needs some explaining.
---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---
(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence
It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).
I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.
But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.
* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)
** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.
[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]
[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Bill is the word. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Bill is the word. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Sunday, November 17, 2002
Dubious is the word...
NOT PRINTED [a reply to Ari Fleisher's letter to the editor in the Washington Post]
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.
At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.
In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.
Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'
In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.
On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.
In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.
[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.
At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.
In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.
Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'
In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.
On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.
In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.
[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
HELP NAVIGATION
[update 2-5-09 LABELS Under Construction ]
[5-15-08: (nfry)= not fully read yet * and I have not followed through with * yet.]
This page is for those who may be new (or just old) to the world of blogging or in particular my train of dialog. Politics is about help navigation of our course. This page invites you to join that world and this. Have fun, following the links, and trains of thought, otherwise known as threads. TO THE RIGHT (I have not navigated the instructions enough to see if I can move it all to the left) is a column under the heading not beating around the bush? which was suppose to mean links to other sites, but now includes links like this. HELP NAVIGATION, then LOCAL POLITICS? which has a question mark added as that is not all it is about. Not to mention that it is definitely not original. (OK, there were two tangents, otherwise considered footnotes)
SEARCH BLOG: Top left corner of every blogspot page see SEARCH BLOG to insert a word or phrase to find all posts which contain it on this blog.
[Ctrl F] to search individual post pages use your CONTROL [Ctrl key] [type "F" key] to pop up a word search on your own computer, it should probably usually work.
LABELS: like Local that categorize post subjects(content is not completely labeled, but it will be a work in progress) note: italics sometimes used to hint at double entendre or sometimes emphasis in bold. Quotation marks may reference something that is just out there unattributed or used by me somewhere else, unless noted or linked.
Links: an option below the bottom line of every post that may be there if I choose to insert a link[*]. [12-17-07 Example: In this case the link provided at the bottom is also embedded at the GoLeft.TV and I take this opportunity to note the inconvenience if you do not have high speed internet to view the video, either way you get there. ALSO there, In particular if you scroll over you will see google search and if you click will get you the list of links to one of the runners-ups. ]
[12-14-07: See THE GAME to take the trip and follow the loop.
[ Bottom Line:
There and Here and around Now.
EMBEDDED QCON Quicke Comment on News ]
[Hint: another little clue to playing the game is that by scrolling over a link with your cursor (that is the little thing your mouse moves) you can see it on your bottom line before going there.]
12-17-07: our course [link added] Earlier: Local Politics? is now Local Content.
12-18-07: Note Right Column Content
Media Filter: Media Matters etc.
The Word: A Dictionary
The Law: The Constitution
The News: GoLeft.TV
Thought Crimes Act: Stop the Preemption
Find Senate Bill: example S. 1959
Find House Resolution: example H. 1955
[*] [4-9-08: henceforth referenced as "bonus link"]
[5-15-08: (nfry)= not fully read yet * and I have not followed through with * yet.]
This page is for those who may be new (or just old) to the world of blogging or in particular my train of dialog. Politics is about help navigation of our course. This page invites you to join that world and this. Have fun, following the links, and trains of thought, otherwise known as threads. TO THE RIGHT (I have not navigated the instructions enough to see if I can move it all to the left) is a column under the heading not beating around the bush? which was suppose to mean links to other sites, but now includes links like this. HELP NAVIGATION, then LOCAL POLITICS? which has a question mark added as that is not all it is about. Not to mention that it is definitely not original. (OK, there were two tangents, otherwise considered footnotes)
SEARCH BLOG: Top left corner of every blogspot page see SEARCH BLOG to insert a word or phrase to find all posts which contain it on this blog.
[Ctrl F] to search individual post pages use your CONTROL [Ctrl key] [type "F" key] to pop up a word search on your own computer, it should probably usually work.
LABELS: like Local that categorize post subjects(content is not completely labeled, but it will be a work in progress) note: italics sometimes used to hint at double entendre or sometimes emphasis in bold. Quotation marks may reference something that is just out there unattributed or used by me somewhere else, unless noted or linked.
Links: an option below the bottom line of every post that may be there if I choose to insert a link[*]. [12-17-07 Example: In this case the link provided at the bottom is also embedded at the GoLeft.TV and I take this opportunity to note the inconvenience if you do not have high speed internet to view the video, either way you get there. ALSO there, In particular if you scroll over you will see google search and if you click will get you the list of links to one of the runners-ups. ]
[12-14-07: See THE GAME to take the trip and follow the loop.
[ Bottom Line:
There and Here and around Now.
EMBEDDED QCON Quicke Comment on News ]
[Hint: another little clue to playing the game is that by scrolling over a link with your cursor (that is the little thing your mouse moves) you can see it on your bottom line before going there.]
12-17-07: our course [link added] Earlier: Local Politics? is now Local Content.
12-18-07: Note Right Column Content
Media Filter: Media Matters etc.
The Word: A Dictionary
The Law: The Constitution
The News: GoLeft.TV
Thought Crimes Act: Stop the Preemption
Find Senate Bill: example S. 1959
Find House Resolution: example H. 1955
[*] [4-9-08: henceforth referenced as "bonus link"]
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Obtusity?
