Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Warning: You are about to enter the Twilight Zone.
Imagine, if you will, that you live in a state where a governor wields extraordinary power over its residents. Imagine, if you will, that your governor has the legal
authority to appoint an “Emergency Manager” to oversee the local government in the town where you reside. Imagine that the monetary compensation for the Emergency Manager of your community has no cap. Imagine that your Emergency Manager declares that there’s a financial emergency in your town and then takes over control of it. Imagine that the Emergency Manager can break contracts, seize and sell assets, eliminate services—and can also fire duly elected public officials who serve your community. Imagine, if you will, that the Emergency Manager empowered by your governor to run your town has the right to dissolve your school district and to disincorporate your town. AND imagine that you and your fellow residents have no say about what is going on! Just imagine how you might feel if you lived in a state where that kind of thing was going on. Well, the people who live in Michigan may not have to imagine much longer.
Who, you might ask, will be responsible for transforming the state of Michigan into a Rod Serlingesque otherworldly undemocratic Twilight Zone right here in the United States? Why, Governor Rick Snyder and his bold band of Republican state legislators–that’s who. In January, Governor Snyder called for “Emergency Manager” legislation—and the Republican state legislators were more than happy to comply with his request.
This all seems hard to believe, doesn’t it? I’m not making it up. Karen Bouffard of The Detroit News reported the following: Legislation that would allow emergency financial managers to throw out union contracts and overrule elected officials in financially distressed municipalities and school districts was approved Wednesday by the state Senate. Similar legislation passed in the House in February, and the two chambers are working on a final version to send to Gov. Rick Snyder.
In an article published in The Michigan Messenger, Eartha Jane Melzer wrote:
Under the law whole cities or school districts could be eliminated without any public participation or oversight, and amendments designed to provide minimal safeguards and public involvement were voted down.
An amendment to require Emergency Managers to hold monthly public meetings to let people know how they are governing was rejected by Senate Republicans, along with proposals to cap Emergency Manager compensation and require that those appointed to run school districts have some background in education.
Critics say that Republicans are manipulating concerns about budget problems in order to consolidate power by undermining unions.
According to E. D. Kain: Snyder’s law gives the state government the power not only to break up unions, but to dissolve entire local governments and place appointed “Emergency Managers” in their stead. But that’s not all – whole cities could be eliminated if Emergency Managers and the governor choose to do so. And Snyder can fire elected officials unilaterally, without any input from voters. It doesn’t get much more anti-Democratic than that.
Mark Gaffney, Michigan State President of the AFL-CIO said: This is a takeover by the right wing and it’s an assault on democracy like I’ve never seen.
Do you agree with Mark Gaffney? Do you think what’s going on in Michigan is an assault on democracy?
SOURCES
Rachel Maddow Exposes Michigan Republicans Secret War On Democracy (Politicus USA)
Michigan Governor Plays Fast and Loose with Democracy, Invokes Radical New Powers (Forbes)
Michigan Republicans Use Budget Crisis to make Outrageous Assault on Democracy (AFL-CIO)
Michigan Senate passes emergency manager bills (Daily Tribune)
Emergency managers bill sweeps toward final approval (The Michigan Messenger)
Conyers: Emergency Manager bill ‘raises serious constitutional concerns’ (The Michigan Messenger)
Financial manager bill passes Michigan Senate (The Detroit News)
Michigan bill would impose “financial martial law” (CBS News)
Speaking of perseverating,
Who wants more Pi?
http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/digits/1000000
“I studied the Jonathan Turley blawg for some time before beginning to post comments”
“I regard this blawg as being the rightful “property” of Professor Turley and the rightful property of no one else.”
Of course it is true that this is JT’s blog and he is the final arbiter on what goes on here. Since you have studied him for some time then you no doubt understand that as a leading civil libertarian he is inclined to allow a wide range of free speech and so yes it is a perfect forum for one such as you. This forum allows you to behave passive aggressively to your heart’s content and despite your protestations otherwise, to vent your obvious rage in a passive aggressive manner.
