefore, they probably visit the grocery store / local restaurants a fair amount of time, and again, injecting more money into the economy.
Illegal aliens are not a drain on our economy, because the facts state otherwise. They pay taxes, of which they don't expect, or ever will see a tax return (and in my opinion, they don't deserve one because they're here illegally), but they're far from a drain on our economy as you claim.
I've been in construction in Southern California for a few decades, so believe me, I know a little about the subject too.
Yes, there are a lot of immigrants using fake SS cards, and that's good for anybody who needs some work done. Believe me, I've put out a lot of Help Wanted ads over the years, and there aren't too many Orange County kids showing up to haul heavy things up ladders or break out concrete, regardless of wages.
You're correct, they pay taxes, and can't take advantages of many benefits. I've seen a lot of Mexicans who, because of their status and/or a distrust of banks that they've brought with them, cash their paychecks at a liquor store that takes a 6% cut. They do most of their business in the neighborhood, and spend most of their wages to live, contrary to the idea that they're sending big chunks to Mexico.
Anybody who's making enough swinging a hammer to live here and send a bunch of money back home is obviously working their butt off, and contributing to the economy.
Except that we don’t enforce those laws. So by your own admission the 18mill or so illegals here will be covered because no on will be there to enforce the laws to prevent it.
You just in the pocket of big business and want the cheap labor. Such hate!
What if you were unconsious? Or having a stroke or heart attack? What more imporataant? Attending to you right away? Of making sure we don't waste a few tax dolllars, by waiting for your family to provide documentation? That idiocy, and what's more it's proof that we should never elect another republican since THEY'RE the ones in government who would make public health care a bureuacratic nightmare if they ever got control of it. All because of stupid nonsense like this.
If you're worried about illegals, you will put many people's lives at risk trying to enforce that. It's stupid, despicable, cheapskate scumbaggery.
Racist too.: You'd probably assume ANY white person is a citizen, or here legally. So shy worry about it, when it will really only affects Mexicans and other brown people anyway, right?
It's a stupid red herring. Give your tin foil back to Lou Dobbs and think for yourself for a moment how you want out health care system to treat YOU. Then apply that to EVERYONE else. (That's called being principled.)
Worry about HEALTH CARE first. Blood is far more important than money.
HOW DO YOU WANT TO BE TREATED BY A HOSPITAL?
Do you want your bleeding artery sewn up right away or only after your citizenship or legal status has been verified?
If keeping some idiotic beureaucrat (probably a republican) out from between me and the doctor who'll save my life means that the occasional illegal immigrant will has his or her life saved as well...
Well, I can live with that.
(If you say you can't, then you'll have hospital checking status before rendering services. It would be inevitable. How crazy must one be to want that?! Not to mention that it's just a basically inhuman position to support anyway!)
Funny, considering the number of American geezers retiring in Mexico and taking advantage of their system.
As the United States debates an overhaul of its health care system, thousands of American retirees in Mexico have quietly found a solution of their own, signing up for the health care plan run by the Mexican Social Security Institute.
I KNOW! Why the heck would they come here for health care, when they can get free coverage in MEXICO! MEXICO for chists's sake! MEXICO has universal coverage (via a public/private hybird) and somehow we can't! It's a disgrace.
But the only worldly conservatives are the few rich ones. The unwashed rank-n-file don't know about anything that goes on outside the walls of their own trailer parks that they aren't told by Limbaugh or Fox.
It's not our fault if you don't proofread your own posts.
But by all means, conservtaives, lets keep things just the way they are. We'll keep paying MORE, just to have more people DIE, rather than pay LESS and have more people recover and live.
Conservatives are sofa king stupid on this issue.
getting vaccinations to as many as possible, or
denying care to illegal immigrants?
If you consider the ER example "extreme," consider what will happen to public health when a large population of people doesn't take their kids to be vaccinated because SOMEONE in their family may be illegal, or may "look" illegal enough to get caught up in a raid, and they think the hospitals and clinics are ICE enforcement agents. Even citizens and legal immigrants will respond to that chilling effect.