Not Here.(Kay label added)
Nor Here.
But in context the former Here is the proper angler.
In a less embedded aside, Leonard Pitts Jr. hits the nail on the head of American Exceptionalism.
In another arena, a friend noted how trustworthy FOX and Bill O'Reilly are. Well, 28% and 9% are far from a margin of victory unless you are looking for an American Icon. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC combine for 29% while CNN's Cooper and Blitzer match O'Reilly's 9%, and the a4mentioned other network's hosts(Matthews, Brokaw, Couric and Sawyer tied) combine for 12%. So it is only in the winner[*] take all, not knowing what it takes world, where follow the leader matters. Now that is a real Laffer Curveball! Or is it?
[Then there is Pawlenty of problems. Bottom line: if money is a maker then tax it as much as labor. That is an inverse paradox or maybe praximoron.]
[The bottom line is obliquity with intent.]
[Sub** Text]
** asterisks apply to that link, but is not the missing link, but does fit the leadership narrative over people.
[*] boo yeah! Stewart boosts O'Reilly's ratings(**), which likely rigs poll. i.e. maybe FOX viewers are more fair and balanced when the left is presented.
(**) I don't have the Nielsen ratings but it might be reflected in the poll.
[Footnote: scroll over some links for some understanding, but unfortunately links that may need clicking on do not last forever. Hence I hope to be less obtuse but no less oblique in the future. There should be no joy in mud-ville, as the outcome of the NY26th shows, as divided meta(for) prevails. But to unembed these analogies, the Ryan plan was the issue in the divide to lose in New York, 48% takes it, while the issue will next be before the U.S. Senate with Democrats in the majority and Republicans faced with laying their votes on the line. Some will leave the sinking ship, diluting the lemonade. If I may make a few Truman references it is not a direct analogy, but hanging their votes on their necks will be like dividing to conquer.]
[Meanwhile Up-Date]
[Speaking of not Truman--something about:
OK, it loses a little bit of it's zest, but that is the nature of the slippery-slope, trickle down, lemonade, mudville.]
[Update 12-8-11 The Last Word? As it seemed to line up.]
Nor Here.
But in context the former Here is the proper angler.
In a less embedded aside, Leonard Pitts Jr. hits the nail on the head of American Exceptionalism.
In another arena, a friend noted how trustworthy FOX and Bill O'Reilly are. Well, 28% and 9% are far from a margin of victory unless you are looking for an American Icon. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC combine for 29% while CNN's Cooper and Blitzer match O'Reilly's 9%, and the a4mentioned other network's hosts(Matthews, Brokaw, Couric and Sawyer tied) combine for 12%. So it is only in the winner[*] take all, not knowing what it takes world, where follow the leader matters. Now that is a real Laffer Curveball! Or is it?
[Then there is Pawlenty of problems. Bottom line: if money is a maker then tax it as much as labor. That is an inverse paradox or maybe praximoron.]
[The bottom line is obliquity with intent.]
[Sub** Text]
** asterisks apply to that link, but is not the missing link, but does fit the leadership narrative over people.
[*] boo yeah! Stewart boosts O'Reilly's ratings(**), which likely rigs poll. i.e. maybe FOX viewers are more fair and balanced when the left is presented.
(**) I don't have the Nielsen ratings but it might be reflected in the poll.
[Footnote: scroll over some links for some understanding, but unfortunately links that may need clicking on do not last forever. Hence I hope to be less obtuse but no less oblique in the future. There should be no joy in mud-ville, as the outcome of the NY26th shows, as divided meta(for) prevails. But to unembed these analogies, the Ryan plan was the issue in the divide to lose in New York, 48% takes it, while the issue will next be before the U.S. Senate with Democrats in the majority and Republicans faced with laying their votes on the line. Some will leave the sinking ship, diluting the lemonade. If I may make a few Truman references it is not a direct analogy, but hanging their votes on their necks will be like dividing to conquer.]
[Meanwhile Up-Date]
[Speaking of not Truman--something about:
If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.With my lemon twist on it:
If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate(update 10-11-2011), and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign.
OK, it loses a little bit of it's zest, but that is the nature of the slippery-slope, trickle down, lemonade, mudville.]
[Update 12-8-11 The Last Word? As it seemed to line up.]
Friday, February 07, 2003
OH REALLY FOG
OH REALLY FOG. "Labeling U.S. as terrorist is anti-American."
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?
Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.
But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.
Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.
By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.
Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?
Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.
But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.
Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.
By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.
Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wall Street or Main Street
Reading between the lines?
The people spoke out 100 to 1 against the bailout.
Republicans voted against** the bill:
[Note that my caution on Palin, is reflected in the conflict of nuance between her comments and McCain policy.[*] It is my feeling that some of the punditry is missing the nuance and/or her uncomfortablness is manufactured intentionally or not by her handlers.]
* the irony is that the Palin/McCain rhetoric on Pakistan is the Obama policy. Or diplomacy is flip-flop and context, not to mention the media.
