authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> authfriend wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> authfriend wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolf raises issues with the bailout and the threat of martial >>>>>> law if the bill didn't get passed (a totally unacceptable >>>>>> threat, people) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Who threatened martial law if the bill wasn't passed?? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You didn't watch the video did you? >>>> >>>> >>> No, and I ain't gonna waste a half-hour on her. >>> >>> She mentions Representative Sherman >>> >>> >>>> of California told of the martial law threat. >>>> >>>> >>> I Googled it and found a clip of Sherman's >>> statement. As it turns out, he was reporting the >>> alleged threat second hand, and apparently >>> misunderstood it. The House leadership *did* >>> threaten a legislative procedure known as >>> "martial law" which suspends a provision in the >>> House rules that legislation can't be voted on >>> the same day it's introduced, to enable a bill >>> to be passed immediately. >>> >>> >> That's not what he said in an interview I heard on Friday. >> Post the link that states he misunderstood. >> > > I said he *apparently* misunderstood. That's my own > conclusion, based on (1) the fact that the procedural > maneuver I described, known as "martial law," *was* > threatened by the Democratic leadership; and (2) that > the idea anybody would threaten *full-scale* martial > law if the House didn't pass the bill is obvious > tinfoil-hat nonsense. > Now folks tell me in the statement two paragraphs up where you see that says that's her conclusion? She does not. She makes it look like she found an article somewhere with that information. And has anybody heard of this "martial law" provision she speaks of? I certainly haven't. Maybe it's a Judy fantasy. :-D > There have been other allegations > >> from other congressman about this and it wasn't about house rules >> either. >> > > Cites, please. Chances are they misunderstood too. > "Martial law" is an inflammatory phrase, and it > could have been easily picked up and passed around > without the original context. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bH1mO8qhCs Note Sherman says the information was provided in confidence so he cannot reveal the sources. Let me make another point in that Senator Dianne Feinstein flipped a lot of her opinions after she had a private meeting with Bush a while back. What did Bush say (she won't tell us) that scared her so? > >> Tell ya what. My congressman is going to be in the area >> soon. I'll go pin him down on this and see how he behaves >> (body language can tell a lot if he blows the question off). >> > > Fine. Try to get him to quote the exact words he heard. > > It's not impossible, I suppose, that somebody at > some point said that if the bill wasn't passed and > the economy completely collapsed, civil disorder > might ultimately develop and that martial law would > need to be declared to keep the country from falling > into anarchy. But that wouldn't be a *threat*, it > would be a speculation on what might *eventually* > be the consequences--which certainly wasn't the > impression Sherman gave. > I'll agree there but I don't think Sherman would have made the statements found on C-SPAN and YouTube (links I posted here the other day) if that were the case. > As far as I can tell > >> something scared congress into passing this bill even >> before they had time to read the whole thing. >> > > Two things scared them: the Dow's plunge after > they failed to pass the bill, and the fact that > all of a sudden the calls they were getting from > constituents were denouncing them for *not* > passing the bill, because of the damage the plunge > did to people's 401(K)s. > The stock market goes up and down like a yo-yo. People who don't understand that probably shouldn't be investing. Overall it may go (and probably will) go down in the next few months. It did that over a couple years back in 1929. And folks who listened to the tin-foil hat folks (not to mention a number of economists) are probably in a better situation than those who didn't. :-P > But more than being scared, the revised bill had a > number of new provisions that made it more > appealing and responded to their objections to the > first bill. Now they're able to huff and puff that > they voted down an unacceptable bill and forced the > leadership to come up with a better one. > And do you really think they read (and understood) all 451+ pages? > Also, Obama finally managed to get it up far enough > to speak out about the need to pass the bill, which > he'd been afraid to do previously. > Yup, it's an election year. > >>> For pete's sake, use a little common sense. >>> >> ROTFL! This from a woman who can't keep her obsessive >> compulsive behavior under control enough to keep from >> maxing out posts on FFL. Maybe you could use a little >> common sense? >> > > Amazing that you've bought into Barry's absurd > fantasy. The truth is, it *works better* for me to > do all or most of my posting on the weekends when > I have more free time. Plus which, most of the more > interesting conversations tend to develop on the > weekends when more people are posting. > Ha, I bet you wish you had saved a few more as the week goes on. > And in any case, whatever nonsense you may choose > to believe about my posting behavior, it has > nothing to do with my point: You don't declare > martial law to punish Congress for not passing a > bill; that's just silly. > But this is the Bush administration. Remember all of those executive orders he put into effect? I wouldn't trust them with anything. > It *would* make sense in a real emergency to invoke > the House *procedure* called martial law, which is > why I'm virtually positive that's what Sherman > heard about and misinterpreted. "Virtually positive" is an interesting phrase. What else can we be "virtually positive" about? :-D
Anyway, my mistake to even engage in a conversation about this when you won't watch Wolf's video to see how this was discussed and apparently only hold a "virtual opinion."
