NEW RESOLUTIONS?
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.
The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.
[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.
Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.
Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query The Game. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query The Game. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, March 07, 2003
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Bottom Line Update
[Caution: There are a few tangents here
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]
On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]
On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]
The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.
* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?
[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.
[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:
Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]
[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]
On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]
On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]
The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.
* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?
[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.
[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:
The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.
"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.
Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]
[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Brackets and the Debt Clock
[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]
[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]
The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.
The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.
Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.
Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.
But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.
[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]
*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself
[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!
[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]
[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]
The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.
The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.
Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.
Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.
But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.
[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]
*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself
[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!
[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.
Stuck in the game frame?
Bright Bart and Big Government?
Why OWS is bigger...
[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]
[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]
[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.
Bright Bart and Big Government?
Why OWS is bigger...
Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.Whine and G's?
On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests". (I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).Really?
What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.Not your grandfather's "traditional".
This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power - but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coastReally?
Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.I have read Matt Taibbi's piece three times now over the course of parsing this, and I will let you read your own conclusions.
[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]
[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]
[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Irony versus Hypocrisy
Smackdown: Shuster Nails Ari Fleischer over GOP Hypocrisy
Shuster gives as good as he takes, but the irony is that Fleischer is there arguing over the childishness of Obama when Rush is not elected by the people, and neither is he. So the Catch 44 is that if Obama is wrong for painting the Republicans with a Rush Brush, then MSNBC is wrong for presenting unelected spokespeople for the Republicans, however it is the nature of the media to try to present both sides, and the nature of the Republicans to use Joe the Plumbers.
Speaking of plumbers and whose job it is...
Several links having filtered through my email box unprofessionally*
bridge the spectrum and filling the bill.
I will not unembed the threads but leap to the next field so to speak.
A more selective approach browsing the TED forum, a spin on the technology of politics and religion by Noah Feldman presents a preemptive perspective on hope. Having viewed less than two minutes, I noted before logging out, the following:(Unmodified but for one dash)
The third leg if not noted here is Economics and the Point is Justice or the fulcrum the Law. Values and their management is the key. Balancing the tetrahedron of flip-flop so to speak. The hour glass of consumption or conservation. Economics Politics Religion Law for the People - Executive, Legislative, Judiciary for the people and the point of balance.
I had my own preemptive concerns which need to be upgraded [3-6-09]and revisited, but how does this connect to the above?(a pun on hierarchy?) Facing choices and nemeses, not to mention the connection to things being in their place, whether fields or technologies and who uses what or whom and for what. Further search may dig up a reference to direct cause ofor[***] systems.
But prepost I read: Staving Off a Great Depression by Dean Baker The Guardian UK and where does this fit? In the fear or faith options; or fight or flight, excuse or blame sections. But I propose that the numbers game be given international scope[Update **].
[UPDATE 3-20-09: The following section remains in its original form but for bold. See BINGO which follows to where it relates to the nature of preemption.]
The honesty of the new budget and accounting now includes the war on terror which was not on the books. So rather than the declare a win or lose the economy bifurcation, the new accounting must include the soft power ingredients that do not come free. I have not seen where this is said, but it should and probably has been or will be.
[BINGO! or rather none other than Warren Buffet gets it.]
*i.e. by friendly nemesies however undivinely.
** Update International Scope and a new link at revisited: "Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar." This guy may be the Rush of Russia but he could be on the same page as Putin, while I feel that economics may be the bailiwick of the Rumpole. "She who must be obeyed" and changed.
*** ofor: metaphysical synergistic concatenation
Shuster gives as good as he takes, but the irony is that Fleischer is there arguing over the childishness of Obama when Rush is not elected by the people, and neither is he. So the Catch 44 is that if Obama is wrong for painting the Republicans with a Rush Brush, then MSNBC is wrong for presenting unelected spokespeople for the Republicans, however it is the nature of the media to try to present both sides, and the nature of the Republicans to use Joe the Plumbers.
Speaking of plumbers and whose job it is...
Several links having filtered through my email box unprofessionally*
bridge the spectrum and filling the bill.