**Perfect Politics McCain is out of touch, misrepresenting that Obama's allies voted down the bill, when the reverse is true.
[Bush blames media and is right for once. Bailout not the right word and even a fix is not the right word. Unless it is that we are in a fix.]
The people spoke out 100 to 1 against the bailout.
Republicans voted against** the bill:
"Despite the changes made during an intense week of negotiations, the heart of the program remains President Bush's original idea: spend billions of taxpayer dollars to buy mortgage-backed securities whose value has plummeted."This comment was from Sunday, seemingly mischaracterizing the progress made on a bipartisan basis. It seems to me that more accountability and more creativeness is needed to bring mainstreet along. But politically it will be difficult as Democrats will not go far enough, and Republicans want the market to fix itself, meaning more trickle down.
[Note that my caution on Palin, is reflected in the conflict of nuance between her comments and McCain policy.[*] It is my feeling that some of the punditry is missing the nuance and/or her uncomfortablness is manufactured intentionally or not by her handlers.]
* the irony is that the Palin/McCain rhetoric on Pakistan is the Obama policy. Or diplomacy is flip-flop and context, not to mention the media.
**Perfect Politics McCain is out of touch, misrepresenting that Obama's allies voted down the bill, when the reverse is true.
[Bush blames media and is right for once. Bailout not the right word and even a fix is not the right word. Unless it is that we are in a fix.]
Monday, January 30, 2012
Red Bull...
Has Wings,
It it any coincidence that Wisconsin is the home of Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus, and Scott Walker?
* previous Romney cracks in leadership: "haven't seen the ad"[!]
[It is sad that Reince Priebus believes that he is being funny, but I still can't be sure. (An Inconvenient Pie Chart)]
Republican Shadow Government calls for Obama Impeachment.
The Thom Hartmann Show, today.
Here are two further points. Not only is the crisis in leadership a myth in the form of the president not being a legislator and not being a unitary executive, but with Romney and his flip-flop of support of the Ryan plan, or rather support for social security and medicare, it may be the Republican plan. You see the trick might be that they can say anything, since it is not a law yet. Romney was for it before he was against it, but if the Republicans number one job was to make Obama a one term president, the substance of the bill was not important, because they did not want anything to be done. It would seem that Obamacares is a whole lot more flexible and must be in the right direction if they are running against it.
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The New Compendium
NOT!
Really...probably not.
But it sounds like an epoch
and not quite an anthology,
but hopefully not an achronism.
THE POINT?
A cover page of sorts.
Yeah that's the ticket!
...the dynamics of progress,
Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:
1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy.
[Mis-click of the mouse of the day]
Slash Segue(Aristotellian)[A]
Maybe you had to be there.
The Bill Thing.
The Frackin' Thing.
The Club of Construction.[ B ]
The King Tut of Rhetoric
Not to mention Divagation.
BTW: Going Egypt depends on who you ask, and I am not asking Stephen or Steve King***. And Going Wisconsin should not mean Going Cheesehead*. But I will tie this up with a preamble. If I may paraphrase and extend the remarks of a caller to the Norman Goldman Show: If you are not for "a more perfect Union" you may be Un-American. If you are not willing "to promote the General Welfare" you may be militant against "the Blessings of Liberty", but one can take words (and rhetoric or puns) too far. I suggest the word militant not be used, and that nowwhere near the tactics be used in political protests** but just who expects whom to turn the other cheek? There seems to be a slippery slope in the free speech zone.
* my original intent was a pun on Ed Head, which is not a Soft Head, but then there may be a lede to leader in the eventual link.[I believe it was a caller to the Ed Schultz Show that lead me to independently think that the failure of unions in Wisconsin would put a whole new spin on the name Cheeseheads.]
** the right to protest and any intent to break the law, includes the right to be arrested but not beaten, though we should understand that resistence is not futile but few put up with it well
*** see previous clause "divagation" link and prior line "Tut" for the two Kings.
[A,B updates]
[2-18-11 Blank(updated)Network- Parallel Channel(See The Pair o' Lax View ) Updates under construction. SERIOUSLY these are a serious sorting of views.]
[See Follow Up]
[Note Jumping the Gun Again! i.e breaking in-box of (news) sorts (AKA: sports metaphor not target or weapon analogy) Meaning the CPAC divide regarding the Islamophia section of The Progress Report is hint at the LAME O' PHOBIA of Platonic Dialogue not to mention a cave[of irony] of or con tent... or CAP]
Really...probably not.
But it sounds like an epoch
and not quite an anthology,
but hopefully not an achronism.
THE POINT?
A cover page of sorts.
Yeah that's the ticket!
...the dynamics of progress,
Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:
1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy.
[Mis-click of the mouse of the day]
Slash Segue(Aristotellian)[A]
Maybe you had to be there.
The Bill Thing.
The Frackin' Thing.
The Club of Construction.[ B ]
The King Tut of Rhetoric
Not to mention Divagation.
