Well, the "The gentleman has not been recognized" is essentially "Dude, you're going off script, shut up, we didn't plan for this!"
But she should absolutely have known the simple things to say in order to tell him to sit down.
Parliamentary rules are insanely complex, most of that complexity being dedicated to resolving disagreements over what is or isn't in order for a person to do. The formalities of these organizations are almost all scripted beforehand, with the real discussions and planning happening before the meetings. You basically spend 3 hours of prep time for 1 hour of official business, in order to prevent hundreds of hours spent in lawsuits and challenges.
Of course, that's no excuse for the chair not to know the basics. "Shut the fuck up" is one of the first formalities you need to learn for a contentious body.
It's about trying not to waste effort. If your opponents control the institutions and do not care about rules, then you won't beat them by going to their institutions to try to hold them to the rules.
The path to victory is not through a courtroom. The courtrooms are a part of the post-victory cleanup. Victory lies in convincing the masses that the institutions need to be overthrown, and creating replacement institutions to facilitate the overthrow.
That's why, as horrible as it it, mere possession of the material shouldn't be a prison offense. It should be mandatory institutionalization. Production, of course, should result in a historical exhibition on the methods of the Spanish Inquisition.
Used to be you'd get hanged or shot for any felony. Murder? Hanged. Steal a horse? Hanged. Rape? Hanged.
I think it is very risky to put the power to kill someone convicted of a crime in the hands of the state. Instead, I prefer this solution: a convicted felon is put in an empty room for one day, shackled hand and foot. His victim and their family are given the door key. After that day, he is taken either to prison or the morgue.
Your conclusion, that the system must collapse, is certainly correct. I call out your process for getting there, because it is important not to accept the assumptions of your enemies. Those assumptions are part of the reason for the inevitable collapse. A recognition of what money actually is, is necessary for people taking part in a real recovery.
There is a serious flaw in your analysis. You have included a canard from the MMT crowd.
Money is not created when a debt is formed. Debts are a type of asset to the creditor, which is worth money, but that asset is not itself money.
Money is essentially a winner in the market competition of a barter system. It is a good which is durable, divisible, fungible, and commonly valued. Even better if it is easy to transport.
The idea that debt is money was created by modern central bankers in order to justify their money printing. That system is just naked fraud. Don't believe their lies. They are the ones. Kill them.
No, it is legal under current law, as written and properly interpreted through the common law lens which out legal tradition claims.
However, we don't have a functional legal system, we have a system of rituals for legitimizing the exercise of power by those who wield it.
No, it should not be illegal then, either.
Here's a point, not that there needs to be one for any form of speech: "Man, ain't it ridiculous how easy voting is, and how error- and corruption-prone? Why, we're one step short of 'Text this number and your vote will count!'"
Yes. It is a meme. It is a joke. It is satire. It is extremely easy to go to your state government website, check the elections section, and see what the valid ways are to vote.
Don't let this or any other fed operation trick you into giving up an inch of free speech (more than has already been taken).
Anything that's so obviously ridiculous is (or at least should be) completely protected speech. If someone is retarded enough to trust a picture on the internet that they can vote via text, their vote should not count.
Under Arizona statute (and many other states besides), the court is required to presume that any irregularities in an election worker's behavior are honest mistakes, unless an intent to cause the result to change is shown in court. It's the judge's call on whether that's been shown.
Under the Chevron court decision, judges are instructed to presume that government workers are being honest at all times, and any inaccuracies in their work are honest mistakes.
Judges are appointed by politicians or elected directly. In either case, that makes them political offices.
Corruption is both guaranteed and required by law. The third box ain't gonna work unless they're legitimately frightened by the likelihood of the fourth.
I'm not calling you wrong, just giving you some contextual info.