Part of the annoyance of having you here can be explained by the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseveration
That is, however, not the true story. Your perseveration is not involuntary and in the links definition, but a conscious effort on your part to overwhelm people with verbiage, most of which is either irrelevant to your discussion, or dense to the point where it loses meaning.
While being an engineer you suffer the fatal flaw of not being able to comprehend metaphor and further lacking knowledge of basic logic as shown here:
“I am human. What you claim to be inherent in human nature is not inherent in my human nature: therefore, what you claim is inherent in human nature cannot be inherent in human nature if there is at least one human without that which you claim is inherent human nature.”
That is utter nonsense Brian. When one states that a particular behavior is inherent in human nature it does not mean that ALL humans share this behavior. It is a statement that this behavior is shared by a preponderance of humanity. To use yourself and your behavior as a singular reason why most humans do not share a given behavior is beyond absurd. Since you claim to be autistic can I reason from that, that all humans are autistic?
Even you must see the lack of logic in your statement above. If you don’t then perhaps it would be best for you to not take upon yourself any labor requiring logical thought.
@Maury: Actually the Constitution is drawn up to protect society; from government. If you ever read it, you will notice that all of your “rights” are prohibitions on what the government can do to you, and how. This, and the writings of the founders (which I cannot quote anymore but have read) indicate their primary worry was not, as you constantly seem to assume, finances or taxation, or even whether citizens could be required to spend their own money on a product (they passed laws with overwhelming majorities and little debate demanding citizen militia members own certain types of guns, ammunition, powder and other equipment; a little detail that came out during the healthcare debate).
The primary concern of the founders were all about civil liberties (speech, assembly, religion, press) and a society free from government oppression over ideology, religion, etc. The Constitution doesn’t change a comma if the USA is run as a free market enterprise, a socialist state, a big government, a small government, big taxes (98% under Eisenhower), small taxes, whatever. Socialists and Communists can be elected here, as long as they don’t violate your CIVIL rights.
It should be clear between this administration and the previous one that the founders failed in their design; they did not take into account (and perhaps could not even imagine) how oceans of money might corrupt every level of the government from the city councils to the White House to the point where laws could be ignored and broken with impunity, but there is no denying that their intent was simply to ensure civil rights, not financial rights or taxation rights.
The motto “No taxation without representation” proves the case, the founders DID believe in taxation WITH representation, they believed that citizens could and should fund government functions, and taxation was coercive even then, not voluntary. Whatever country you are dreaming of, it isn’t the USA, not as it is now or ever was.
I forgot, Maury … not only are you a dumbass but a plagerizer to boot. Congrats.
Gee, Maury, you posted one of Crybaby Beck’s paranoid and laughable conspiracy theories like it’s fact or something.
Obviously, you don’t take issue with speeches given by the Rabid and Ridiculous Right in conservative forums, but you take issue with speeches given by a union guy at a progressive forum. Last time I checked, Stephen Lerner is entitled to his thoughts and opinions. Son, thy name is hypocrite.
“WTF? You cant be serious. You must have a JD from the same school Buddha is Laughing went to.”
You ASS-U-me I have a Juris Doctorate, dumbass. Hey boy, I’m just responding to your idiocy. If you don’t want to be ridiculed over it, don’t put it out there for the world to see.
RE: Bob,Esq., March 25, 2011 at 1:00 pm
“I continue to have what I find to be a valid legal theory concern. If anyone were able to directly address my concern, by first having made the effort to understand it well enough to accurately paraphrase it, something useful might happen during an interchange of posted comments.”
That’s the problem; isn’t it?
You don’t understand your own theory well enough to paraphrase it.
########################################
Words can be tricky at times. Of course, I can easily explain my work to people with whom I meet in person, because I have access to facial expression which informs me about how a person is dealing with the affective aspect of my work. And, with people I have met in person and with whom I have adequately shared my work I can readily communicate in depth and detail by telephone or by email.