BTW: Going Egypt depends on who you ask, and I am not asking Stephen or Steve King***. And Going Wisconsin should not mean Going Cheesehead*. But I will tie this up with a preamble. If I may paraphrase and extend the remarks of a caller to the Norman Goldman Show: If you are not for "a more perfect Union" you may be Un-American. If you are not willing "to promote the General Welfare" you may be militant against "the Blessings of Liberty", but one can take words (and rhetoric or puns) too far. I suggest the word militant not be used, and that nowwhere near the tactics be used in political protests** but just who expects whom to turn the other cheek? There seems to be a slippery slope in the free speech zone.
* my original intent was a pun on Ed Head, which is not a Soft Head, but then there may be a lede to leader in the eventual link.[I believe it was a caller to the Ed Schultz Show that lead me to independently think that the failure of unions in Wisconsin would put a whole new spin on the name Cheeseheads.]
** the right to protest and any intent to break the law, includes the right to be arrested but not beaten, though we should understand that resistence is not futile but few put up with it well
*** see previous clause "divagation" link and prior line "Tut" for the two Kings.
[A,B updates]
[2-18-11 Blank(updated)Network- Parallel Channel(See The Pair o' Lax View ) Updates under construction. SERIOUSLY these are a serious sorting of views.]
[See Follow Up]
[Note Jumping the Gun Again! i.e breaking in-box of (news) sorts (AKA: sports metaphor not target or weapon analogy) Meaning the CPAC divide regarding the Islamophia section of The Progress Report is hint at the LAME O' PHOBIA of Platonic Dialogue not to mention a cave[of irony] of or con tent... or CAP]
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Hitting Snooze Button
Meme or and um.
Just a little stepping back on the previous post of mine. First: it is always in the words that you find what you Google. Second: then they must still be filtered.
[ 8-20-07 * * * SEE PREVIOUS WARNING: CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * * Wake Up America * * * ] caught my interest, and hit some spots that were familiar and where I often go.
The particular page on Rove and Hillary along with the new filter as I note above, Meme or and um , spells it all out. But I still have a ways to go, and it is not that clear where it is coming from. All I can say is that it is a filter. What it fertilizes is still up to the "hard work" of the people. Which is something I need to get back to... later.
[Heck: Oh and I did not even read the reference to language [8-20-07 * * * CLICK AT OWN RISK (in comments to Wake Up America) * * * ]
and ended mine on vocabulary,
but "there I go again". [[11:08 AM Re: Bill Clinton as a cuss word versus Cheney a pardon for such, is just a hint at a difference in perspectives, which I had missed earlier. "Pardon my Cheney" as in "Pardon my French."]]
Here I will preemptively hit the nail on the head.
Mother Jones, you see hints at the point in the title. Alleged White House-Petraeus Arm Wrestling Over September Report a Ruse? At least that is my point. And TYT. From other source or my general filtering, Patraeus is dancing around "the turd blossoms" of information and politics. Now I will read the report.-
Now that I have, it comports with my opinion and the facts. One thing that must be remembered, there is no obligation to tell the truth to anyone in the media. Even the media has the right to lie. And apparently in this case there may be two stories ** both in public and behind closed doors. And this goes directly back to troop involvement with the facts and whether their opinions matter, whether they are in or out of the military.]
[10:37 AM - My initial impression needs to be filtered, as now I see that Wake Up America has a perspective that still needs more sorting...]
** This is already being denied.
Just a little stepping back on the previous post of mine. First: it is always in the words that you find what you Google. Second: then they must still be filtered.
[ 8-20-07 * * * SEE PREVIOUS WARNING: CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * * Wake Up America * * * ] caught my interest, and hit some spots that were familiar and where I often go.
The particular page on Rove and Hillary along with the new filter as I note above, Meme or and um , spells it all out. But I still have a ways to go, and it is not that clear where it is coming from. All I can say is that it is a filter. What it fertilizes is still up to the "hard work" of the people. Which is something I need to get back to... later.
[Heck: Oh and I did not even read the reference to language [8-20-07 * * * CLICK AT OWN RISK (in comments to Wake Up America) * * * ]
and ended mine on vocabulary,
but "there I go again". [[11:08 AM Re: Bill Clinton as a cuss word versus Cheney a pardon for such, is just a hint at a difference in perspectives, which I had missed earlier. "Pardon my Cheney" as in "Pardon my French."]]
Here I will preemptively hit the nail on the head.
Mother Jones, you see hints at the point in the title. Alleged White House-Petraeus Arm Wrestling Over September Report a Ruse? At least that is my point. And TYT. From other source or my general filtering, Patraeus is dancing around "the turd blossoms" of information and politics. Now I will read the report.-
Now that I have, it comports with my opinion and the facts. One thing that must be remembered, there is no obligation to tell the truth to anyone in the media. Even the media has the right to lie. And apparently in this case there may be two stories ** both in public and behind closed doors. And this goes directly back to troop involvement with the facts and whether their opinions matter, whether they are in or out of the military.]
[10:37 AM - My initial impression needs to be filtered, as now I see that Wake Up America has a perspective that still needs more sorting...]
** This is already being denied.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Tin Foil Herman
[11-30-11]
It's official, unless it's not.