All it takes for a health catastrophe is for a bunch of people not to get vaccinated. Then all the adults whose vaccinations are decades old will be vulnerable too.
Even if you accept the psychotic notion that ALL people aren't just PEOPLE (accepting that there even are 'right' people and 'wrong' people), it's still an absurd position to have!
And of course they can exclude, at will, anyone they deem to be not sufficiently hard-core, Right-Wing Republican.
I really hate these hypocritical self-rightous bastards.
Then how did the following wind up in H.R. 3200?
Sec 246 - NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
And you know this how? Did you pick it up through you magical tin foil hat or is there actually some documentation somewhere confirming that this is, indeed, the Democrats' strategy.
I'm guessing the former.
The problem with Republican fearmongering about non-existent boogey men is that come election time it inevitably backfires. Democrats don't NEED to offer illegal immigrants free healthcare as a way to secure the Latino vote. We win just by sitting back and watching the Republicans unleash their racist Nativist fury.
This hangup over "paying for illegals" misses the point. If everyone is covered, if everyone is getting prenatal care and preventive care, then the massive costs we currently foot for ER visits by people who wait until they are about to drop dead will drop. AND, we can do a better job of controlling pandemics and other illnesses.
The H1N1 virus will not ask for your immigration papers before it infects you, or the person you catch it from.
Redgardless, it will cost less than the Bush tax cuts.
It's really that simple.
There already is a requirement that applicants for Medicaid provide proof of citizenship. It was passed in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act and went into effect in 2006.
Since passage, the requirement has only prevented a handful of illegal immigrants from getting Medicaid coverage. It has also caused severe delays for thousands of needy participants. So the proof of citizenship requirement has turned out to be a terrible idea, unless the aim is to keep eligible people off Medicaid to reduce costs, or if politicians wanted something to satisfy anti-illegal immigrant groups. This is why Democrats voted against another proof of citizenship requirement.
http://www.gwumc.edu/medctr/news.cfm?view=news&d=7663
How DARE they !! The audacity of them. Everybody knows the flu virus that's going around is a citizen.
shouldn't that be "I think Dems are looking for a back door to allow coverage for illegals."? Unless you have some handy facts lying about you'd like to share...
If an illegal immigrant shows up at an emergency room with appendicitis, hospital staff are not going to shove that person to the sidewalk and watch him/her writhe in pain. They're going to treat the illness.
And if that illegal immigrant can't pay for it, you and I are going to pay, just like we pay for true US citizens who don't have insurance.
I'm a huge bleeding heart Obama fan and I want his initiatives to pass, but I think concentrating on the bill's language on this issue is a moot point. The fact is, we as compassionate humans must care for others, and that's going to cost us.
Keep this fact in mind. Where there are emergencies, health care won't be denied.
What about regular checkups, minor illnesses, dental care and the like?
Will compassionate humans require all us taxpayers to foot that bill, too?
Since anyone today can get TREATMENT in an ER, all of us taxpayers end up footing that bill in the end.
What we are discussing in this debate is HEALTH CARE.
That is not treatement such as when you go into a hospital.
The bill explicitly denies care to non-citizens.
You can easily go to FactCheck.org to get all the details of this lie.
That's why they use emergency rooms. And emergency room visits are more expensive than routine, preventive doctor visits.
Again, we pay for their health care either way, whether it's preventive care or emergency care. I believe compassion obligates us to do this.
Unfortunately, that's not an idea that plays well with the masses.
I'd love to know how you would legislate your idea.
And if every Ameriacan citizen had health coverage, there would be no need "to turn away ANYONE, white, brown, black, purple or orange" as you put it
Don't hold your breath.
THEY BETTER NOT !! I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK !!!!!
AMEN
These people are ANIMALS.