However, I find it impossible to meet in person enough people to yet adequately understand the full nature of the traditional social resistance to the innocence of a newborn baby once a such a baby has learned enough to be successfully taught the process of the infant-child transition.
If my work is correct, that is, that the typical infant-child transition is a time of the internalization of the ways of deception, then the intense hatred I encountered during the first few days of my time in kindergarten begins to make profoundly tragic sense to me, because the vehemence (or, is hatred a better choice of word?) I have encountered here rather sadly mirrors the hatred I encountered early during kindergarten.
The first paragraph of David Bohm, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett, “Dialogue – A proposal” reads thus:
“Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing dance or play together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariable to lead to dispute, division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought.”
My work is directed in large measure toward unriddling the “deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought” which Bohm, Factor, and Garrett identified and wrote about.
The copyright notice on the Internet page from which that paragraph was fair-use quoted reads thus:
“Copyright notice
Copyright © 1991 by David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett
The copyright holders hereby give permission to copy this material and to distribute it to others for non-commercial purposes including discussion, inquiry, criticism and as an aid to setting up Dialogue groups so long as the material is not altered and this notice is included. All other rights are reserved.
If you will read the copyright notice on Dialogue – A Proposal (reproduced above) you will see that we are keen to get its message as widely distributed as possible. So if there are any listservers or FTP or WWW sites that it would be useful on, please put it out. We would like to know where it ends up if that’s possible. We do want to keep the copyright notice intact because it makes the point that it not to be used without express permission for any commercial purposes.”
I am not using “Dialogue – A proposal” for any commercial purpose and suggest to anyone and everyone that reading “Dialogue -A proposal” may help in understanding my work and its actual purpose.
An advanced Google Search using “David Bohm” “Donald Factor” “Peter Garrett” and “Dialogue – A proposal” readily got me to a copy of their paper on the Internet.
There is very serious and long-standing research and scholarship upon which my work is based, the work of Bohm, Factor, and Garret being only one instance.
I had read and studied dialogue and many other aspects of human communication before I wrote my dissertation. It is my best understanding that the “deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought” is quite precisely what causes some people who comment here to protest my comments, perhaps because my comments tend to bring to the surface what may have been intense personal distress during the “terrible twos” that was so intense as to result in one or more events too important to forget and so painful to remember as to cause hatred of the infant-child transition to be projected onto me for my having successfully evaded the infant-child transition.
Why else are so very many comments here based on figuring out whose fault something is so someone can be blamed and/or otherwise “put down,” so that those who suffer from dissiciative trauma from their infant-child transition can continue to be consciously oblivious to truly terrible hurt of such intensity as to be as though forgotten while being far too important to actually forget?
In my work, the teaching of a child, through the traditional process of infant-child transitioning, is of child abuse so shattering that people who have gone through said transition with exceptional effect tend to really hate anyone who did not go through it.
However, there is not a single person who comments on this blawg who I coerced into internalizing deception during their infant-child transitioning. Therefore, whatever is disturbing anyone who is disturbed by my comments came from someone other than me. Do not displace trauma received by you from someone other than me onto me, unless you are resolved to help validate my work by illustrating how deep and pervasive a defect in the process of human thought the infant-child transition can produce.
“Video footage from over the weekend has been released by Fox News’ conservative pundit Glenn Beck,”
That you use Glenn Beck as a model only shows what a schmuck you are.
“The countries which have the freest markets are the ones with the best economies. I think we can extrapolate from there.”
Name even three Maury that meet your criteria? You can’t because there aren’t any that meet your criteria, without trampling the rights of the individual. you will of course ignore this question just as you don’t address Buddha’s question of “Why do you hate America?”
If you are not as Woosty states:
“I think Maury and Tootie are not people….I think they are manifest corporate tools. Some of the first programmable blogbots coursing through the blogosphere dropping corporate memebombs”
Then you are either some Junior at a third tier University, with a right wing bent, or a small businessman of some sort. If you actually worked for a salary to make a living you wouldn’t have the contempt for those in need, that you obviously have.
