unbelievably tacky, yet unrefined.

Regardless of your political stance or beliefs, there are some things you simply Do Not Do, no matter how much you disagree with a political opponent:

You do not yell “YOU LIE” at the President of the United States in the middle of a speech to both houses of Congress.

That holds especially true when the man’s proposed legislation was introduced in the House almost a month ago, and would need to be passed into law by the very same legislative body of which you are a member, thereby making it incredibly fucking easy for you to verify the claim which offended you so much.

What the fuck is wrong with people these days?

90 thoughts on “unbelievably tacky, yet unrefined.

  1. Justin Buist says:

    Un. Fucking. Believable. Here’s to hoping this is his last term.

  2. jimbob86 says:

    Just calling them as he sees ’em. Refreshing, that.

    • mikeb302000 says:

      That is certainly not refreshing. It is inappropriate. And besides, if the goal is to effect change away from the direction Obama wants, I’d say it’s counter-productive. It’s counter-productive in the same way that the carrying of guns at the presidential rallies was for gun rights.

      Whatever happened to all the use of the acronym CIC. I used to see Bush referred to that way quite often when people argued that his Iraq policies were wrong. Isn’t President Obama the Commander-in-Chief now, and as such worthy of respect.

      • Joel says:

        Bush and his lackeys were wrong to throw around the “CIC” phrase as if it gave him any authority over anything but the army and navy.

        Article II, Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. ”

        Doesn’t say anything about him being the boss of you or me.

        • Rick R. says:

          Joel,

          I don’t recall “Bush and his lackeys” using the phrase “Commander in Chief” in reference to anything BUT his military policy — which, as your Constitutional quote illustrates, is EXACTLY where it is appropriate to refer to him as “Commander in Chief” (or the more modern term, “National Command Authority”).

  3. Samsam says:

    I absolutely agree that you are describing the World That Should Be. But do any of those politicians actually play by any rules? They are so self-serving, such transparent liars, so venal that I too would give into exasperation at the pointlessness of trying to pretend there was any civil behavior in Washington.

  4. Jumblerant says:

    Its sad but true. I guess they thought it would make a great sound bite and win them support from a section of the electorate who don’t realize that crating the rules and laws of the USA is a process, not a shouting match!

    Next they’ll be wanting us to phone in our votes a la American Idol!

    • Windy Wilson says:

      DON’T say that too loudly, California may get ideas.

      Would the fee for calling be considered a poll tax?

  5. starrgunny says:

    But Rep. Wilson was not speaking with a forked tongue. The only forked tongue was the guy standing behind the podium, funny how tolerant we can be of wanna be tyrants insulting us and so quick to condemn those who speak the truth.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Wilson wasn’t speaking the truth, starrgunny. He was verifiably wrong.

      Also, let’s cut down on the rhetoric here. Calling the democratically elected president of a still-functioning constitutional republic a “tyrant” is an insult to anyone who’s ever had to live under an actual tyrant.

      • wolfwalker says:

        That’s very much a question of point-of-view, Marko.

        It’s true that the explicit language of the bill says “illegal immigrants don’t qualify.” But it’s also true that the bill makes no provision for checking a claimant’s identity and immigration/citizenship status. We all know that the operational rule for lawbreakers is not “don’t break the law,” but “don’t get caught breaking the law.” If there is no way to catch a breaker of a particular law, then does the law have any practical effect?

        From a theoretical point of view, Wilson was wrong. From a practical point of view, he was dead on target.

      • mikeb302000 says:

        Marko, I agree the rhetoric is way over the top.

      • theflatwhite says:

        “verifiably wrong”

        Really?
        It depends on which version of the healthcare bill we are talking about here.
        If you are thinking of HB 3200 (the one Obama wanted congress to vote on before their recess in August)…it did have coverage for illegal aliens.

        So no, it’s not that simple.

      • elmo_iscariot says:

        “Calling the democratically elected president of a still-functioning constitutional republic a “tyrant” is an insult to anyone who’s ever had to live under an actual tyrant.”

        Without specifically wishing to Godwin our President (or get into an oppression dick-measuring contest with anybody who’s had it much worse than me), I think we can agree that being elected is no absolute indication that a leader isn’t a tyrant. And if a leader who completely ignores most of the restrictions on his government’s powers–and is actively pushing to expand his illegal powers further–isn’t a tyrant, who is?

