Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Show Me a Country Without Lawyers, Hobos and Fighting Politicians and I'll Show You a Dictatorship
As the healing begins after these terrifying three days when the words "You Lie" held America hostage, let's round up a parliamentary-procedure control group to see how Yankee decorum stacks up against international standards:
Taiwan highlight reel with great song. Highly recommended.
Kyle Jordan|9.12.09 @ 12:51AM|#
Thus proving that here in America, there's really only one party. "Republican", "Democrat" it doesn't matter. They're all big government bozos that have absolutely no interest in helping people or trying to do good. All they want is power.
Bingo|9.12.09 @ 1:14AM|#
I still think duels are due for a resurgence. We probably wouldn't even need to implement term limits!
|9.12.09 @ 1:27AM|#
i was gonna say, there was the one guy who beat some other guy into a bloody pulp with a cane back in the 1800's. i guess that was Rep. Preston Brooks Andrew was refering to.
Paul|9.12.09 @ 2:00AM|#
Those shin-kickers and their taikwon-slappy face legislators in Korea? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeit, with one hand behind my back. Now, those corn-fed farm boys from the Ukraine? That's another story.
ron|9.12.09 @ 2:00AM|#
fuck yeah the song over the taiwan one is wong fei hung's theme song. ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA MOTHERFUCKERS!
Andrew|9.12.09 @ 2:08AM|#
mtc -- Yep. Sen. Charles Sumner (R-MA) was the canee. I always think of those two whenever the talking heads bring up the declining civility in politics schtick.
|9.12.09 @ 3:06AM|#
I will go to bed with happy dreams of a congress where I have free reign on barbara boxer and nancy polisi - sweet dreams!
Jay Dubs|9.12.09 @ 3:45AM|#
So a strong, vibrant democracy requires a strong a vibrant
government? ;)
Why did that Tony Blair clip make the cut? That was a reasonable
debate by parliamentary standards, nothing like Wilson's
unprecedented and rude interruption of Obama's speech.
|9.12.09 @ 4:04AM|#
NTL, those Koreans are a bunch of pussies. That wouldn't even make a good mosh pit.
You lie, 0bots!|9.12.09 @ 4:37AM|#
Why did that Tony Blair clip make the cut? That was a reasonable debate by parliamentary standards, nothing like Wilson's unprecedented and rude interruption of Obama's speech.
Unprecedented? If you really believe that, you're an idiot, and if
you're just trying to spoof somebody who really believes that,
you're trying too hard.
Here's a precedent, beyatches:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqSXsNJzRM
0 was in the front row, by the way.
Here's
another precedent.
Hacha Cha|9.12.09 @ 6:19AM|#
Rep. Brooks wanted to duel Rep. Sumner but was told by Rep.
Keitt that dueling was for people that were of the same social
class and that Sumner was equivalent to a drunk. Brooks beat the
Sumner over the head with his cane, trapping him under a desk
bolted to the floor. Sumner ripped the desk from the floor, at this
point he was blind from the blood gushing from his head. he
staggered up the aisle.some senators attempted to come to Sumner's
aid but Rep. Keitt brandished a pistol and yelled "let them be!"
Brooks continued beating Sumner till his cane broke, at which point
he quietly exited the chamber.
wow
Hacha Cha|9.12.09 @ 6:24AM|#
wow, check out the other congressional brawl Keitt was involved
in:
Keitt started a massive brawl on the House floor during a tense
late-night fillibuster. Keitt, objecting to an argument from
Pennsylvania Congressman (and later Speaker of the House) Galusha
A. Grow, dismissively demanded that Grow sit down, calling him a
"black Republican puppy". Grow responded by telling Keitt that "No
negro-driver shall crack his whip over me." Keitt became enraged
and went for Grow's throat, shouting that he would "choke him for
that". A large brawl involving two dozen representatives erupted on
the House floor, ending only when a missed punch from Rep.
Cadwallader Washburn of Illinois upended the hairpiece of Rep.