I guess I am not "some people". I wanted a business man to run, for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the debate. For the sake of settling* what the heck market forces have to do with running a government.
* Cain references** in order:
Temporal
No Teddy
Nailed it! T-point Oh!
Never the Twain
From GOP to NOP
Bite of the Big Apple?
Courting Jesters
Apples and Oranges?
Para-Model
Cain Un-Able
Two Points
Sat Ire[!]
** Not the same Cain, or "machine"
[I might not have all the facts, but that doesn't leave Cain*** out.]
[More to sort. Witch Cain first and why did he cross the road?]
*** The "Cain" and "facts" links apparently are interchangable.(that is Jon Stewart and a YouTube)
[Sort: Search Cain is good. NOT!]
[Sorting Cheese Heads]
[Look up
attack strength.]
[Original Break on Halloween?]
Cain is an art project?
Buffet v. Trump
Cain un-Able
Ron Paul Scariest
[Meanwhile: Papa mmmm MOW OW! Michigan is still coming along, but the Bill is the Word in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Takin' out the Trash Men.]
[Rachel Maddow: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I]
[Geez Heads Unite!Ed(!)]
Citizens United?
It's official, unless it's not.I guess I am not "some people". I wanted a business man to run, for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the debate. For the sake of settling* what the heck market forces have to do with running a government.
* Cain references** in order:
Temporal
No Teddy
Nailed it! T-point Oh!
Never the Twain
From GOP to NOP
Bite of the Big Apple?
Courting Jesters
Apples and Oranges?
Para-Model
Cain Un-Able
Two Points
Sat Ire[!]
** Not the same Cain, or "machine"
[I might not have all the facts, but that doesn't leave Cain*** out.]
[More to sort. Witch Cain first and why did he cross the road?]
*** The "Cain" and "facts" links apparently are interchangable.(that is Jon Stewart and a YouTube)
[Sort: Search Cain is good. NOT!]
[Sorting Cheese Heads]
[Look up
attack strength.]
[Original Break on Halloween?]
Cain is an art project?
Buffet v. Trump
Cain un-Able
Ron Paul Scariest
[Meanwhile: Papa mmmm MOW OW! Michigan is still coming along, but the Bill is the Word in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Takin' out the Trash Men.]
[Rachel Maddow: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I]
[Geez Heads Unite!Ed(!)]
Citizens United?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Summary of a Flap.
Bailout or Meltdown? [UPDATE: above expired link with likely replacement.]
Really in actually reading this report[**], I will not cross-check it with all my comments and references. But McCain's panic was a beneficial coherence with Bush's, ironically indicated by looking into their eyes and seeing the same deer in the headlights. I don't know if it was in the reflection or their face as a hole, but the only plus to this Double of Mass Distraction is that "you can fool me once..." or I mean we see the boys "who cried wolf", while others have kept their cool.
LAST WORD: I may have to seriously suspend something as my wrists need their own wresting to other matters. But with that I will reference a guest on Rachel Maddow: author of... Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency The real flap in my view. Now is this a flap that is too out there? Well it has to do with the approach that is being taken and by who for whom, or is it whom for who?
In this flip-flop the people matter and there are only three branches of government and the media and politics are the people's business. In fact the press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights not to mention what is not mentioned in the constitution. How does this connect to any thing close to home? Well, floods and bailouts and who is a fundamental or just under the trickle down. Isn't it appropriate that TARP was the original name for the flap. Speaking of eyes and flaps, why not just face the fact that the people not only want to have the debate, but some think it should be about the economy rather than foreign policy now that would take courage* to face with out blinking.
* not to mention George or Will
[**] 3-19-09 rare editorial touchup throughout, one typo and italics and bold only and the economy link.
Really in actually reading this report[**], I will not cross-check it with all my comments and references. But McCain's panic was a beneficial coherence with Bush's, ironically indicated by looking into their eyes and seeing the same deer in the headlights. I don't know if it was in the reflection or their face as a hole, but the only plus to this Double of Mass Distraction is that "you can fool me once..." or I mean we see the boys "who cried wolf", while others have kept their cool.
LAST WORD: I may have to seriously suspend something as my wrists need their own wresting to other matters. But with that I will reference a guest on Rachel Maddow: author of... Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency The real flap in my view. Now is this a flap that is too out there? Well it has to do with the approach that is being taken and by who for whom, or is it whom for who?
In this flip-flop the people matter and there are only three branches of government and the media and politics are the people's business. In fact the press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights not to mention what is not mentioned in the constitution. How does this connect to any thing close to home? Well, floods and bailouts and who is a fundamental or just under the trickle down. Isn't it appropriate that TARP was the original name for the flap. Speaking of eyes and flaps, why not just face the fact that the people not only want to have the debate, but some think it should be about the economy rather than foreign policy now that would take courage* to face with out blinking.
* not to mention George or Will
[**] 3-19-09 rare editorial touchup throughout, one typo and italics and bold only and the economy link.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Two Clever by One Third?
Or both ends against the middle?
Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.
BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)
* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential this is as tricky a net, in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option) Up down before or after change, either now or in 2010. I would risk the now. I am unsure how the cloak filled rooms would navigate the choice. Could they pass a progressive bill and the Senate Bill and then let the Senate choose? But do not risk doing nothing and leveraging 2010. See Countdown Tonight 5, 4,... 1-20-2010.
[Psst...(Rachel) speaking of mythical beasts, I believe one of these links(Mathews) had Gibbs noting $4 billion or so in health care gains in the market today[*], although other reporting (Keith) shows a market loss overall, but at least Barney Frank got the mess- age. Hmmm?]{Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
[Psst...It should be kind of hard for "Republicans" to declare a win as that word is kind of absent from his website. The same almost goes for the "Democrats" taking any responsibility when it comes to party identification]
[*](1-21-10) possible anachronism,(see BTW: Ed(9:45).) at least anecdotal(different sectors, different days?)(See comment 2)
Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.
BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)
* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential this is as tricky a net, in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option) Up down before or after change, either now or in 2010. I would risk the now. I am unsure how the cloak filled rooms would navigate the choice. Could they pass a progressive bill and the Senate Bill and then let the Senate choose? But do not risk doing nothing and leveraging 2010. See Countdown Tonight 5, 4,... 1-20-2010.
[Psst...(Rachel) speaking of mythical beasts, I believe one of these links(Mathews) had Gibbs noting $4 billion or so in health care gains in the market today[*], although other reporting (Keith) shows a market loss overall, but at least Barney Frank got the mess- age. Hmmm?]{Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
[Psst...It should be kind of hard for "Republicans" to declare a win as that word is kind of absent from his website. The same almost goes for the "Democrats" taking any responsibility when it comes to party identification]
[*](1-21-10) possible anachronism,(see BTW: Ed(9:45).) at least anecdotal(different sectors, different days?)(See comment 2)
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Emergency (Iraq) Supplemental Passes Senate: 51-47
Others call it War Supplemental. NOT!
Library of Congress Records (Thomas) defines:
The Knot for Naught Dance may be NOT as well.
Will the president veto? Will the president compromise?
To will or not to will? That is the question.
The choice to dance is in the president's hands, the congress may still have the last foot down.
The Senate delivered the amount that the president wanted and then some.
[at this moment(posting within seconds of original post): Sen. Robert Byrd Senate Appropriations Committee Chair is calling for working together on a "responsible plan" for Iraq and not demonizing "democracy". The latter was my word, he said "congress".]
More later: below unread. [See MyDD.]
[8:33 update: Actually the more later will likely be a separate post. But Sen. Bryd just concluded, in thanks to the staff for their hard work on this bill.
Library of Congress Records (Thomas) defines:
S.965
Title: An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations...
The Knot for Naught Dance may be NOT as well.
Will the president veto? Will the president compromise?
To will or not to will? That is the question.
The choice to dance is in the president's hands, the congress may still have the last foot down.
The Senate delivered the amount that the president wanted and then some.
[at this moment(posting within seconds of original post): Sen. Robert Byrd Senate Appropriations Committee Chair is calling for working together on a "responsible plan" for Iraq and not demonizing "democracy". The latter was my word, he said "congress".]
More later: below unread. [See MyDD.]
[8:33 update: Actually the more later will likely be a separate post. But Sen. Bryd just concluded, in thanks to the staff for their hard work on this bill.
"the hard work, the hard work"..."did you get that?"...if not a third "the hard work" evoked (at his usual eloquent pace). I knew that this would be a memorable speech.]
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Historic Health Care Bill Passed
The House has Passed the Senate Bill.
Thank You Historic Speaker!
Thank You Minority Leader for so disrespecfully recording your nonsense for history.[*]
The Senate now has the option of adding a few Republican options or maybe even some Democratic plans.
*[3-22-10] Believe me, I don't believe I could more respectfully record my reaction to Minority Leader Boehner's address.
[In fact, I actually just had a long discussion with a Deputy Chief of Staff reflecting my displeasure with his antics. I may or may not summarize it later, but I can characterize it as a less than heated discussion. My main point was that it is difficult to imagine many reasonable people bothering to call in to respond to such behavior, given the visceral reaction and condescension possible. It might be likened to calling in on a childish tantrum. I was just curious about the decorum of their callers, I think I kept mine, but I did continually get caught by the whining rhetoric. The reported belief that the process was unprecedented and partisan like never before. Ha! Oh and the "blame it on emotions" mixed in with the "need to be heard" excuse.]
[Update: see runaround rhetoric and clean sheet of paper: the Republican "leadership" has been forced by Democratic leadership to be accountable but still whine about the politics while blaiming it on 200 years of heated words simultaneously martyring** themselves in the rhetoric and hijacking*** the word "change" from a "clean sheet of paper". They want history to be forced or a force, as long as it is thier force not the peoples. Which "common sense" would mean, no history, no constitution, no rhetoric, no politics.
** I hope I have not too incautiously used the word, but it might be better to say Cantor makes a rather heroic leap in his rhetoric and "akin" to self-sacrifice.