Wrong again. Bush had the nerve to propose handing it over to the Wall Street fat cats. How'd have that worked out?
I'll try to explain this simply, because that's all you can understand. Not punished by the state, not punished by the government, not taken to Guantanmo, nothing like that.
Punished by the body he belongs to, the U.S. House of Representatives.
Or, perhaps, in addition to punished by the House, punished at the polls by his opponent.
Does that make sense, troll? Or do you need more help?
Joe Wilson is free to say whatever he wishes. He is not free to do so on the floor of Congress. Not while he is drawing a paycheck from American taxpayerss.
It is utterly ordinary for an employer to be able to place limits on what an employee is allowed to say in the course of his duties. Can you think of any corporation where a board member would be allowed to publicly call the CEO of the company a liar during a public meeting?
Dingbat.
As for the "dingbat" remark, I don't recall posting anything derogatory or calling you any sort of name. As a matter of fact, I didn't post anything directly to you at all. If anyone wants to comment on any post I make rationally and expressing a point of view, whether I agree or disagree, feel free, and I'm open to if. If you wish to embarrass yourself and post emotionally charged, idiotic rancor, feel free to do that as well. It and you, are easily recognizable. Grow up!!
FAIL
Kinda like these folks and this stuff has been pandered to by the right for decades.
Don't forget the most prominent abstinence education programs and the highest rates of teen pregnancy.
First, why were all of those "democrats" democrats to begin with? Well, that had to do with Abe Lincoln being a republican, and he repealing slavery. Where were those democrats living at the time? The South. What happened to those democrats as soon as LBJ and before him, JFK started talking about civil rights legislation? They all turned to Dixiecrats, and THEN became members of the republican party, which is where most of them are today, or were (Thurmond, Helms, and a few others come to mind).
And, are you so sure about what you're saying about the republicans helping to prop up the Civil Rights Bill? Cause, the vote tallies say you're wrong.
By party
The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Now, I'm pretty sure that this bill was voted in overwhelmingly by both parties, according to the numbers seen above.
And also:
"The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[17] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election."[18] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. However, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer have argued that this development was based more on economics than on race. [19]"
Civil Rights Act 1964
Now, you may want to go back, and read your history of the subject, because it appears you just made up your own.
Were you home schooled?
The picture that was posted was probabaly from a rally organized by George Wallace!
Again Dems - THE TRUTH HURTS!
Don't stop the history lesson now!
After the 1964 presidential election, in which Republican Barry Goldwater appealed directly to the white Democrats of the South, the GOP began to consciously morph itself into the White Man’s Party in Dixie. Like the Dixie Democrats, the Republicans fashioned campaigns that essentially ran against Black people. It became the Dixiecrat party, and has structured every national campaign strategy around its race-based stronghold in the southern states.
Republicans started courting the voting block they couldn't previously get (white southerners). In this case, by the time the majority of blacks moved to the Democratic party (around the 1960s), a great many of the previous white southern Democrats, still didn't want to move to the Republican party, because it was the party of Lincoln and "black person lovers".
The old "Dixiecrats", didn't start switching to the Republican party until the 1970s.
NOW that's a complete history lesson!
Byrd once wrote the following: "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Maybe THAT is why he is considered such a great leader of DEMOCRATS!
The GOP is the party of Lincoln! The GOP - NOT DEMOCRATS - is the party of the leaders who fought for equal rights for all during the 50's and 60's! George Wallace, a famous leader of Democrats during the 60's took office saying "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Again, he was a DEMOCRAT and ran three times for President AS A DEMOCRAT!
In more recent times, it was Republicans who promoted, nominated or appointed great Americans like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleeza rice, so exactly who are the racists??? Bush helped all minorites - not just African Americans. He appointed more white females (50) than Carter (32), Ronald Reagan (27) or George H.W. Bush (31) and more Hispanic females (12) than Clinton (5).
Sorry Dems if the TRUTH hurts!
