--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: <snip> > > 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.
Uh, no, that was your misapprehension. > And has anybody heard of this "martial law" provision > she speaks of? I certainly haven't. You mean Wolf didn't mention it? http://www.cbpp.org/7-28-06bud-stmt.htm > >> 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. No, that isn't what he said. He said conversations one member has with another on the House floor are not supposed to be made public unless the other member gives permission. That's just a general rule, a bit of protocol. And he did *not* say, contrary to Alex Jones's misquote, that the folks who were talking about this said they had been *told* there would be martial law. Rather, they were speculating on their own hook about the worst that might happen, as I went on to suggest might have been the case. Here's what he said they were saying: "The market would drop by 4000 points, blood would flow in the streets, and lions would be devouring children in the parks of Los Angeles. "I know that some comments like that were made. I didn't take them seriously. I know some would. I thought it was just overblown effort to create a panic in order to pass a bad bill." It's really a very funny interview. Jones is trying to get Sherman to say something sensational, and Sherman is amused by this and repeatedly tries to calm Jones down. A little later Jones tries to get him to say the Dow dropping 770 points was a form of terrorism. Sherman responds: "They didn't say they'd shoot anybody, so usually terrorism involves threats of violence. And whether a drop in the Dow is violent or not, I mean, I'm sure somebody had a heart attack when the market dropped a few hundred points." He was very wry about the whole thing. He clearly thought Jones was a nutcase. 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? That the economy is in *really really bad shape*, obviously. <snip> > > 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. I just listened to him again on the House floor, and in fact he was talking about what members were saying to one another, as I said above, not that there was some threat issued from on high about martial law. He was just annoyed by the panic atmosphere. Obviously some of the members were overdoing it. > > 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. Not 770 points in one day, it doesn't. It's big news if it goes down a couple of hundred points. This was a shocker. <snip> > > 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? How do you get that from what I wrote? <snip> > > 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. I usually don't even read it until Friday night or Saturday. > > 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. I don't trust them either, but some things are just impossibly loony. It wouldn't make *sense* to impose martial law unless there were some real threat of civil disorder. > > 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 Well, as it turns out, I was half-wrong; he didn't misinterpret the House "martial law" rule, he was talking about wild things the congresscritters were saying to one another, as I said might be the case. But I was right to suspect that there was no threat from the top to impose martial law as punishment for not passing the bill. Sherman never suggested such a thing, either on the floor or with Jones. > 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." I haven't commented on anything Wolf said. You said she said something about Sherman, so I went and found out what Sherman said. It's up to you to decide whether she represented it correctly.
