Omakase

Amazon Search
«  
  »

Case study

By lex, on November 15th, 2007

Projection, defined:

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one

Share
November 15th, 2007 | Tags: | Category: Uncategorized

7 comments to Case study

  • HomefrontSix
    November 15, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    The more rigid the current president is in responding to the chaos he has fostered.

    Really? Seriously. I think my head might just explode.

  • MaxDamage
    November 15, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    “Despite the obvious shortcomings of his policies, he has startlingly succeeded in reshaping the executive into an unaccountable imperial presidency.”

    Has the gentleman ever looked at what Congress has determined is under its purview by means of affecting interstate commerce? Give ya a hint, if I have a garden and take some of the sweet corn from it and feed it to my chickens, not only am I a farmer but I’m affecting interstate commerce by growing corn I would have otherwise had to buy on a market that might have included corn from another state. Lately they seem to think they’re CIC by virtue of attaching tactics to spending bills. I have my doubts any of them have given a thought to the Constitution after the formality of swearing an oath to it.

    Imperial presidency? Doctor, heal thyself.

    As for Blumenthal, let’s get his name in lights and his face on every TV show in America. The more the public knows about the candidates, including the company they keep, the more informed their choice will be.

    – Max

  • Buck
    November 16, 2007 at 8:26 am

    Krauthammer has the perfect response to this sort of krep in his column today.

    And I agree with you, Max. Except I’d broaden it to include a list of ALL candidates’ advisors/staff/etc.

  • Dave
    November 16, 2007 at 8:58 am

    As he joins the Hillary campaign he could have easily wrote “Hillary’s will to power remains ferocious”

  • Once a Marine
    November 16, 2007 at 10:00 am

    Max,

    It is not Congress who has interpreted the Commerce clause but the United States Supreme Court…and not Burger’s in the 70s but the justices way back in the 30s as part of New Deal litigation. And, by the way, the Rehnquist Court significantly reduced the reach of commerce clause power in the last 10 years.

    One might suggest if you are going to cast stones you might aim at the right house.

  • MaxDamage
    November 16, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    Once a Marine, you make a good point and I personally agree — even my hero Teddy Rooseveldt was wrong on occassion in breaking up trusts and violated the constitution in doing so.

    Still, if it weren’t for Congress ignoring their mandate under the Constitution the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had to make a ruling. If you ask me, they’re all in cahoots, the only difference being which bit of power each office wishes to grab. And yes, this isn’t anything new, even Lincoln had the same argument during the Civil War.

    I merely hold to the ideal that The Law means something, for if we are a nation of laws and not men then we need to follow something less transitory than the Revelation of the Day. Sadly, all three branches seem to have forgotten their role as models and leaders of the body politic.

    – Max

  • MaxDamage
    November 17, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    Ya know, it just dawned on me — there’s a really fine line between idealism and fantasy.
eXTReMe Tracker

View My Stats