If a student, the University would be third tier because you are unable to spout other than worn out memes (easily discredited)
and/or cite economist/historians who work is questionable because they begin with a faulty premise and then try to stretch the truth to fit it. Rothbard indeed! If you had the ability to go to a better school, you wouldn’t argue so simplistically and with such a lack of comprehension of your subject.
Now it is possible that you could be a small businessman, probably Siding, or Air Duct Cleaning, which are of course two of the seamier business to be in. Perhaps though, like Tom DeLay you’re an exterminator. In any event it is highly probable that you didn’t build the business yourself but inherited through family. You frankly aren’t smart enough to build a viable business from scratch.
so like Buddha question, I’ll just wait in vain for your 3 “free market” nations.
countries.
Here is a real good lefty, a guy after all of your black totalitarian hearts.
Video footage from over the weekend has been released by Fox News’ conservative pundit Glenn Beck, which reveals the radical Left’s plots to bring about “economic terrorism.” Despite the dangers posed by the plotters, however, the Department of Justice appears unlikely to seek an investigation. And the contrast between the DOJ’s inaction regarding this latest episode and its aggressive prosecution of a much more benign “offender” engaged in the private minting and marketing of coins could not be more striking.
In a disturbing speech given on March 19 at the Left Forum, which took place at Pace University in New York City, by prominent union leader Steven Lerner (SEIU, photo left) to a select group of other prominent labor, progressive and community leaders, Lerner proposes committing “economic terrorism.”
Economic terrorism has been defined by the Geneva Center for Security Policy as “varied, coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state a group of states or a society for ideological or religious motives.”
As recently as last Friday, someone was convicted of the crime of attempting to commit economic terrorism by the Department of Justice. Sixty-seven year old Bernard von NotHaus was convincted for making, possessing, and selling his own coins. Charged with “conspiracy against the United States,” NotHaus faces prison sentence for up to 15 years.
Anne Tompkins of the DOJ prosecuted the case and said that NotHaus was guilty of “attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism.” She added, “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.”
With that in mind, one must ask where the DOJ stands on the plots put forth by Steven Lerner this weekend at the Left Forum.
The Left Forum is one of the largest annual left wing conferences. Notable progressives like Frances Fox Piven were present at the conference, where Piven’s philosophy of destabilization is not only celebrated but touted as the foundation of all other notions discussed at the forum.
For example, one of the panelists said of Piven’s philosophy:
“We were talking about why unions are so invested because of their pension plans and why ungovernability, as Frances Fox Piven and Cloward taught us, you know, poor people’s movements are successful when they create conditions of ungovernability and then you win victories.”
In other words, destabilization is the goal.
Enter Steven Lerner.
Steven Lerner worked for SEIU but may have left when Stern did, though that cannot be confirmed because SEIU refuses to confirm any information. The Glenn Beck program made a number of attempts to confirm the information with SEIU, ranging from phone calls to emails, but SEIU will not verify if Lerner is or is not there.
This weekend, Lerner was introduced as Director of SEIU’s Banking and Finance Campaign, thereby making it a fair assumption that he may still be working for the organization. Lerner has been intricate to the various endeavors of the SEIU. He was the person on the Wall Street Reform campaign for the SEIU; he is the one responsible for the protests on lawns of people’s homes, most notably the lawn of the Bank of America executive. He also spearheaded the Justice for Janitors campaign, where protestors entered the busiest intersections in cities nationwide and dumped trash to interrupt traffic.
In other words, Lerner is no novice to underhanded union thuggery tactics.
Likewise, Lerner is a blogger for President Obama’s preferred publication, the Huffington Post. Wade Rathke, a titan of the progressive movement, refers to Lerner as “Brother Lerner.”
To boot, Lerner has had at least four confirmed visits to the White House, and one confirmed visit to the United States Treasury, in December 2010.
This is a man with connections.