That was a nice rant. You conveniently left out people like Strom Thrumond, and the fact that the GOP in Lincoln's time has nothing to do with the present GOP. It is pretty laughable that you name the GOP as the party that fought for equal rights in the 60s.
Flashback: Rep. Wilson Also Had To Apologize After Attacking Strom Thurmond's Illegitimate Daughter
Most Americans first heard about Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) last night for his now-infamous "you lie!" outburst.
But it isn't the first time for Wilson. Back in 2003, not long after the death of Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Thurmond's bi-racial, out-of-wedlock daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, came forward to say that Thurmond was her father. (Thurmond, who spent most of his career as a staunch proponent of segregation and Jim Crow, had supported the family financially for decades.) Wilson made headlines for telling The State newspaper that Washington-Williams should have kept the shameful secret to herself.
Wilson later had to apologize to Washington-Willaims, Thurmond's family and perhaps implicitly non-awful people everywhere.
--Josh Marshall
Here's an actual *scholarly* summing up of the two parties:
The Democratic Party’s embrace of racial liberalism and the Republicans’ move toward racial conservatism in the mid-twentieth century represent a momentous transformation in American politics. Sometime between Reconstruction and the passage of the major civil rights acts of the 1960s, the two major parties essentially switched positions on civil rights issues. While there is a scholarly consensus on this very general statement, once one moves to more specific claims concerning the causes, timing and sequence of this shift, the consensus quickly erodes.In this paper, we hope to shed new light on some of the theoretical issues that surround the civil rights realignment. We will do so by examining a new data source: state political party platforms. As we will demonstrate, these data indicate that outside of the South, the Democratic Party took the lead on civil rights issues far earlier than conventional wisdom suggests. Furthermore, rather than acting exclusively as an intermediary between national party elites and masses, party activists (i.e., state party convention attendees) played an important, early role in shaping their parties’ positions on civil rights issues.
More generally, we argue that northern Democrats’ ideological commitments and coalitional partners generated a strong incentive to adopt the more pro-civil rights position as grassroots activists – both within and outside the party -- forced the issue to the top of the national agenda. By contrast, northern Republicans had much less intraparty pressure to embrace liberal civil rights policies.
link
The people like you who confound the Dixiecrats with Democrats in general are unteachable idiots or liars. Often both.
Here is a fact. Because of its membership, the republican party is decades away from nominating a non-white for the office of President. It's simply not going to happen.
As for political appointments, because of the earlier efforts of Democrats and liberal, WPE Bush had more women and minorities available to him for appointment than did earlier Presidents.
Maybe it's just my imagination, but I thought that this man was revered by Republicans even today. Meanwhile, liberals denounce racist remarks by Byrd from any time period, and he quit the KKK half a century ago anyway. So that doesn't seem like a particularly strong argument for you.
Moreover, calling someone a racist without justification is not "racist" in itself. That's not what the word means. Kydem should say "race-baiter" if that was the argument he wanted to make.
YOU want people to think that Wilson is all for for telling the the truth, but WHY during 8 years of the Bush administration, did Wilson not yell out LIE for:
The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam. President Bush, 9/25/02
There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties. President Bush, 9/17/03
There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03
We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/16/03
Bush says Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."
Bush citing of a United Nations International Atomic Energy report alleging that Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon
Bush claimed that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
We found the weapons of mass destruction. President Bush, 5/29/03
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. President Bush, 1/28/03
Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. President Bush, 10/7/02
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes. President Bush, 9/26/02
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. President Bush, 1/28/03
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. President Bush, 5/1/03
LIE after LIE and yet not ONE single word from ANY Republican?
LIES that caused the loss of over 4,000 AMERICANS? More than were killed on 9/11?
The Republican party is 90% White, and I'm suppose to believe that race has nothing to do with calling the first African American president a liar on national television, right?
So I should believe that because of all the times Republicans called the former White president a liar, right?
If you complain about their lies and partisan right-wing hackery, then you yourself are just a lying partisan hack.