William Barksdale of Mississippi.
Bruce|9.12.09 @ 7:34AM|#
March! Freedom Plaza 9 am 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Tonight: Rock Bottom Restaurant and Brewery, 4238 Wilson Blvd #1256, Arlington. Ph 703 516 7688. We will have the Back Room Bar. Everyone pays for their own food and drinks
MNG|9.12.09 @ 8:01AM|#
I just saw the "you lie" clip yesterday (hey, big project at
work, no time to be a citizen).
So I think it was rude and oafish to yell out during the speech.
But as one of the resident H&R House Liberals I have to say
this: at the time Wilson did this Obama was essentially calling his
critics liars. So essentially it was like this:
Obama: "You know, my critics are telling lies, they are liars. One
thing they are lying about is that my plan will cover illegal
immigrants."
Critic: "You lie!"
So it seems much less egregious to me in that light.
|9.12.09 @ 8:13AM|#
MNG,
Well, basically there is no way this can be structured so that it
will not cover some portion of the illegal alien population. Unless
of course we go the route of a very robust national I.D., but even
then you will have leakage. So as a practical matter it will cover
illegal aliens, even if as a matter of law it doesn't.
One of the main reasons to oppose government run anything is the
sorts of efforts which have to be undertaken to enforce, parcel
out, etc. whatever that government run thing is.
FYI: I am for open borders.
Xeones|9.12.09 @ 8:29AM|#
But as one of the resident H&R House
Liberals
You lie. We make y'all sleep in the yard.
hmm|9.12.09 @ 8:43AM|#
I'm telling you. A caning would have been awesome.
That's something I have never liked about the bully pulpit. The
President should have to counter points or answer to criticism
every time he speaks to the Congress.
Xeones|9.12.09 @ 9:19AM|#
Of course, hmm, that would require a Congress whose members are capable of the occasional salient point.
|9.12.09 @ 9:32AM|#
Good for you MNG for admitting the obvious. You make a much
better house liberal than Joe who would have been on here claiming
that it was the most outragous act ever committed in
Congress.
I would hope that at least some of Obama's supporters would be
bothered by his smug attitude and habbit of painting everyone who
disagrees with him as having bad motives. It is bad for the country
for any President to act like that.
|9.12.09 @ 9:40AM|#
Also, I am disapointed in Wilson for apologizeing. He should have told the media to fuck off. Last I looked this is still a free country and the Obama is neither a God nor a King.
|9.12.09 @ 9:42AM|#
I'm getting tired of this sycophantic king-worshipping thing people have going. If you want strict decorum, mandatory respect and obesiance to a figurehead, go to Europe.
Rich|9.12.09 @ 10:18AM|#
Taiwan wins by a landslide. I kind of wanted to join in the
fun.
I agree. But "Taiwan on" first! ;-)
Abe|9.12.09 @ 10:26AM|#
I still think duels are due for a resurgence.
How about cow dung at five paces?
Nice historical note
here.
|9.12.09 @ 10:27AM|#
I dunno dude, a country without bottom feeding, blood sucking
lawyers sounds pretty good!
RT
www.anon-tools.vze.com
jester|9.12.09 @ 10:32AM|#
-Your arm is off.
-No it isn't.
-Then what's that?
-I've had worse.
-YOU LIE!
MNG|9.12.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Don't get me wrong, it was oafish for Wilson to shout "you lie"
as Obama had the floor, and his apology was in order. It's just
common civility. But having said that, it's astonishing how many of
my liberal friends miss that Obama was explicitly accusing his
critics of lying when this all went down. In the speech he talked
about civility, but certainly he could have approached the matter
in a much more civil way than he did.
Seward
I see your point and your broader point as well. Of course whenever
you create any government benefit there is this chance that people
who are not supposed to get it might find a way to actually get it.
But I still that makes the assertion "this plan 'covers' illegal
aliens" a misleading assertion. As I understand it explicitly does
not cover them in the normal sense of the word.
|9.12.09 @ 10:39AM|#
"You lie" should be the mantra taken up by the crowd whenever a politician gives a speech. It's a pity Wilson backpedaled.