I will not unembed the threads but leap to the next field so to speak.
A more selective approach browsing the TED forum, a spin on the technology of politics and religion by Noah Feldman presents a preemptive perspective on hope. Having viewed less than two minutes, I noted before logging out, the following:(Unmodified but for one dash)
The third leg if not noted here is Economics and the Point is Justice or the fulcrum the Law. Values and their management is the key. Balancing the tetrahedron of flip-flop so to speak. The hour glass of consumption or conservation. Economics Politics Religion Law for the People - Executive, Legislative, Judiciary for the people and the point of balance.
I had my own preemptive concerns which need to be upgraded [3-6-09]and revisited, but how does this connect to the above?(a pun on hierarchy?) Facing choices and nemeses, not to mention the connection to things being in their place, whether fields or technologies and who uses what or whom and for what. Further search may dig up a reference to direct cause ofor[***] systems.
But prepost I read: Staving Off a Great Depression by Dean Baker The Guardian UK and where does this fit? In the fear or faith options; or fight or flight, excuse or blame sections. But I propose that the numbers game be given international scope[Update **].
[UPDATE 3-20-09: The following section remains in its original form but for bold. See BINGO which follows to where it relates to the nature of preemption.]
The honesty of the new budget and accounting now includes the war on terror which was not on the books. So rather than the declare a win or lose the economy bifurcation, the new accounting must include the soft power ingredients that do not come free. I have not seen where this is said, but it should and probably has been or will be.
[BINGO! or rather none other than Warren Buffet gets it.]
*i.e. by friendly nemesies however undivinely.
** Update International Scope and a new link at revisited: "Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar." This guy may be the Rush of Russia but he could be on the same page as Putin, while I feel that economics may be the bailiwick of the Rumpole. "She who must be obeyed" and changed.
*** ofor: metaphysical synergistic concatenation
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Para~graph Three!
Endo-terror~cism?
aka Academics ?
The point? The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.
Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
::: aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
::: ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) , f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically) ]
(what the fudge? f-j,p?)
::: Endo-suffix?
The project ? The dance?
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle? Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist”view , now almost universally accepted, that philosophical truth could be made compatible with and indeed supportive of modern politics. Transparency is today the name of that venerable game. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had a different view; namely, that philosophical skepticism undermined the irrational beliefs necessary to the maintenance of a political community and therefore needed to be kept under wraps. As Melzer points out, there is a large body of contemporary scholarship that actively contends that virtually no one other than a few cranks ever wrote esoterically; he performs a great service by, first, showing that the claim is empirically wrong, and second, that it is itself an historically contingent interpretation." (ibid.)
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3) The Be All and End All?
Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6? At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.
P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9 "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.
aka Academics ?
The point? The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.
Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
::: aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
::: ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) , f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically) ]
(what the fudge? f-j,p?)
::: Endo-suffix?
The project ? The dance?
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle? Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist”
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3) The Be All and End All?
Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6? At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.
P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9 "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**
Not to spike the ball.
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Throwing the Game
or Tetrahedron.
Or should we call it die with less perspective?
Bottom line? I mean, who am I to advise the GOP, but the Pizza Guy may just be the best thing for the country. Not that I would go that far, but if he makes it to nominee, I mean, it just might be good for the national debate. At least he will have one up on the MBA president, if not the constitutional law and community organizer president. I mean just what business is the country in? Let alone what it means to grow the pie.
The other lines? Well I will work on them later, but there may be something to Jon Stewart's point, if not baiting photobombers. I don't want to run the table, but I guess that is another table.
[Post-Ribble or Meta-4: the above was written without the benefit of having followed much ofor many of the links. It was based simply on the point that we have an executive of Godfather's Pizza running for president, and it might be good for the debate. That and the pun on dice(plural) or the lesser perspectives/dimentions of the tetrahedron. But I will now add that I will also contrast in a less dimensional way, Andrew Breitbart and Jon Stewart, they only hinge on the 1st amendment. In that regard I clicked on a link at the latter's and note the "freedom of speech" and the rest of I.T.