        To put this another way, what’s the objective standard for a “still-functioning constitutional republic” if a routine and casual disregard for checks and balances on government power doesn’t disqualify?

        I’m not saying Obama’s this millennium’s Stalin, just that the boundary between “President who puts compassion and progress above dusty old laws” and “tyrant” is in the eye of the beholder.

        • Marko Kloos says:

          If you take a routine and casual disregard for checks and balances on government power is your yardstick for tyranny, then every President since at least FDR has been a tyrant, and possibly every President since John Quincy Adams.

        • elmo_iscariot says:

          I’m largely inclined to agree with that statement. 😉

        • Emily says:

          They were according to the law. The problem is The People (as in “We the”) didn’t take to the streets, stand up and, bottom line, didn’t fight for their rights.

          Barack Obama did lie in his speech (and does lie on a continual basis):

          http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/10/obama-speech-fact-check/

          And say what you want about politeness perhaps you don’t get the implications of what the government has being doing the last 100 years, the propaganda machine that is our media, and the fact that, like George W. Bush, Obama is merely a pawn in the endgame against the American people.

          In dealing with Tryanny, politeness gets you no where. Politeness only works when you are dealing with honorable people, which we are not.

          And the hypocrisy from the left is just ridiculous, if you want to see every Democrat get up and hoot, jeer and clap derisively at President Bush during his State of the Union speech in 2006, fast forward to 45.54 of the following video.
          http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.wm.v.html

  6. Glamdring says:

    Reminds me of Edward Wilson and a colleague of his on a NOVA program mentioning when someone dumped a bucket of icewater on him.

    I don’t agree with Wilson completely but I suspect he is more intelligent than me. I haven’t created any new branches of science or discover any invasive species.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000596,00.html

  7. Noah says:

    This was address by the President of the United States to a joint session of Congress. I realize that there are strong political disagreements between the President and some members of Congress.

    Regardless, this is a public meeting of the executive and legislative bodies of government, and by god, everyone damned well ought to be polite. Our elected officials should very well behave themselves as adults and show some bloody respect for the offices that they hold.

    Interruptions of a guest speaker are simply rude. The Democrats participated in standing ovations ten times, there were nine bipartisan standing ovations, and one Republican standing ovation. In 42 minutes.

    There was a Congressman who wore a banner sign around his neck, members who waved stacks of papers, one member shouting “Right here! Right here!”, another member shouting “That’s right!” in agreement, a member who issused constant
    audible mutters of agreement, and our final winner of the night.

    Congress should never be a rubber-stamp for the President. I belive that legslative gridlock keeps government off my back.

    When you are elected to public office, you are acting on behalf of others, literally representing them. An address by the President to a joint session of Congress therefore demands extreme courtesy and politeness. It is possible to disagree strongly without losing one’s dignity. The lack of good manners is appaling, and clearly demonstrates the lack of our Congress’ respect for itself, the office of the President, and for those of us whom they represent.

  8. Nick says:

    I just wonder what it would have been like had a Democratic member of Congress done something similar during Bush’s presidency. Can you imagine the manufactured outrage that would have come pouring out from right-wing pundits? Or how shocked–shocked!–they would have been that someone would show such disrespect for the office of the President?

  9. Regolith says:

    Back in the 1800s, it wasn’t rare for members of congress to engage in the occasional bout of fisticuffs, and one of our early Treasury secretaries was killed in a dual with the vice president.

    Shouting “you lie” in the middle of a presidential speech, while fairly rude, is mild stuff in comparison.

  10. Regolith says:

    Erm….that should be “duel.”

  11. divemedic says:

    Rude? Sure. This is the age of the Jerry Springer style diplomacy.

  12. I wish more of our representatives in congress had the stones to tell the plain, unvarnished truth. Tact be damned.

  13. Rusty P Bucket says:

    Ordinarily people wouldn’t treat the president like that. The fact that this baboon is a commie whoreson and not a presidents means all the bets are off.

    He is so a liar; and it is good that people are calling him on it. If he wants to be treated like the President of the United States he should damned well act like it.