*** refers to office call]
Thank You Historic Speaker!
Thank You Minority Leader for so disrespecfully recording your nonsense for history.[*]
The Senate now has the option of adding a few Republican options or maybe even some Democratic plans.
*[3-22-10] Believe me, I don't believe I could more respectfully record my reaction to Minority Leader Boehner's address.
[In fact, I actually just had a long discussion with a Deputy Chief of Staff reflecting my displeasure with his antics. I may or may not summarize it later, but I can characterize it as a less than heated discussion. My main point was that it is difficult to imagine many reasonable people bothering to call in to respond to such behavior, given the visceral reaction and condescension possible. It might be likened to calling in on a childish tantrum. I was just curious about the decorum of their callers, I think I kept mine, but I did continually get caught by the whining rhetoric. The reported belief that the process was unprecedented and partisan like never before. Ha! Oh and the "blame it on emotions" mixed in with the "need to be heard" excuse.]
[Update: see runaround rhetoric and clean sheet of paper: the Republican "leadership" has been forced by Democratic leadership to be accountable but still whine about the politics while blaiming it on 200 years of heated words simultaneously martyring** themselves in the rhetoric and hijacking*** the word "change" from a "clean sheet of paper". They want history to be forced or a force, as long as it is thier force not the peoples. Which "common sense" would mean, no history, no constitution, no rhetoric, no politics.
** I hope I have not too incautiously used the word, but it might be better to say Cantor makes a rather heroic leap in his rhetoric and "akin" to self-sacrifice.
*** refers to office call]
Friday, January 10, 2014
Coin-age of the day.
Veriabling.
Origin*: Prior coin-age on our coin age.Pre-coin-age: prior posts that coin new words, although not necessarily sovereigns***
 |
| Structural Speculation |
* already evolved from variabling to veriabling, not to emphasize bling.
Not to be confused or separated from** coin age, or should I Say knot.
** line is reference to labels, inserted links are geometricks
*** timing is everything?
Note: Everything may be a pun on the word or dimention, but it is the last inserted link at this time. It spins off of the sovereigns reference and humorism(or Lincoln Logs) where I will refrain from more quantum leaps[!] Now to proceed from the double asterisked line's determinant[?] ... regarding the knot Say:
12/12 Power Point on Philosophy of Science and Economics: Positivism, Popper, and After
10/12 PDF Russell On Denoting.
8/12 Jiggery Pokery
7/12 Philosophy Stories
#6 See (FP below) 4moolah
5/12 Realmiffications ?
4/12 (b.s.) ofor
3. relavent
2. segweigh
1. veriabling
[!] exception to the rule? i.e. anachronical links
[?] matrix pun dropped
[Closed Cap shun ? ] (FP1)
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Mmmm MOW, MOW
papa mmmm MOW MOW
Bill is THE Word, for the Pizza Pie Culture.
Michigan [not Madison 9-28-11]
Ohio
Wisconsin
Speaking or Iron Knee you tooboldly surf*.
[Not to mention: Keepin' up with the Jones is, I mean.]
* David Sirota:[bold added] Standing in for Thom Hartmann, I don't have time to disagree, but it is not the second time that sets a precedence, it may be the time it goes to court, in regards to the way Obama follows the "Law" too similar to the way Bush did not.
[AND JUST BREAKING]
Speaking of intersections and bottom lines:
Well, now, now, now. would n't you know it. Let's keep it cool. BUT THIS? Hopefully just a form of education, that will be kept in perspective.
Bill is THE Word, for the Pizza Pie Culture.
Michigan [not Madison 9-28-11]
Ohio
Wisconsin
Speaking or Iron Knee you tooboldly surf*.
[Not to mention: Keepin' up with the Jones is, I mean.]
* David Sirota:[bold added] Standing in for Thom Hartmann, I don't have time to disagree, but it is not the second time that sets a precedence, it may be the time it goes to court, in regards to the way Obama follows the "Law" too similar to the way Bush did not.
[AND JUST BREAKING]
Speaking of intersections and bottom lines:
Well, now, now, now. would n't you know it. Let's keep it cool. BUT THIS? Hopefully just a form of education, that will be kept in perspective.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
String Cheese Theory?
You** Tube
Double* Ouch![?]
[Matter / Anti-matter ? The Declaration of Independence does not have a preamble. Note that Speaker BaneOr misquoted the Constitution, which does have a preamble. He was quoting the Declaration of Independence which does not have a preamble. It matters that Rachel Maddow did issue an apology. Should it Anti-matter that NewsBusters thinks it does? Quote:
Of course, if she or her crack fact-checking team at MSNBC had done their homework, they would have found "We hold these truths to be self-evident" does indeed come from the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and not the Preamble to the Constitution as Boehner said.It seems they gaffed their own smug face.
Alas, when one fact checks, especially as arrogantly as Maddow does, you should be completely accurate or you end up looking like a bigger jackass than the person you're mocking.Right?]
That oughta wipe the smug, condescending smirk off her face!
[Speaking ***^ of Flip Flop? QED!
And I don't mean cue Ed, nor buy George or Bill-E-Club !