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 10:40AM|#
John,
'Twas rude, certainly, but more importantly, it was politically
clumsy. The apology comes because the rest of the party realized
that Republicans and their position would be hurt more by the
outburst than Obama. Particularly during a speech that was
nominally about "getting past the bickering." The apology mitigates
that a bit (although Obama gets some points for "graciously"
accepting the apology, so it was a lose-lose for Wilson no matter
what).
At least he wasn't twittering.
|9.12.09 @ 10:46AM|#
"Particularly during a speech that was nominally about "getting
past the bickering."
No. It was a speech that called policy disagrements "bickering" and
"game playing". You may enjoy the taste of Obama's cock but some of
the rest of us don't. It was absolutely outragous the things that
asshole said in that speech. What he was saying was everyone needs
to shut up and do what I tell them. Get past bickering my ass. I
would have done the same thing Wilson did and walked out. It would
be one thing if Obama were actually interested in having a debate
and finding common ground. But he is not. He is interested in
marginalizing anyone who disagrees with him and shoving whatever he
wants down the country's throat. You should be a ashamed of
yourself for agreeing with him and finding the one guy who had the
balls to stand up and call bullshit in the wrong.
|9.12.09 @ 10:48AM|#
"As I understand it explicitly does not cover them in the normal
sense of the word."
1. It has no enforcmeent mechanism.
2. Courts have consistently ruled that you can't discriminate
against illegals for things like public schools and benefits. So,
the Dems know full well that the courts will make the program cover
illegals and that it doesn't matter what the plan says. They are
lying.
|9.12.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Don't get me wrong, it was oafish for Wilson to shout "you
lie" as Obama had the floor, and his apology was in order. It's
just common civility. But having said that, it's astonishing how
many of my liberal friends miss that Obama was explicitly accusing
his critics of lying when this all went down. In the speech he
talked about civility, but certainly he could have approached the
matter in a much more civil way than he did.
Who are you and what have you done with MNG!?
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 10:52AM|#
John,
Cute outburst of your own.
Here is what Obama said:
Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has
passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the
best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people
that we can still do what we were sent here to do.
In that context, only a sucker would be the one to step up and try
to look like the bickerer.
MNG|9.12.09 @ 10:57AM|#
John
It's bizarre to see it as covering illegals.
Covering illegals would mean language like "illegals qualify for
benefits under this program." Language like this "illegals do not
qualify for benefits under this program" but with no explicit
enforcement mechanism created elsewhere in the language is simply
not the same as "covering."
MNG|9.12.09 @ 10:59AM|#
"Courts have consistently ruled that you can't discriminate
against illegals for things like public schools and benefits. So,
the Dems know full well that the courts will make the program cover
illegals and that it doesn't matter what the plan says. They are
lying."
Well, according to this logic it would be impossible to create any
such benefit for the American people without also having the courts
later make it for illegals too, so you kind of have a
nonfalsifiable charge against any benefit whatsoever.
Some Guy|9.12.09 @ 10:59AM|#
I, for one, would love to see Barney Frank and John Boehner get into a knife fight.
MNG|9.12.09 @ 11:01AM|#
""You lie" should be the mantra taken up by the crowd whenever a
politician gives a speech."
This would make you and your side look like assholes. It would have
this effect because it would, in fact, be an asshole thing to do.
When someone else is speaking to shout "you lie" at them is
considered by normal sane people to be an asshole thing to
do.
I mean really, does anyone think there should be a general
principle of shouting at any speaker who you disagree with or think
is not telling it straight?
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 11:01AM|#
2. Courts have consistently ruled that you can't
discriminate against illegals for things like public schools and
benefits. So, the Dems know full well that the courts will make the
program cover illegals and that it doesn't matter what the plan
says. They are lying.
