CMRE Annual Fall Dinner
By Barry Ritholtz - October 13th, 2009, 5:15PM
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
Comments
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
BR – Costs$ ?
October 13th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
BR,
hopefully, you’ll get a chance to speak with this cat http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=Edwin+Vieira+Jr.
http://www.edwinvieira.com/
http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/VieiraBio.html
maybe you could ask his views on the FedRes and/or the U.N., could be enlightening..
October 13th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Lots and lots of bears !!!
October 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
But LB are they American bears? and are they happy or angery bears?
Mr. Ritholtz congradulations, I hope you and yours have a great time, but do you think you could bring us TBP posters a doggie bag FWI I like those little sandwiches without crusts….
October 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
…”with brilliant speakers”…stroke, stroke…
October 13th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Wes – you caught that too eh?
October 13th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
MEH
Is this guy the first birther?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
John Williams, is that the Shadow Stats guy?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Why do they hate America so?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
beaufou,
not to sound Ignorant, or anything, but WTF is that?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
MEH – you don’t want to know
October 13th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
that
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
October 13th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
No offense MEH
just sounds a little dodgy to me.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
beaufou,
no offence taken, feel free to feel free..
though, to me, this( the Judges “reasoning”–being described by Vieira )
“Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,
[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .
Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803). ..”
seems rather ‘dodgy’..
but, to each his own. Which part of that essay did you find ‘dodgy’?
October 13th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
MEH — One of the websites you link to shows a photoshop of Mount Rushmore with Abraham Lincoln and TR’s heads blown off it.
A bit over the top, no?
http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/VieiraBio.html
October 13th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
MEH
introduction:
“America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”
And conclusion:
Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.
Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.”
I’m not an Obama supporter but I find this to be quite disturbing if not dodgy.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Barry: You, or somebody working for you has got to try and filter out some of these inane (if not inSane!) POLITICAL comments to your pieces, which have nothing to do relative to your content! I value your, and the others you respect and reprints opinions, and that is why I read you daily.
But you DO need to somehow eliminate the “garbage purveyors” (always political)…looking at the “comment” directly above what am about to post, seems would simply be an assistant noting that the “comment” has nothing to do with your post!
October 14th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Riley — MEH is a longtime commenter here at BP, and while I do not agree with some of the things he says or links to (as I’m sure others might say the same of me), I think you are putting MEH into a category he does not belong. One of the kool things about Barry’s comment section is that it is quite freewheeling with a mix of almost all possible political/philosophical spectra. This mix is one of the reasons I always return.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:27 am
rileyx67
As a matter of fact, I realized I didn’t belong here, you’re right.
But you can still go F yourself if you don’t like it.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Riley-please keep posting. It is nice to see someone who is willing to stand up to the contistution and go that extra step in telling someone how best to spend their money, I truely love it.
Let’s see Barry’s web site, Barry’s money that keeps it going (Regardless if he makes money from advertivements) Barry’s thoughs, Barry’s choice of content, his pride and his pain go into this websites upkeep and it is ALL backup by freedom of speech.
And YOU want to tell him how best to conduct his business, bahahahahahahaha.
Beauitful……… Please keep posting Riley, keep posting buddy……..
FYI – it is only because Riley address Mr. Ritholtz as Barry that I also call Mr. Ritholtz as Barry, no disrepsect intened.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Douglas,
are you referring to this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1598130226?ie=UTF8&tag=citizensforac-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1598130226 ?
given the Title, and, subsequent, editorial POV, I’d think it appropriate. ‘blown off’ seems, to me, to be your projection, no?
and, I’d imagine that if anyone would take umbrage, it might be : “”A ‘very good’ collection of concise assessments of each administration’s domestic, defense and foreign policies. This book is ‘better’ in terms of the analysis of each administration’s role in an evolving process of shaping the legacy of prior administrations for their successors. And the book is ‘best’ in the ways it provides insights into how a libertarian perspective on these issues is meaningful for the broader policy debates. Hence this volume’s focus concurrently warrants the praise: ‘Very Good, Better, and Best.’” —Edward A. Olsen, emeritus professor, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School
but, seemingly, not so much..
~~
though, past that, I’d be more concerned about, the numerous, other issues highlighted on that page, well before, said, artistic license w/ ‘photoshop’..
~~
beaufou,
as I said, before: feel free to feel free. if that’s the feeling you get when reading those passages, I’d, only, ask whether it’s due to some infirmity of his logic/rhetoric, or whether it’s due to the situation he is delineating.
and, note: the only issues, of his, that I highlighted, were the FedRes (monetary policy), and the U.N.(and its portents).
though, how much can I know? I’ve always thought there was an asymptotic divide between our Mortal realm and that of the Devine..
IOW, we’ve some serious problems afoot, luckily, to me, anyway, there are serious people proffering, equally, serious solutions to them. Some may care to think that we’ve the Luxury of awaiting the perfect vessel to bring forth salvation, for me, that’s for them. Personally, I think we’ve enough skill, left, to rely on our own faculties, and not “leave it to the Saints”, or worse, those that pretend to be one..
October 14th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Douglas,
I appreciate the thoughts. Though, really, I couldn’t figure out who ‘riley’ was talking about..
If it was me, I wish he’d clarify, with examples.
beaufou,
I hope you were kidding @ 01:27, I can’t imagine how you ‘don’t belong’..
October 14th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I wish I could be there.