  14. maddmedic says:

    I suppose screaming “BULLSHIT” to the whole speech would have been over the top?
    I suppose what Obama has called some whom oppose him okay.
    So I do cling to my guns, bible and religion.
    (If anyone has a problem with that, be first in line when they come to take them away!!)
    Yet OneBigAssedMistakeAmerica made that sound like a bad thing. It seems we are supposed to sit back and take what is shoved down our throats?
    And like it?
    Wrong…truth hurts and Obama is a liar!

  15. starrgunny says:

    There is no provision for hospitals to check for citizenship of patients. Therefore there is no teeth to whatever HR3200 may say about illegal aliens NOT receiving care.
    The person behind the podium represents the party that would take away many of your rights, up to and including your life, if they felt that it would further their political agenda. The person behind the podium lied, lied, lied, and lied some more all the way thru his spiel. The shame that such should occupy that position. Understand that some charlatans have been in that position, but nothing as blatant as this fool.
    The list of grievances grows longer, if only words and civility would correct that which ill’s this county!

  16. pdb says:

    If the Democrats wanted manners and decorum, they might have started by not booing W in 2005.

  17. Sennin says:

    Peruse the Congressional Records 1800 – 1867. Calling the POTUS a liar, in session or in public, is extraordinarily mild by comparison.

    • theflatwhite says:

      Exactly.

      Seeing a bunch of libertarians get queezy at a little outburst like this makes me wonder …

      • Rick R. says:

        There’s a difference between these two statements:

        “Congressman Wilson had a RIGHT to say what he did, and was factually correct in his assertion.”

        and

        “Congressman Wilson was ILL-MANNERED is his outburst, regardless of the truth of his assertion.”

        And neither statement exlcudes the other.

        “Libertarian” (small-“l”) doesn’t HAVE to mean “Boorish Jackass with no manners.”

        Just like — even if true — the middle of a wedding ceremony to which one has been invited to as a guest IS NOT the place to assert at the top of your lungs that the bride serviced the entire football team in college.

        Just because you MAY say whatever you like, does not mean you SHOULD.

        Since when is “libertarianism” synonymous with “Tourette’s Syndrome”?

  18. Sennin says:

    Has anyone noticed that we now have “Leadership” in government as opposed to servants-of-the-people? The POTUS is not supposed to be a “Leader”, he is supposed to be an administrator subject to the will of the people.

    Where’s Calvin Coolidge when we need him?

  19. Boat Guy says:

    So ONE guy has an inappropriate moment, realizes it, apologises for it (honest-to-God “I apologise” apology, not “Sorry if you were offended”) and is immediately taken to task by his party leadership. As pdb notes the previous President was louodly booed by several members of another party during the State of the Union address. Apologies? Party remonstrations? Don’t remember them.
    And yes, not requiring citizenship to be checked is tantamount to providing care for illegals.

  20. theflatwhite says:

    I don’t get why everyone is in such a tizzy over this.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/10/flashback_democrats_boo_bush_at_2005_state_of_the_union.html

    And yes, the Republicans did this to Clinton too.
    This behavior isn’t all that exceptional.

    It’s just too bad Wilson didn’t choose another point in the speech for his outburst since the “illegal aliens” comment is so easily defended. There were plenty of half-truths and gross misrepresentations Obama spewed and ample opportunity for calling him out publicly.

  21. Tennessee Budd says:

    Let’s see..a man looks you (Wilson) in the eye, tells a bald-faced lie, and when you call him a liar, that’s wrong?
    I’m just bothered that he apologized.
    As noted above, the Dhimmis booed Bush during a SotU address. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      At the risk of sounding like a Norwegian Blue with a stuttering problem: Obama did not lie about the illegal immigrant health care issue. It’s right in the freakin’ bill that’s been before the House for close to a month now. Did you actually bother to read the damn thing?

      Also: “Whirlwind?” Some douchenozzle from SC couldn’t keep his mouth shut while the Prez was talking, and as a result, his opponent for his House seat got $100k in donations in not even 24 hours after the event. Also, it makes the Republicans as a whole look like an even bigger bunch of douchenozzles than they already are, and it will hurt the party come election time. What kind of terrible whirlwind is that?

      Lastly: “He did it, too,” is a really shitty elementary school playground excuse for acting like a dickhead, and it doesn’t work in the adult world.