At the Left Forum this past weekend, Lerner began by laying the foundation of his plot to commit economic terrorism, as defined by the Geneva Center. It begins by admitting the unions’ limitations:
Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do, but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and so I think if you think about what we need to do, it may give us some direction, which is essentially what the folks that are in charge-you know the big banks and everything-what they want is stability. There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.
Again, destabilization is the ultimate goal. Here’s how Lerner begins to outline the proper steps towards destabilization:
For example, 10 percent of homeowners going back to where you started, a quarter of the people who own a home are underwater, right, their home they are paying more for it when it’s worth 10 percent of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home. That’s totally spontaneous, right? They figured out, ‘it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up. I’m going to say I won’t pay.’ It’s a good business decision. If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.
Lerner continues:
What would happen if we could organize homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike? Just say if we get half a million people to agree, we’ll agree we won’t pay our mortgages. It would literally cause a new financial crisis for the banks, not for us, we would be doing quite well because we wouldn’t be paying.
On Tuesday’s episode of the Glenn Beck program, Beck explained, “Using a mass mortgage strike, and he also goes into student loans, he hopes to create a new financial crisis. Think of this. The whole reason that we did TARP (aside: Is there anyone here who thinks it was a great idea to do TARP?) was to bring us back from the brink. And here he is a man who’s been to the White House and is planning on detailing a plan to bring our financial institutions back to the brink.”
As noted by Beck, if the plotters actually succeeded in their ploys, all of the TARP funds will have been wasted.
Staging a mass mortgage strike is only the beginning, however. Lerner goes on:
The folks that control this country care about one thing-how the stock market does, how the bond market does and what their bonuses is. So I think we need to have a very simple strategy. How do we bring down the stock market, how do we bring down their bonuses, how do we interfere with their ability to be rich and that means we have to politically isolate them, economically isolate them and disrupt them?
Unfortunately, Lerner refuses to divulge too much information, in fear that there may be police agents in the crowd:
I don’t want to give details because I don’t know which police agents are in the room.
Beck responded to this. “He’s not going to give a lot of details because he’s afraid there might be police in the audience. There wasn’t,” He added with a smirk, “But we might have been there.”
Naturally, an underground movement such as the one Lerner is attempting to foster requires a good scapegoat. Don’t worry. They have that covered as well:
A bunch of us around the country think about who would be a really good company to hate? We decided that would be JP Morgan Chase based here in New York, and so we’re going to roll out over the next couple of months…we’re looking at is in first week of May can we get enough people together-we’re starting now-to really have a week of action in New York.
In addition to the disturbing nature of the goals of these community organizers is the knowledge that President Obama has been a leading advocate for the SEIU.
During campaign season, Obama said of the organization,“I’ve spent my entire adult life working with SEIU. I’m not a newcomer to this.”
Acknowledging the President’s alliance with the group, Beck asks, “Is it reasonable, America, to believe that Obama doesn’t know Steven Lerner? He is one of most influential-he is praised by everyone and has been around since the mid 1990s.”
Though the plan to bring about economic destruction is apparently underway, according to Lerner, there is an opportunity to halt it in its tracks.
Beck notes, “Lerner was also clear that this could not have the hallmark of the Unions. It could not be known as a union deal. It has to be grassroots.”
According to Lerner:
Labor can’t lead, but we are a critical part of it; we do have money, we have millions of members who are furious. But I don’t think this kind of movement can happen unless actually community groups and other activists take this lead, and that’s a big reversal of how a lot of these coalitions even thought about it. And so unions helping community groups or community groups helping us narrowly. If we really believe that we are in a transformative stage of what’s happening in capitalism, then we need to confront this in a serious way and develop a real ability to put a boot in the wheel; then we have to think not about labor and community alliances, we have to think about how together we are building something that really has the capacity to disrupt how the system operates.
It seems then logical to believe that if the movement is exposed as a “union deal,” it may be stopped, particularly since the average union member is moderate and does not seek to witness the destruction of the American economy.
