To Replace Rules of Process.
Tactics of Empire Already in Practice
Properly Prevail over the Needs of Democracy,
Says Spokesman Bane
Rule of Tough. Misrepresentation Justification Process.
5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON DC -- The Far Side of the Right introduces new Rules of Debate Procedure, using "extortion" in its informal title as a 'humorous' reference to the term as already used by political opponents of its tactics in characterizing issues and facts. Opponents cry foul regarding spin before facts are out, and scooting up red herring alleys in order to persuade the unwary: thus, Rules of Extortion Procedure.
The Far Right, anticipating criticism of its misrepresentation and mercurial tactics in the recent Shutdown Follies, proposes making the covert practice, as indeed commonly used in politics, overt. Its rules incorporate the enumerated successful "extortion-like" tactics of scummy politics into government rules, before suit is filed or letters to editors submitted. The majority Right is enthusiastic about the issue in the House. See our website for a more complete discussion
[consumer of news goes to the website, see FN 1 here]
These Rules purport to make explicit that it shall be consistent with the proper exercise of office or authority to obtain financial and political support by presenting misleading, limited and selective facts as to an issue. These acceptable practices include obfuscating the nature of the issue itself as financial; when it is in reality a social-ideological matter; and financial analysis results of this or that. Proper conduct? If politics is sales, some puffing is acceptable. Misrepresentation is not. See Annenberg fact check site, as an example by which to gauge the gouge ://www.factcheck.org/
The result of no accountability in political communications: the kind of Gendarmism needed to protect the established order, the goal of the group.
The Rules, it must be made clear, are only procedural, and do not affect any substantive law regarding the crime of extortion. The debate rules provide that misrepresentation of an ideological-social preference issue as a substantial budget deficit matter, as to which voters rely and contribute, and its financial effects as certain A or B, shall now be formally acceptable as political speech, so that voters will be on notice and cannot sue.
Spokespeaker John the Bane told reporters today denies that there is any misrepresentationa t all: it is ignorant citizens; and legislators who oppose the new Rules of Extortion who don't do as good a job themselves; who complain. They have only themselves to blame for current legislative stalemates about reasons for imposing the Far Side's moral views (we decide) on other equally adult, equally mindful persons of differing tints and persuasions.
After all, they disagreed with the people pushing me, said Mr. Bane, and that is simply unacceptable.
Apparently, in the view of the Far Side of the Right, with its hidden minders and funders, it is simply time to get the job they want done, done, their way. If winning means shutdown and giving more people freer access to more guns and feeding them more slogans, those are expensive distractions, but so be it. Go, Empire. Beat the Republic. So quoth a sign by the caffe latte machine. No matter whether a claim is fact-based. Go ahead. Tout it. See The Success of the Big Lie
Mr. Bane asserted that the new unappealable Rules of Extortion Procedure will expedite making laws through compulsion, fear-mongering, spin, scapegoating and sloganeering for persuasion of just folks. Let the misreps roll!
Coming to agreement takes too much time the straight way, and has has an uncertain outcome.
And, he pointed out, women simply cannot be allowed to make moral decisions. When asked if men would then submit to women giving permission before they could obtain personal starch and so exert force on women that otherwise they could not do, Mr. Bane looked surprised and said he didn't think so, and why should women have a say in what men do with their bodies?
Accordingly, the new Rules of Extortion Procedure are intended to restore medieval back room and Star Chamber tactics to this new Empire group, to force control over others in what cannot be obtained by negotiation and compromise.
When asked where the authority for this broad enforcement-punishment-force mindset, Mr. Bane said that he had read relevant religious texts to check his theories of Government of the Right People, By the Right People, For the Right People.
As to the religious research, Mr. Bane said that he indeed found that a popular Founder of a usurped religion never enforced anything against anyone except to regulate the money-changers, and that was sorely needed (and didn't last long). Indeed, the illustrious Founder mostly let those who wanted to walk away, walk away. Mr. Bane also acknowledged that that particular Founder limited his conversion strategies to preaching and example; and authorized noone to force anyone else to do anything, or enforce anything against others. The idea is mind yourself, the Founder said in effect; don't cross your neighbor's moat in your own eye.
But Mr. Bane opined that mere talk and example would never sell and are not as much fun as forcing people to do what you want. Heard from the back of the room: "Hoo! Hoo!" And "Go for it Johnny-boy. That'll get the B___________es."
A further press conference is scheduled for midnight, at which time America's Prince Harry Everyman, Champion of Democracy, will counter the Evil Empire's Rules of Extortion Procedure with a mild but firm and reasoned no.
Prince Harry expressed confidence in the American public's ability ultimately, if offered neutral facts before emotional commitment is seduced, 1) to see truly where daylight shines, 2) to access daily the Annenberg Foundation's Fact Check, see ://factcheck.org/; and 3) to weigh objective and full information rather than invective and King Me Shove You strategies in voting. "Abort Democracy by Empire? Not on my watch," he asserted, and welcomed more questions.
Meanwhile, citizens everywhere looked to find daylight.
[Consumer of news and political garbahge goes to the website] WEBSITE:
Extortion is the description applied by opponents of the Far Side of the Right
- to those machinations of debate
- by which misrepresentations of fact that would be actionable in a commercial setting, are common in the political. For example, truth in labeling is required in commerce, to a degree; and sales "puffing" has its limits.
Technically "extortion"? No, agree both sides. Criminal extortion involves an illegal act -- and bad faith and obstructionism are not "illegal". Political speech traditionally readily admits falsehoods and spin, and obstruction of fact disclosure, as mere amuses bouches, despite reliance by voters and financial loss in contributing in reliance on the truth or understanding of the representations, see ://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/misrepresentation/. The effect, however, is to undermine the democratic system, thus a hybrid "legal but to be prohibited in the democratic debate setting" arises.
In criminal extortion, in summary, a person or group abuses its authority or office in some way, and so induces another to give up money or other matters of value.
In everyday terms, see ://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion/. The "extorter" thus obtains a desired action that otherwise would not occur. The results of the misrepresentation, say the opponents of the Far Side of the Right, are the same as in technical extortion. The person (voter, supporter) would not have swallowed, not have engaged in the desired conduct of support, giving up time and money, except for the misrepresentation, a kind of force, the "extortion" technique used.
Results are forced by use of means that may be legal. Opponents are examing the effects if such Rules of Debate permitting this extortative misrepresentation will replace Rules of Civil Procedure, Legislative Procedure, Robert's Rules of Order, and perhaps even Rules of Criminal Procedure on the Federal and the State levels.
Consumers of political speech show signs of uniting to object to the misrepresentations to which they are subject, and the Far Right apparently feels vulnerable, more than their opponents. Further, the ducking and weaving of constantly moving goal posts in debate, say the opponents of the Far Right (as they consider filing suit against abuses of political speech by office holders or others in political authority much as a commercial setting), makes a mockery of a system dedicated to truth and reasonable compromise. Sales of ideas and sales of candidates are the same as sales of deodorants, say the opponents. Tell what you sell, label its ingredients, or be sued.
Photos, for the curious: John the Bane, tinted from seaside sculpture at Esbjerg DK . John Boehner impersonator.
Good and Evil, from Victorian Sunday School lesson sewing card
Avenging Angel, Denmark church
Tiptoeing Gent, fair use from Hans Christian Anderson display, Odense DK . Harry Reid impersonator.
Looking for daylight, citizen visiting Horsens DK. Note that Scandinavia appears to have no slums. Worth it. Lifts all boats. Also worth paring how that is done, but the goal is attainable and excellent.