      • Windy Wilson says:

        We talk about how even though the bill does not include “death panels” or any other rationing panel, there will be rationing of medical care for old people, and recognize that whatever the bill says about it, such a thing will occur; we recognize that without enforcement provisions, a law is not merely toothless but non-existent, and yet we argue about whether a provision without enforcement relating to a specific subject the President was speaking of refutes an assertion made without limitation as to time, place or subject.
        Having said that, the rules have changed, they are really the rules of civil behavior for conservatives, according to the Saul Alinsky rule of making your opponent follow his own rules while you make yours up as you go along. The Leftists will excuse anything from their guys, including booing the President during the State of the Union Address (see above).
        And, it is true, “He did it too” is as fallacious an argument now as it was in the school yard or in 1974 when my uncle used it to excuse Nixon’s attempt at coverup. Sometimes I think you have to have children to recognize that “He did it too” is a logical fallacy and worthless argument.

      • Rick R. says:

        I have read the section.

        The Obama statement was that the bill will not cover illegal aliens.

        The bill states that it is not SUPPOSED to cover illegal aliens.

        HOWEVER — the Democrats have repeatedly voted down any attempt to insert a simple requirement that residency eligibility is checked IN ANY FASHIO WHATSOEVER.

        Therefor, illegal aliens WILL be receiving treatment under this program.

        That means it covers illegal aliens, no matter how many obfusctaions and logic twistings the Democrats and teh president throw at it.

        Becuase, even if you brought a bloody immigration judge and an entire ICE field office into the hospital, all proclaiming that the guy getting treatment was an illegal alien, he would be treated, as there is NO PROVCISION TO REFUSE HIM COVERAGE.

        NONE.

        That means the President (and the Democrat leadership) are lying about the question “Will illegal aliens get coverage?”

        They will.

        Because the Democrats WANT IT THAT WAY. It gets them more votes.

        Regardless of what empty language they throw in the bill. Without enforcement, such pretty language is worthless.

        Having said that, Representative Wilson’s outburst in the midst of the formal speech was uncalled for, boorish, and reprehensible — just as the Democrat booes during GWB’s speeches. The factual truth of his statement is irrelevant — it would have been just as rude as a meaningless outburst such as using an airhorn.

        However, since the President accepted, without equivocation, his apology, it’s a dead issue now.

  22. emdfl says:

    Marko, you are SO WRONG regarding the treating illegal aliens thing.
    As several people here have pointed out, regardless of which bill is being used as a basis for the argument, NONE of them contain any provisions that require hospitals to verify citizenship. And none of them have any penalty enforcements.
    Not to mention the fact that you apparently believe that with this bunch of lying pukes, what they tell you is going to be what you get. This might indicate that you have been spending to much time believing and not seeing.

    And yeah, that commie fuckhead standing up there lying every time he opens his yap deserves to be called on it anywhere, every time.
    With Clinton, at least there was a chance that occasionally he might put the concerns of the country before his own appetites. With the current puke; not a chance.

    • theflatwhite says:

      HB 3200 does explicitly forbid credits going to illegals, but it does also explicitly include them in the healthcare exchange.
      And, as you point out, there is no provision for ID verification.

      I respectfully submit that the repeated claims that Wilson’s statements are “verifiably false” are, in fact, verifiably false.

      • MarkHB says:

        Jumping fuck. You’re all over not paying another ten pee, but you’re pushing for the fundamentally useless, unmakeable, unenforceable concept of a Notional Identity System? What ID. Do you want? Would you like a national DNA Database, cataloguing your kids at birth? Hey, it’ll stop Immos from stealing your healthcare! How about fingerprints? Gotta PROOVE we’re all Free Men, after all. Fuck’s sake.

        • Tam says:

          Since the states gave the feds’ REAL ID the well-deserved finger, the fed.gov is coming back again, this time with REAL-ish ID!

          And best of all, you won’t even need to use your REAL-ish ID card to get your special, ‘Murrican, NHS bennies! It’s just there to stop Terr’rism©.

          No need to move here, Mark; we’re all moving there as fast as we can.

        • MarkHB says:

          The truly tragic thing is that even at it’s most invasive, you can still defeat the most stringent ID card system with a $30 printer and a five-cent spend at Radio Shack. But The Gummint’s got tobe SEEN to be doin’ something, right?

          I’m tryin’ to quit talking politics, ‘cos it makes me angry and sad, but the ID thing is right up my snot. No matter how invasive it is, it’s ineffective.