In California, for example, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) manages pension and health benefits for more than a million California public employees, and does so by investing the pension funds in the stock market. If the stock market were to crash at the hands of Lerner and his cohorts, the average union member would suffer.
For this reason, Beck appealed to the average moderate union member at the end of Tuesday’s program:
This evil must be rooted out from the inside. You must stand in your own union-a union that is silent or stands next to these unions is part of the problem. Fumigate the halls of your union offices because if you don’t rat these people out, we all lose.
Since this video footage has been uncovered, the Department of Justice, JP Morgan Chase, and the White House have all been alerted to Lerner’s plot. Not one of those entities had a comment on the subject.
Given the DOJ’s history of failing to prosecute clear-cut cases of criminality, coupled with its intrusiveness in cases that are seemingly out of its realm of jurisdiction, one may not feel optimistic that the Justice Department will be launching an investigation into this matter anytime soon.
Stamford Liberal:
WTF? You cant be serious. You must have a JD from the same school Buddha is Laughing went to.
And over in Ohio, the GOP war continues …
Ohio House Passes ‘Nation’s Most Restrictive’ Voter ID Law That Would Curb Rights Of Almost 900,000 Ohioans
In 22 states across the country, Republican lawmakers are ginning up the specter of voter fraud to pass highly restrictive photo identification laws that would severely restrict the voting rights of millions. But yesterday, the Republicans in the Ohio House secured passage of “what could become the nation’s most restrictive voter identification law.”
In just eight days, House Republicans hustled through HB 159, a bill that would require voters to show one of five forms of ID to vote in person: an Ohio driver’s license, state ID, military ID, U.S. passport, or “a new, free photo ID that State Bureau of Motor Vehicles would dispense to indigent citizens who qualify.” Currently, voters must show a photo ID or present a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck or government document with a current name and address. Unlike other states’ photo ID laws, HB 159 would not even allow students to use IDs issued by state colleges.
The bill sponsor, state Rep. Bob Mecklenborg (R) “said the bill is necessary to combat voter fraud and the perception of fraud.” But after failing to produce any actual evidence of such voter fraud, Meklenborg defended his theory with the inexorable proof that “I believe it happens” and “it’s impossible to prove a negative”:
While Republicans produced no evidence of voter fraud from impersonation, Mecklenborg and other GOP leaders say they believe it is going on unreported. “I believe it happens, but it’s proving a negative,” Mecklenborg told reporters after the vote. “It’s impossible to prove a negative. How do you prove that fraud doesn’t exist there?”
However, Cuyahoga County Board of Elections head Jane Platten, a Democrat, said she has never seen a case of voter impersonation in the seven years she has been with the local elections board.
Despite his belief, representatives from the Board of Elections, the League of Women Voters, and the former Secretary of State office “have never even heard of one” instance of voter impersonation in Ohio. As the Brennan Center for Justice notes, a statewide survey found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004 out of 9,078,728 votes case — “a rate of 0.00004%.”
However, bills like HB 159 stands to severely restrict or exclude millions (at least 12%) of America’s voting population, most notably seniors, the disabled, low-income voters, students, and people of color. As Ohio Democrats noted, an estimated 890,000 voting age Ohioans do not currently have a government-issued photo ID, including significant numbers of blacks and people older than 65.” What’s more, the GOP bill would actually cost the state “up to $20 million to implement.”
The Toledo Blade called the bill a “ruse” that’s “true intent seems to be to make it harder for some Ohioans to vote” and is “correctly” called “the 21st-century equivalent of a poll tax.” “If [the bill] were supported by any evidence of election-day fraud, then I could understand the legitimacy of our conversation,” said Rep. Dennis Murray (D-OH). “But the complete absence of evidence means the legislation is gasoline on the fire of elitist prejudice.” The bill now heads to the GOP-led Ohio Senate.