Isn't this fun??
Kudos to PolitiFact for getting it right. And Jake Tapper for at least Tweeting about it.
Factcheck.org, polifact, and CNN have all judged Wilson's claim to be false. So he was lying, not Obama.
Randy
b) If I understand the proposals correctly, and I have actually read them, the following is true:
1)An illegal immigrant cannot get tax credits or other
subsidies
to buy insurance.
2)An illegal immigrant CAN, however, buy insurance, at "book"
rates from one of the co-op markets.
3)An illegal immigrant who BUYS insurance can then use that
insurance at an emergency room, or to pay for other medical
care(thereby eliminating the need for visits to the emergency
care.
4) As is true now, if illegal immigrants show up with at the
ER with a skull fracture, they will be treated. To me, this is
based on something beyond government policy, but is just a
matter of basic ethics and compassion.
Given the real-world situation we are in with regards to immigration, this seems like a reasonable situation. If they are insured (at their own cost) they will be less of a burden on the medical system. It also seems unlikely that medical professionals will accede to becoming, in effect, enforcers of immigration law. That's just not the way doctors and nurses act.
We need to do something definitive about illegal immigration, but health care reform is not the place to do it.
2. The argument is academic since there is no bill. There are proposals that have yet to go through the full debate process in either house of Congress.
It's really that simple.
F'rinstance, I'll bet she thinks it's not true that a black man is President of the United States...
And yet you failed to post even one of them to support your nonsensical statement. Makes one wonder how confident you are in your "untruths".
I haven't seen anyone point out that we do have universal healthcare in this country -- only you have to be over 65....
second, in all fairness, the Wall Street Journal got it right:
"... One, Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, shouted "lie" when Mr. Obama said his plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants, though the Democratic bills circulating in Congress do exclude illegal immigrants from eligibility for subsidies."
Why let a little thing like a true fact get in the way of a good (untrue) story.
We are screwed as a democratic country. We have the best economy that money can buy. Not OUR money but THEIR money. The Corporate "persons" who will soon have more speech rights than we REAL persons.
Remember Chief Justice Roberts saying he respected settled law and would respect Starre Decisis? How can you tell when a lot of Repugnants are lying? Their lips are moving.
How did we get into this mess? Money.
Icesailor.
I watch British "Question Time" with bemusement when I catch it. I do think our leaders should be able to speak on their feet. Obama would be great at this. Recent Republican presidents would be horrible. For that reason alone I would support the idea as it would expose the Republicans as the low-intelligent blowhards that they are.
Here's how the Obama vs. Wilson exchange would go in a Question Time scenario:
Obama: This reform does not cover illegal immigrants
Wilson: You lie!
Obama: OK. Show me the passage where illegals are covered. In fact, there's a passage that specifically forbids it.
Wilson: <crickets>
YOU should become informed BEFORE posting such nonsense!
The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
The agency estimates that for 2005, the last year for which figures are available, about $9 billion in taxes was paid on about $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, which would include illegal immigrants who drew paychecks under fake names and Social Security numbers.
The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover retirement checks to legal workers.
The IRS also has been issuing Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, or ITINs, for 12 years to foreigners without a Social Security number. It's believed that many workers who seek the ITINs are in the country illegally, and the IRS reported that there were 2.5 million tax returns filed with an ITIN in 2004.
In 2006, then IRS Commission Mark Everson told Congress that "many illegal aliens, utilizing ITINs, have been reporting tax liability to the tune of almost $50 billion from 1996 to 2003."
An IRS spokesman said more recent figures aren't available.
The Social Security and Medicare taxes from mismatched W2s for the same period was $41.4 billion, Hinkle said.
That adds up to roughly $90 billion in federal taxes during they eight-year period.
The tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales taxes, property taxes and excise taxes (such as the gas tax), are significant.
Many illegal immigrants pay up at tax time...
You started your post with "To all who are confused?" It appears YOU are confused!