--- 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. 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. > 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. 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. 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. 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. > > 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. 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. 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.