Update – Yesterday, the Texas House passed a similarly restrictive voter ID bill to “curb voter fraud.” Noting that there has been “just one case of convicted voter impersonation” since 2002, House Democrats argued that the bill is “about disenfranchising groups of people who do not historically vote for the Republican Party” — such as “minorities and the elderly.” Though Democrats managed to kill voter ID legislation the past two sessions, the bill passed 101-48. Both chambers “were tasked by Gov. Rick Perry with making voter ID legislation a priority.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/24/ohio-voter-id-law/
“Constitution was not drawn up to protect society but the individual,”
And after all this time I thought society was made up of … individuals …
So does the Constitution “defence” provision just protect one individual or a bunch who make up a society?
Does the “general welfare” provision protect one individual or a bunch who make up a society?
Do the various Bill of Rights and Amendments protect one individual or a bunch who make up a society?
If the Constitution was drawn up to protect just an individual, how do we determine who that one individual is that will get to enjoy the protections of the Constitution?
Beavis? Butthead??
Buddha is Laughing:
Learn to read Dr. Juris, I didnt say that protectionism caused the depression, I said it exacerbated it.
Maury
1, March 25, 2011 at 9:37 am
Buddha is Laughing:
you really are a dumb ass, that McKinley quote is funny in light of the fact that John D. Rockefeller was able to develop and sell kerosene for pennies a gallon. He did it in an unprotected market.
Do you know what exacerbated the great depression of the 1930′s? Trade restrictions or protection in other words.
Do you actually believe the shit you write? Or do you just throw shit out there and hope you make it sound believable enough for stupid people to accept?
ex·ac·er·bat·edex·ac·er·bat·ing
Definition of EXACERBATE
transitive verb
: to make more violent, bitter, or severe
— ex·ac·er·ba·tion \-ˌza-sər-ˈbā-shən\ noun
See exacerbate defined for English-language learners »
Examples of EXACERBATE
The proposed factory shutdown would only exacerbate our unemployment problems.
His angry comments have exacerbated tensions in the negotiation process.
The declining retirement security faced by growing numbers of Americans is being exacerbated by increasing longevity and quickly rising health care costs. —Jeff Madrick, New York Review of Books, 20 Mar. 2008
… the sway that pack journalism holds on the Beltway press corps persists. The Crowd is never so influential as in the ever-lengthening season of presidential campaigns. The feverish obsessions of the blogosphere have only exacerbated the phenomenon: Now the herd just turns faster in pursuit of some ginned-up “controversy” or faux scandal. —Editor & Publisher, April 2007
[+]more[-]hide
Origin of EXACERBATE
Latin exacerbatus, past participle of exacerbare, from ex- + acerbus harsh, bitter, from acer sharp — more at edge
First Known Use: 1660
not to be confused with masturbate, which is what all of you do in one big circle jerk of out right lies, dissembling and obfuscation.
Dr. Scribe:
I suppose Keynes is your man? Now he really did sell snake oil, FDR bought it by the cubic yard and it took almost 15 years to get out of it.
I laugh when you guys don’t answer the assertion and just say it is snake oil or I am full of shit, blah, blah, blah.
I thought the left was so educated and erudite, you don’t even know what a yocal is so what could one expect.
Buddha is Laughing:
no facts do not have my tongue.
When you understand that our Constitution was not drawn up to protect society but the individual, then I will answer you. If you believe that it was set up to protect the collective, then you are not only stupid, you are a threat to liberty.
If 51% vote to have you castrated is that freedom. You need to get your money back for your “JD”, they failed to educate you.
Bob, Esq.
LOL…maybe thats the ticket…. Maybe if Brian could formulate his question to his theory we could all be done with the nonsensical crap…..
But I am just studying you….Sounds like Stalking to me….Do we need to obtain a petition for our safety…..lol…only kidding…
Brian,
I have represented a number of people in mental competency hearings… I took the time to google the Wisconsin Court information…..I suggest that you stay away from people that might know you……
http://www.wicourts.gov/circuit/ccform.jsp?FormName=&FormNumber=&beg_date=&end_date=&StatuteCite=&Category=24
“I continue to have what I find to be a valid legal theory concern. If anyone were able to directly address my concern, by first having made the effort to understand it well enough to accurately paraphrase it, something useful might happen during an interchange of posted comments.”