Bocephus had a point, even though he was wrong about almost everything else. There is something strange, to say the least about Boehner and Obama playing golf, while some fiddle.
What are the odds? (I can't find where I buried the original ref: but I guess that means that Netanyahu not only might have played golf with Hitler, but he would pin a badge on him. I guess that leaves me off the Picard(cunnard) upon which Brietbart has hoisted himself.) It is not uncommon for me to lose links, but what are the odds the last thing in my email is on Cain.]
[10-6-11 update: Hank Williams Jr.-No Dylan - I agree with Hank Williams Jr. in his apology "The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist." But I beg to differ on the move to get money out of politics. [The devil is in the details, and what is left out. I think the petition is flawed. While I support the intent and wish it well, what will it be replaced with? What influence will the media then have in filtering the debate? What influence will corporations then have in crafting any messages? Get money out of the news! Get money out of "free speech"! If you catch my drift.] HW Jr. used a disgusting analogy, but Dylan Ratigan's petition just falls short of being comprehensive.]
[If wishes were fishes...we'd be fed up. Bain or cut bait, and candy and nuts.]
Or should we call it die with less perspective?
Bottom line? I mean, who am I to advise the GOP, but the Pizza Guy may just be the best thing for the country. Not that I would go that far, but if he makes it to nominee, I mean, it just might be good for the national debate. At least he will have one up on the MBA president, if not the constitutional law and community organizer president. I mean just what business is the country in? Let alone what it means to grow the pie.
The other lines? Well I will work on them later, but there may be something to Jon Stewart's point, if not baiting photobombers. I don't want to run the table, but I guess that is another table.
[Post-Ribble or Meta-4: the above was written without the benefit of having followed much ofor many of the links. It was based simply on the point that we have an executive of Godfather's Pizza running for president, and it might be good for the debate. That and the pun on dice(plural) or the lesser perspectives/dimentions of the tetrahedron. But I will now add that I will also contrast in a less dimensional way, Andrew Breitbart and Jon Stewart, they only hinge on the 1st amendment. In that regard I clicked on a link at the latter's and note the "freedom of speech" and the rest of I.T.
Bocephus had a point, even though he was wrong about almost everything else. There is something strange, to say the least about Boehner and Obama playing golf, while some fiddle.
What are the odds? (I can't find where I buried the original ref: but I guess that means that Netanyahu not only might have played golf with Hitler, but he would pin a badge on him. I guess that leaves me off the Picard(cunnard) upon which Brietbart has hoisted himself.) It is not uncommon for me to lose links, but what are the odds the last thing in my email is on Cain.]
[10-6-11 update: Hank Williams Jr.-No Dylan - I agree with Hank Williams Jr. in his apology "The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist." But I beg to differ on the move to get money out of politics. [The devil is in the details, and what is left out. I think the petition is flawed. While I support the intent and wish it well, what will it be replaced with? What influence will the media then have in filtering the debate? What influence will corporations then have in crafting any messages? Get money out of the news! Get money out of "free speech"! If you catch my drift.] HW Jr. used a disgusting analogy, but Dylan Ratigan's petition just falls short of being comprehensive.]
[If wishes were fishes...we'd be fed up. Bain or cut bait, and candy and nuts.]
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"]
Monday, December 01, 2014
Footnotes Page December 2014(Page One)
12-1-14 The
Un-Revolved(~) Thread: (bottom up-4) (C): Schiller,
Schelli.ng, Shell Lacking and Schopenhauer*? , Kobayashi
Maru, (c) What
are the Frackin' Odds..., (d) One
of my readers, (e) Speaking
of Timing, Canard
Lines, Catching
Up with US., Post-Pyth?
(V): (Vienna), Post-Pyth? (3) Ludwig Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - Preface,
(2) "The Plausibility of Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy" - Timothy Williamson & Paul Horwich, (1) Wittgenstein
http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/microsite/sports?cmpid=FCST_sportslist_nfl#NFL
12-4-14: ebb:War on Hillary[!], of:Hump Day?, war:WOW, (b.s.)... raven, (b.s.)[!] football NO! Jung on the Enantiodromia!
