Isn't the real issue whether Obama was lieing?

 

To me, the real issue under discussiion here was whether or not (he did) this particular politician, who may or may not be what he claims to be, dissed the office of the presidency with his classless outburst.

 

There's a time and a place, etc. Heck, if this were acceptable decorum, Dick Nixon would never have gotten a word in edgewise.

To me, the real issue under discussiion here was whether or not (he did) this particular politician, who may or may not be what he claims to be, dissed the office of the presidency with his classless outburst.

 

There's a time and a place, etc. Heck, if this were acceptable decorum, Dick Nixon would never have gotten a word in edgewise.

 

I don't approve of what Wilson did. Not at all. But I'd like to think that we would/should be much more bothered by the President of the US possibly lieing (or even merely "distorting the truth") to us on national TV about an issue as important as health care. Kind of a very sad reflection of America if we are more worried about decorum than we are worried about whether our President didn't the complete truth on such an important issue, isn't it?

I don't approve of what Wilson did. Not at all. But I'd like to think that we would/should be much more bothered by the President of the US possibly lieing (or even merely "distorting the truth") to us on national TV about an issue as important as health care. Kind of a very sad reflection of America if we are more worried about decorum than we are worried about whether our President didn't the complete truth on such an important issue, isn't it?

 

Yeah, but why would the media cover that? They worship Obama.

I don't approve of what Wilson did. Not at all. But I'd like to think that we would/should be much more bothered by the President of the US possibly lieing (or even merely "distorting the truth") to us on national TV about an issue as important as health care. Kind of a very sad reflection of America if we are more worried about decorum than we are worried about whether our President didn't the complete truth on such an important issue, isn't it?

 

I can see that. Much like many wondered if the Bush Administration lied or did not dig deep enough to support the Iraqi invasion.

 

From what I've gathered about the whole issue of "the lie" is that the bill in question openly stated it would be illegal to give medical insurance/help to illegal immigrants.

 

However there is nothing added in terms of policing that policy (kind of like a lot of immigration policy) and making the words "stick."

 

Is there amnesty for all and then a line drawn?

 

Are guidelines/punishments/codes enacted to give the section teeth?

 

Or are we all kidding ourselves because currently almost any illegal immigrant can get health care because those documents aren't requested at the ER or Medical facility. :idunno:

Isn't the real issue whether Obama was lieing?

 

Not in this thread.

I don't approve of what Wilson did. Not at all. But I'd like to think that we would/should be much more bothered by the President of the US possibly lieing (or even merely "distorting the truth") to us on national TV about an issue as important as health care. Kind of a very sad reflection of America if we are more worried about decorum than we are worried about whether our President didn't the complete truth on such an important issue, isn't it?

 

Which issue are you saying he lied about? Immigration?

Does it really matter what type of law he was practicing?

 

Honest question.

 

In regards to what?

To me, the real issue under discussiion here was whether or not (he did) this particular politician, who may or may not be what he claims to be, dissed the office of the presidency with his classless outburst.

 

There's a time and a place, etc. Heck, if this were acceptable decorum, Dick Nixon would never have gotten a word in edgewise.

 

I agree with you. I think it was out of line and disrespectful. Who the president was is irrelevant to me...

Just some food for thought, a freshman congressman a few years ago compared Bush to Adolph Hitler and no one got this upset about it. I hate that everything has to be because of racism too. I don't support the President's policies and I'm not racist!

Isn't the real issue whether Obama was lieing?

I do have to admit that I can empathize with this statement. Clyde, while I know you said "not for this thread", it is sad that, as a country, when someone says "you lie" the issue is not discussing the merits of his claim "you lie", but instead whether or not he is a racist or his pedigree in immigration. I understand that a little credence should be weighed in regards to Wilson's credentials, but it just seems far removed from the issue.

In regards to what?

 

Would being an immigration lawyer add anything special or unique to his resume?

 

Does it take any extra classes or curriculum to become an "immigration lawyer" as opposed to an attorney who states he has a "General practice?"

Which issue are you saying he lied about? Immigration?

 

I didn't say he lied. Read my post closer. I said possibly lied. Unless I've missed it, there isn't a thread titled: Did the President lie? Rather we have a thread spending more effort on whether Wilson should have called him a liar in the Joint Session or whether the accuser puffed up his legal experiences. That's just seems messed up to me.

Would being an immigration lawyer add anything special or unique to his resume?

 

Does it take any extra classes or curriculum to become an "immigration lawyer" as opposed to an attorney who states he has a "General practice?"

 

Don't attorneys take classes that focus on areas of study within their field? I would assume that an attorney who specialized in First Amendment law or corporate law would have taken classes geared toward this specialty, much the same way I would expect a military history professor to have spent his undergraduate and graduate career studying wars and military tactics.

Don't attorneys take classes that focus on areas of study within their field? I would assume that an attorney who specialized in First Amendment law or corporate law would have taken classes geared toward this specialty, much the same way I would expect a military history professor to have spent his undergraduate and graduate career studying wars and military tactics.

 

Most law students don't have a clue what they are going to be doing while they are in law school so they take a little bit of everything.

 

The ABA and the American Association of Law Schools also encourage this line of thinking and discourage law students from taking too many classes in one specific area.

Isn't the real issue whether Obama was lieing?

 

 

I guess there's some perspective here that differs

 

How credible is a liar to call a someone a liar when...they've lied?

 

If the man hasn't been an immigration lawyer, why does he say he has?

 

In this country, isn't the accused innocent until proven guilty? Why is it then, that the accuser can't be looked at as closely as the accused? Why is it that the onus has evolved from the burden of proof on the accuser, to the accused?

 

I realize this isn't the court of law we're speaking of, but the same principle should apply.

 

If one wants to cast stones, then one better make darned sure that, at the minimum, their house is made of plexi-glass and not glass.