That’s the problem; isn’t it?
You don’t understand your own theory well enough to paraphrase it.
RE: Anonymously Yours, March 25, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Brian,
Then please move it to the form that people understand the nature and quality of your work and where it is more appreciated…..Here, and I think I speak for a few….DO NOT APPRECIATE YOUR HIJACKING THREAD AFTER THREAD WITH YOUR STUDY…..Is that understood? Do I need to say it sir in a more kindly manner…..
Also, with a person with a few degrees in marketing, undergrad and grad…. emphasis on statistical analysis and human relationship to product placement….. Think again why you are doing what you are doing…No one doing a study would ever state to them the nature and quality of the study or what they were looking to achieve in the results….that is called skewing the numbers…..and a failed false positive….
If you want to take it to an accounting concept in which I also have a degree…it is called cooking the books….plugging an audit….
Your research is invalid and the results can be questioned because you let the beans spill….So as one has suggested take your crap…your study to another site where you are not known and restart your failed study there…..Please….
I may not have respect for a number of folks….But I have learned to tolerate them….You on the other hand have exceeded any bounds of moral decency in interacting in your passive aggressive behavior….
#####################################
I happen to know, and have known in the past, attorneys, various scientists, and many supposedly non-professional people who brought to my attention their concerns, and I am responding with my research to concerns quite a few folks have brought directly to my attention.
I studied the Jonathan Turley blawg for some time before beginning to post comments, and I watch Professor Turley many times via television before deciding to explore whether my posting comments here would have any chance of being acceptable to Professor Turley. I regard this blawg as being the rightful “property” of Professor Turley and the rightful property of no one else.
Professor Turley need only ask me to stop commenting and I will cease posting comments, for I give him the unconditional right to exclude me from his blawg. Except as a few efforts of humor to protest “vitriol” sent my way, I simply avoid pejorative personal commenting. Situational factors, which I find to be a problematic conundrum for the legal profession, are not personal factors and I can criticize any and all situational factors without ever criticizing any actual person.
Consider that one commentator may have attempted to ridicule my using dialogues involving Dr. Bessie Lendrum, Sidney M. Perlstadt, Esq, and myself which happened some 40 years ago.
The conundrum brought to my attention by the now-late Sidney M. Perlstadt more than 40 years ago have not only not become reduced in effect as best I can tell, but have become increasingly stronger and increasingly more devastating to some people.
I am not here to please or displease anyone and I am absolutely not here to make or “score” any points.
I continue to have what I find to be a valid legal theory concern. If anyone were able to directly address my concern, by first having made the effort to understand it well enough to accurately paraphrase it, something useful might happen during an interchange of posted comments.
So far, nothing like that has yet come to my attention unambiguously.
Brian,
Then please move it to the form that people understand the nature and quality of your work and where it is more appreciated…..Here, and I think I speak for a few….DO NOT APPRECIATE YOUR HIJACKING THREAD AFTER THREAD WITH YOUR STUDY…..Is that understood? Do I need to say it sir in a more kindly manner…..
Also, with a person with a few degrees in marketing, undergrad and grad…. emphasis on statistical analysis and human relationship to product placement….. Think again why you are doing what you are doing…No one doing a study would ever state to them the nature and quality of the study or what they were looking to achieve in the results….that is called skewing the numbers…..and a failed false positive….
If you want to take it to an accounting concept in which I also have a degree…it is called cooking the books….plugging an audit….
Your research is invalid and the results can be questioned because you let the beans spill….So as one has suggested take your crap…your study to another site where you are not known and restart your failed study there…..Please….
I may not have respect for a number of folks….But I have learned to tolerate them….You on the other hand have exceeded any bounds of moral decency in interacting in your passive aggressive behavior….