The public schools case pointed out that the kids don't have a
choice regarding their parents actions, so there may be precedent
for children to get coverage, but I would need you to point me to
where the courts have "consistently ruled" that adult illegals
would get cash benefits or their equivalent.
|9.12.09 @ 11:07AM|#
"The public schools case pointed out that the kids don't have a
choice regarding their parents actions, so there may be precedent
for children to get coverage, but I would need you to point me to
where the courts have "consistently ruled" that adult illegals
would get cash benefits or their equivalent."
And the same logic applies here. So at the very least we will be
covering the children of illegal aliens.
"Well, according to this logic it would be impossible to create any
such benefit for the American people without also having the courts
later make it for illegals too, so you kind of have a
nonfalsifiable charge against any benefit whatsoever."
The courts have pretty much made it that way. It is very difficult
to discriminate against people on the basis of immigration status.
So, whenever you propose a government benefit, you ought to be
honest enough to admit illegals are going to get that benefit.
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 11:09AM|#
HR 3200
"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"
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for
affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully
present in the United States."
MNG|9.12.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Well John, currently the GOP is doing backflips defending
Medicare.
By your logic illegals will get those benefits.
Shouldn't the GOP be out there admitting this loudly?
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 11:11AM|#
And the same logic applies here. So at the very least we
will be covering the children of illegal aliens.
Even here, I am not sure that follows.
Children wouldn't be directly getting the credits since they are
not the ones that would be paying for the health care, their
parents would...and the law explicitly states that they are not
eligible.
Joe M|9.12.09 @ 11:18AM|#
Well, you know, as for all of this illegals covered or no
covered business, um, aren't illegals not supposed to be here in
the first place? And yet, somehow, they are.
sn't it possible they would get coverage under a plan that has not
a lot of double checking on the legitimacy of claims? Much like
Medicaid, which is jam packed with fraud, due to a federal
government that just kinda goes along with whatever is submitted in
paperwork.
|9.12.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Neu Mexican,
No one argues what the bill says. The question is will it actually
be enforced that way and will the Courts find the language of the
bill excluding illegals constitutional.
"Children wouldn't be directly getting the credits since they are
not the ones that would be paying for the health care, their
parents would...and the law explicitly states that they are not
eligible."
Children don't enroll themselves in school or sue for the right to
go to school, their parents do. The parents would just sue for the
right to enroll their childen in the plan.
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 11:21AM|#
Joe M,
Indeed. But, I have to agree with MNG. If the law says "illegals
are not covered" then the law doesn't cover illegals.
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 11:28AM|#
John,
The courts ruling on public schools was based on the fact that the
children are the ones getting the education. When you are talking
about a cash benefit/subsidy that is much different, it
seems.
The kids will get the medical service (at least emergency care) no
matter what. But the idea that that means the public will pick up
the bill for the parents (who are liable for the service) is a
different matter. Public schools are "free," so there is no benefit
going to the parent.
No one argues what the bill says.
Joe Wilson did. Not all of us love the taste of his cock as much as
you do. =/;^)
MNG|9.12.09 @ 11:29AM|#
John
Then is would be more accurate to say "illegals may find a way to
get the benefits offered in this bill" or "courts may rule that
illegals have to get the benefits under this bill" than to say
"this bill covers illegal aliens."
Joe M|9.12.09 @ 11:47AM|#
I found something interesting:
How did we get such a nice action shot of Joe Wilson?
Almost makes you think it was staged. But, come on, a political
stunt, in this country? No way.
jester|9.12.09 @ 11:48AM|#
"in having a debate and finding common ground"
John, you're right that Obama wasn't interested in such. It
certainly would have been more presidential of him to simply say:
"We've come to a crossroads. May the best man win." or "I have
heard the debate and made my choice." But President's rarely act
like statesmen, do they? Just like Bush and "If you're not with
me".
jester|9.12.09 @ 11:52AM|#
John,
Why are 'illegal aliens' a sticking point for you? I think the
whole entire thing sucks. Why must you examine shit under a
microscope.