But D E^^ Vo ! ?]
*Schoolhouse Oops?
Woe? [!]
** Original Rachel Link is missing under You "THE Word".
*** Bingo [!]
^ Think Progress's link on President Obama's personal evolution. It is the people that must make the political and legal fight. A president's opinion does not make either federal or state law. Not that he is not responsible for interpreting and enforcing them.
^^ a day that will live in infamy?
NOT! Thom Hartmann caller on radio.
5-10-12 Related Issues? Or matters ?
Now with Alex Wagner "The Book of Mormon".
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama Explains Wright, Will McCain Explain the Far Right?
I have only heard snippets of the speech but I can already hear where others could mishear snippets of it.* I look forward to reading the whole thing, and then wonder, if as much attention will be placed on McCain and his allies. While the connections are not on the same level, neither are the understandings.
So In his own words.
[3-19-08: The above link was distributed by the campaign and includes the written text, the link at bottom has a few more words of introduction and better segue.
For more later: see Pew wars(which lists for now - The Pew Forum; Odd pews?); and earlier Politics of the Past was here --
I think I will reserve my time to review some files and reorg work or 4:
Hillary ? McCain ? Obama! RESORT/CYCLE! ]
* [3-20-08: finally heard ]
- - - - -
[3-22-08 Media Moment: Billed as a "BC Moment", there seems nothing wrong with the quote. The follow-up seems lame, but standing alone it is a plug for his wife as opposed to McCain. "Wouldn't it be nice..." another Beach Boy song comes to mind,(mine not Bill's): "...and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." This seems a swipe at the media and the reaction by McPeak, while harsh, should allow us to be reminded of Joe McCarthy and in further comment from the Clinton Camp: "...the need to keep the race focused on issues, 'rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism'." Remember that the media was in the middle of this; "patriotism" was their word, and in McPeak's defense, if he had not over reacted it may not have brought as much attention to it.]
So In his own words.
[3-19-08: The above link was distributed by the campaign and includes the written text, the link at bottom has a few more words of introduction and better segue.
For more later: see Pew wars(which lists for now - The Pew Forum; Odd pews?); and earlier Politics of the Past was here --
I think I will reserve my time to review some files and reorg work or 4:
Hillary ? McCain ? Obama! RESORT/CYCLE! ]
* [3-20-08: finally heard ]
- - - - -
[3-22-08 Media Moment: Billed as a "BC Moment", there seems nothing wrong with the quote. The follow-up seems lame, but standing alone it is a plug for his wife as opposed to McCain. "Wouldn't it be nice..." another Beach Boy song comes to mind,(mine not Bill's): "...and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." This seems a swipe at the media and the reaction by McPeak, while harsh, should allow us to be reminded of Joe McCarthy and in further comment from the Clinton Camp: "...the need to keep the race focused on issues, 'rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism'." Remember that the media was in the middle of this; "patriotism" was their word, and in McPeak's defense, if he had not over reacted it may not have brought as much attention to it.]
Monday, April 30, 2012
CAD (To be or not 3d)
Cause Affect Disorder* or Culturally Aided Design
[Objective / Subjective ?]
(counter point)
* Ted Nugent had a deficiency,
Romney's may be full blown disorder.
[Not to demonstrate the former...(see *)]
** yet to be linked/asterisked (see [**])
*** again who needs Republicans ?
[To cut through the CAD part...]
[**] Maybe the Title should read (3B or not 2D) As in three branches with discernible diplomacy? Except for the disorder bit. Now that is survival*** of the asterisks.
[If President Obama were half of what is feared and smeared from the Right he would be more than then Left even hoped for, and even the middle might understand they are better off. If he were the other half he would be just another empirical politician. The point is that there is only so much that a President can do, to undo what previous administrations and congresses have undone. Not to be a CAD, but computer aided discernment brings a hopeful and peaceful May Day?]
[Ryan Shrugged = more Mitt-Flop or disavowing the moral case for capitalism. Note on The Last Word. ^ Not to mention The Ed Show ?!?!]
^5-1-12
[Led Better Bill?]
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
[Objective / Subjective ?]
(counter point)
* Ted Nugent had a deficiency,
Romney's may be full blown disorder.
[Not to demonstrate the former...(see *)]
** yet to be linked/asterisked (see [**])
*** again who needs Republicans ?
[To cut through the CAD part...]
[**] Maybe the Title should read (3B or not 2D) As in three branches with discernible diplomacy? Except for the disorder bit. Now that is survival*** of the asterisks.
[If President Obama were half of what is feared and smeared from the Right he would be more than then Left even hoped for, and even the middle might understand they are better off. If he were the other half he would be just another empirical politician. The point is that there is only so much that a President can do, to undo what previous administrations and congresses have undone. Not to be a CAD, but computer aided discernment brings a hopeful and peaceful May Day?]
[Ryan Shrugged = more Mitt-Flop or disavowing the moral case for capitalism. Note on The Last Word. ^ Not to mention The Ed Show ?!?!]
^5-1-12
[Led Better Bill?]
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)