        • Paul Michael says:

          Where do you get off cussing a blue streak over something I never advocated?

          I’m contracting for a company that writes software for states that have adopted the real ID standards and … you’re wrong. You will need a lot more than a “$30 printer” and a Radio Shack trip.

  23. crankylitprof says:

    I can state — with no hesitation — that it’s fairly fortuitous that I don’t get to socialize with Presidents.

    It’s fairly likely that I’d call a douche a douche on a regular basis.

  24. MarkHB says:

    Some days I derive great comfort from the knowledge that we’re living through Heinlein’s Crazy Years, and 3000 years from now we’ll look back on all this and laugh.

  25. Steve says:

    You would have to be very, very naive to believe that the democrats are not going to build enough loopholes into their bill to insure that illegal aliens get full coverage at taxpayer expense. Illegal aliens will be covered. You can count on it.
    If you check the bill’s table of contents I’m sure you won’t find a chapter called “Death Panels” either so I guess that you could call “Death Panels” verifiably false as well. Except that the inevitable result of the “public option” will be rationing. It will be the only way to control costs once health care is “free” and everyone wants unlimited amounts of it.
    The bureaucrats who make the rationing decisions will be charged with deciding who will get care and who will not be worth caring for. They will decide who deserves a pacemaker and who should only get a painkiller instead; Who lives and who dies.
    They will be death panels in everything but name.
    No matter how many times Obama denies it, abortions will be paid for with public money. Publicly funded abortions may be “verifiably false” but to fail to provide publicly funded abortions will raise the spectre of the dreaded back alley abortion. Liberal “compassion” will compell them to fund abortion with public money. Democrats will not be honest enough to include it in the bill and vote on it but they will leave enough wiggle room for the bureaucrats charged with administering the program to shoehorn it in there.
    Count on it.

    • Scott says:

      “The bureaucrats who make the rationing decisions ”
      You mean like all the bureaucrats at the PRIVATE insurers that have been for decades and ARE NOW doing EXACTLY that , denying/rationing coverage of procedures and/or meds, canceling policies, etc. at their sole discretion?
      I don’t quite get why has that never been nearly as big an issue all the years when rationing was/is actually occuring under private insurers, but suddenly it’s a big deal if the same thing MIGHT happen under the govenrment plan?

      • Rick R. says:

        The difference is that one can use a different health care provider, if you’re willing to do so.

        Which is why I have one health care plan, and my wife (who works at the same company) has herself and our daughter on another. beaucse, it worked out better suited to OUR needs than if we’d all been forced to have just one policy with no choice.

        The three things that WOULD improve competitiveness AND reduce health care costs would not force teh government to pay a dime in coverage.

        1. Do something with tort reform so that it isn’t cheaper for doctors to simply order every unnecessary test under Heaven, just becuase fighting a silly and unwarranted malpractice suit costs so much, the doctor can be financially ruined even if he wins. That’ll drop both defnesive medicoine AND malpractice insurance costs — two things that affect the size of the doctor bill presented to the patient and his health insurance company. Look into doing the same thing for drug and medical appliance companies — having to fight scientifically ridiculous suits (like my favortie farse, the silicone breast implant lawsuit) also runs up teh prices on drugs, vaccines, and other mediacl necessities.

        2. Allow people to buy insurance across state lines at will. If you want a bar-bones policy for catastrophic coverage only that doesn’t cover a whole bunch of “routine” stuff you don’t expect to need or use, fine. If you want a gold plated Gucci policy with no-copay full body scans every 90 days, fine.

        3. End the FDR-created tax disparity on employee paid versus employer provided health care insurance. Either end the tax break to employers OR allow people to claim the same tax break for insurance they buy out of THEIR pocket. Additionally, mandate that employees who opt out of employer provided health care get the money the employer WOULD have spent, as part of their salary — perhaps in a medical savings account, if you’re worried about people choosing to just go naked so they can spend more money on beer. The current situation was set up as a way to deal with the twin ills of mandated wage freezes during WWII and wartime inflation, so the employee had equal spending power at the end of the day. Right now, my most affordable health care solution is BY LAW, tied to my job. If I paid it, it would be independant of my job, and job loss wouldn;t be as great a fear.

        None of these three solutions require Uncle Same to pay for health insurance, and ALL of them will result in greater competitiveness between companies, which will drive prices down.