Tim Cavanaugh|9.12.09 @ 12:13PM|#
If you want strict decorum, mandatory respect and obesiance
to a figurehead, go to Europe.
Not
so
much.
Tim Cavanaugh|9.12.09 @ 12:17PM|#
How did we get such a nice action shot of Joe
Wilson?
And why does he look so different than he did during the Valerie
Plame affair? (Has he had work done? He should sue that plastic
surgeon.)
hmm|9.12.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Of course, hmm, that would require a Congress whose members are capable of the occasional salient point.
The point doesn't have to be salient. Just the ability to
contradict rather than be preached to while silently sitting and
obeying would be enough. The image given by the President
addressing Congress while they sit silently like school children
and airing the speech on TV so everyone can see it is one of
absolute power. People fall for that shit. I don't know how many
people think the president can actually control the economy for the
better. Although arguably the President can always make it
worse.
JB|9.12.09 @ 1:07PM|#
Until OBama apologizes for constantly lying, everyone at every single event of his should shout that he is a liar.
JB|9.12.09 @ 1:09PM|#
'If the law says it doesn't raise the deficit, then it doesn't
raise the deficit.'
Shut the Fuck Up, Neu Mejican.
|9.12.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Covering illegals would mean language like "illegals qualify
for benefits under this program." Language like this "illegals do
not qualify for benefits under this program" but with no explicit
enforcement mechanism created elsewhere in the language is simply
not the same as "covering."
Ah. So when the Bush administration initiated the warrantless
wiretapping program at NSA, and said they must only listen in on
conversations involving people overseas, that means no domestic
calls were in danger of being listened to. Because if domestic
calls were going to be listened to, Bush would have told the NSA to
do just that.
|9.12.09 @ 1:18PM|#
I was wondering how this became a semantic discussion, then I noticed all the "Comment by 'Santa Fe Sophist'" boxes that my comment filter replaces Neu Mejican's comments with. Mystery solved!
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Wow, even when Tulpa filters my comments Tulpa is so obssessed with me that Tulpa feels compelled to make comments about my comments.
jester|9.12.09 @ 1:26PM|#
This sounds like a political debate in France. The right:
socialism is good as long as we exclude the Africans.
The left: socialism is for everyone including the Africans.
"Yes, immigrants are the number one enemy of the USA. They could be
Al-Qaeda. Better yet, Osama is paying coyotes to smuggle foreigners
in to destabilize the US through welfare fraud.It couldn't possibly
be that they come here looking for work. Only my ancestors had
motives that pure."
Gimme a break!
jester|9.12.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Shows why the Culture Wars are so successful in getting people off topic on what really matters.
|9.12.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Re: Korea & Taiwan - Isn't there a single lawmaker in either nation that knows martial arts? Do we need to send Chuck Norris to Seoul to bring the grace and beauty of breaking arms and gouging eyes to the hapless schoolyard fighters of Asian parliaments?
|9.12.09 @ 2:28PM|#
I'll take fighting politicians everyday of the week. Not only does it indicate that they actually give a shit about something they're talking about, but the more time they spent fucking with each other, the less time they're fucking us. When the politicians are unanimous on a complex issue, something's wrong, and more than often not they're cooperating at the expense of the taxpayers.
hmm|9.12.09 @ 4:39PM|#
This sounds like a political debate in France.
Isn't political debate in France just a bunch of pissed off people
marching with signs, destroying private property, and special
interests screaming "We deserve!"
jester|9.12.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Yes, hmm, pretty much. If only we could be like that here in America, instead of doing things like holding town hall meetings were politicians risk their lives facing their constituents who might be stockpiling guns, harboring non-consensus views, or *gasp* speaking in angry tones.
Suki|9.12.09 @ 4:55PM|#
How many guesses do I get to figure out who's spoofing me? I
think one will do.
My guess is not Nega. What do I win?
Hobo Chang Ba|9.12.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Considering starting a blog called "Lie Detector" with the
motto: "...Because a politician's mouth is open somewhere"
If someone else wants it though, be my guest.