        Now, out of the less than 10 million remaining people who are in the country illegally, truly cannot afford health insurance, and are not eligible for existing Medicare or Medicaid programs (these three categories making up the overwhelming majority of the uninsured), poeple can rationally dicuss some sort of government subsidy to BUY insurance. (If the people even decide it’s something the feds outghta do — Uncle Sam doesn’t pay anyone’s car insurance, homeowners insurance, or renter’s insurance, just becuase they’re broke.)

  26. emdfl says:

    Marko –
    Here’s a link that explains the problem in a much more refined manner then I did. Apologies for the minor rant on your site.
    http://www.cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200

  27. Heath says:

    Hey may have been out of line, but his actions have very much trumped Obama’s intended goal of having an earth shattering speech that finally “settles the debate”….

    Look at the news right now, are we hearing about how great the Chosen One’s speech was, or how some jackass interrupted it and what the implications are?

    Wilson’s a rude SOB, but I call this a win.

  28. Gerry N. says:

    “You do not yell “YOU LIE” at the President of the United States in the middle of a speech to both houses of Congress.”

    Unless you’re a democrat. Then it’s perfectly OK.

    A la: Dirty Harry Reid

  29. Tam says:

    Any student of U.S. history should be laughing at this thread almost too hard to type.

    Nobody was caned, beaten with a chair, or challenged to a duel. More’s the pity. Congress used to be like the WWF; what happened?

  30. Rusty P Bucket says:

    Unfortunately the introduction of women into the politics makes duelling impossible.

    It would not be sporting to carve up clucky old hose bags like Nancy Pelosi with sabres, or to shoot those effeminate liberal homosexuals and hippies who are frightened out of their wits by the mere sight of the hardware. The laws of chivalry (and chauvinism) must be observed if possible.

  31. Kristopher says:

    Dueling and chivalry my ass.

    They need to be each given a Gladius and be thrown into the arena pit naked.

    Only one will be allowed to leave.

    • crankylitprof says:

      I’m down with the “thrown naked into a pit part.”

      I’d switch out “given a Gladius” with “smothered in bacon fat” and follow it up with, “release the wolves, tigers and other large predators.”

  32. Glamdring says:

    Tam: I thought it was still like WWF. Lots of (low brow?) theatre.🙂

    Rusty: Your just stating your opinion correct? Your not trying to actually present an argument are you? Or was it supposed to be a joke?

    Your not acting chivalrous if you offer insults, in public no less, to women. Do you know that?

    • Tam says:

      Tam: I thought it was still like WWF. Lots of (low brow?) theatre.🙂

      There’s not near enough hitting people with folding chairs.

      If I must pay these jackanapes with my tax dollars, I’d like some entertainment with my popcorn, thankyouverymuch.😀

  33. crankylitprof says:

    I’d want decent proof that San Fran Nan had enough non-plastic/un-Botoxed/original parts left to still be considered female.

    Just sayin’.

  34. Glamdring says:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chivalrous
    * Main Entry: chiv·al·rous
    * Pronunciation: \ˈshi-vəl-rəs\
    * Function: adjective
    * Date: 14th century

    1 : valiant
    2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of chivalry and knight-errantry
    3 a : marked by honor, generosity, and courtesy b : marked by gracious courtesy and high-minded consideration especially to women
    *****

    Note 3b!

  35. Glamdring says:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chauvinism

    * Main Entry: chau·vin·ism
    * Pronunciation: \ˈshō-və-ˌni-zəm\
    * Function: noun
    * Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard’s play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)
    * Date: 1851

    1 : excessive or blind patriotism — compare jingoism
    2 : undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
    3 : an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude

    ******
    Rusty: I think your confused unless your trying for humor using an oxymoron. But chauvinism seems to fit your words better than chivalrous.

    ****

  36. Caleb says:

    “You’re/your” sparky.

  37. MarkHB says:

    Why not just append healthcare basics to the list of things the Constitution already delineates as things to spend gathered tax monies on? It’s that simple. Healthcare when the Constitution was written was a barber with a leather strop for you to bite on and some whisky if he was friendly.

    Just amend the fucking Document, have done with it, move on. Fine. Put healthcare into the things that the Government spends money on, along with war, police and fucking over drug fanciers.

    Just do it legally, and do it right.

Comments are closed.