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 6:10PM|#
So, I find Tulpa's behavior intriguing, really. I can understand
the uses of a comment filter. You get to ignore comments by people
you have decided you don't want to engage with.
But why bother to comment about the hypothetical content of the
comments you are filtering?
Given that Tulpa, pre-comment filter, had a history of arguing with
a phantom version of NM that existed only in Tulpa's head, does the
filter provide a mechanism for doing that that is pure...without
the messy dissonance caused by having to deal with the actual
content?
Are the "I don't listen to that guy" comments about trying to
create an "in-group/out-group" status ("I hate that guy...who's
with me!"), hoping to get ego strokes from others when they
say..."yeah, me too. We're so cool. Fuck that guy."
It would be intriguing to study similar behavior in others. Maybe I
will send the idea over to some of the Ph.D. students I know in
mass media studies that are looking for a dissertation topic.
Tulpa: phatic boasting of filtering behavior in on-line comment
boards.
I think they could get a mono-graph out of it.
<a/|9.12.09 @ 8:04PM|#
I don't know who's more interesting in talking about Neu Mejican: Tulpa or Neu Mejican.
Neu Mejican|9.12.09 @ 10:09PM|#
Yeah, sorry about that.
I was just bored while waiting for a download to download.
TallDave|9.12.09 @ 10:14PM|#
I think they should change the law such that politicians are
allowed to duel.
No! Wait! Required to duel.
Sort of like term limits, but with better ratings for C-SPAN.
TallDave|9.12.09 @ 10:17PM|#
It's bizarre to see it as covering illegals.
It's bizarre to think illegals are allowed to vote under the
Constitution. And yet, somehow, it happens...
|9.13.09 @ 12:06AM|#
In other words, Obama is a wimp.
I REPEAT: OBAMA IS A WIMP!
Pelosi has more balls than he does.
They're Harry Reid's, you know.
|9.13.09 @ 4:18AM|#
The British really are awesome.
Not that they have a better government for it....but the open
debate is great.
The Taiwanese is pretty fun...but if my congress started throwing
punches at one another by the third or fourth time it turned into
that mess I would be looking to emigrate.
|9.13.09 @ 4:23AM|#
Why did that Tony Blair clip make the cut? That was a
reasonable debate by parliamentary standards, nothing like Wilson's
unprecedented and rude interruption of Obama's speech.
huh?
When do you ever see the president openly debate his
opposition?
What like 3 times every four years?
Give me a fuking break.
|9.13.09 @ 4:48AM|#
I found something interesting:
How did we get such a nice action shot of Joe Wilson?
Almost makes you think it was staged. But, come on, a political
stunt, in this country? No way.
Wide angle lens with high resolution digital camera...then crop out
everything but Wilson.
Understand?
jester|9.13.09 @ 9:17AM|#
'The British really are awesome.'
The British really are unawesome. They spy on you. Wherever you
are. What is awesome about that?
Explain.
Suki|9.13.09 @ 10:27AM|#
The British really are unawesome. They spy on you. Wherever
you are. What is awesome about that?
Explain.
Better hurry up and answer before jester sends you to Room 101 or
the corn field, or something.
|9.13.09 @ 10:45AM|#
Well, according to this logic it would be impossible to
create any such benefit for the American people without also having
the courts later make it for illegals too, so you kind of have a
nonfalsifiable charge against any benefit whatsoever.
Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.
economist|9.13.09 @ 1:13PM|#
I would love to see more fights in Congress. Back in the day I'm sure ol' Ted Kennedy could engage in drunken brawls with the best of them.
|9.13.09 @ 2:48PM|#
The British really are unawesome. They spy on you. Wherever
you are. What is awesome about that?
What part of "Not that they have a better government for it....but
the open debate is great." confused you?
Lester Hunt|9.13.09 @ 4:19PM|#
The last one was the best. I wonder if I can take out Taiwanese citizenship.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245