12-5-14: to Pun on the 5th scroll / over *scheduled post*=today. Above * = yesterday. i.e. 4 FP more than the ** issue or weak[!] ~week~. (FP2)*
12-8-14: post - posted
(FP 12-9-14)
12-10-14: a. , b. , C. Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em , D. Failure is always , e. Go Left Young Man!, F. Slippery Slope
12-15-14: on Saturday the 13th no post, but 15th update.
12-29-14 (of the): A. Para-model, b. The Billy Club..., c. Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right., d. The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. THANK YOU DAVE ROSS! , f. Turning the page (On Humor)? , g. Turning the Page (2.0) h. Bush the United , I. What the Beck? , j. No Teddy , k., (l.) Unity Hits Reality, (m.) Throwing the Game (note font size A. & I. = Normal Ctrl F "of the left")
** or muddle is the hume or...
( comparison) : A. The Billy Club..., B.Genre Clash, C.
(gravitas): A. 4Mat, B. Way, Too Point Oh?, C. Or ask for a third, D. Funneling Crisis?
ticket: A. Hump Day? , B. The New Compendium , C. Primary Boogeyman , D. Not to make light... , E. Monkey Business , F. The Hope'd4 Campaign , G. ( ), H. Not to Follow-Up... , I. The other ground game... , J. What Obama can't say. , K. Checking In: , L. Two Wrongs Make a Right? , M. Churned Media , N. Republicans can't run against congress anymore. , O. Co-Op-Ed , P. Where does this fit? , Q. On any given day? , R. Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ? (...)
(V): (Vienna), Post-Pyth? (3) Ludwig Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - Preface,
(2) "The Plausibility of Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy" - Timothy Williamson & Paul Horwich, (1) Wittgenstein
http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/microsite/sports?cmpid=FCST_sportslist_nfl#NFL
12-2-14 War on Hillary[!] OW ! Monkey Business Hmmm. (FP2)
12-3-14 Maybe you had to be there(FP1). [Which is actually here, see anamoly @ (3) and below when scrolling this all.)] It is likely I accidently clicked on a function or blogspot instruction, that I am unaware of. Pardon my muchado about anomaly. The point was to review the day and reference the points, as color coded under ROY G BIV. As to more under Hillary I refer to the geometrics of the Third Way or monkey business of recent posts. I seem to have mucked ~~~~up~~~~ enough for now.
12-3-14 Maybe you had to be there(FP1). [Which is actually here, see anamoly @ (3) and below when scrolling this all.)] It is likely I accidently clicked on a function or blogspot instruction, that I am unaware of. Pardon my muchado about anomaly. The point was to review the day and reference the points, as color coded under ROY G BIV. As to more under Hillary I refer to the geometrics of the Third Way or monkey business of recent posts. I seem to have mucked ~~~~up~~~~ enough for now.
12-4-14: ebb:War on Hillary[!], of:Hump Day?, war:WOW, (b.s.)... raven, (b.s.)[!] football NO! Jung on the Enantiodromia!
12-5-14: to Pun on the 5th scroll / over *scheduled post*=today. Above * = yesterday. i.e. 4 FP more than the ** issue or weak[!] ~week~. (FP2)*
12-8-14: post - posted
(FP 12-9-14)
12-10-14: a. , b. , C. Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em , D. Failure is always , e. Go Left Young Man!, F. Slippery Slope
12-15-14: on Saturday the 13th no post, but 15th update.
12-29-14 (of the): A. Para-model, b. The Billy Club..., c. Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right., d. The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. THANK YOU DAVE ROSS! , f. Turning the page (On Humor)? , g. Turning the Page (2.0) h. Bush the United , I. What the Beck? , j. No Teddy , k., (l.) Unity Hits Reality, (m.) Throwing the Game (note font size A. & I. = Normal Ctrl F "of the left")
** or muddle is the hume or...
( comparison) : A. The Billy Club..., B.Genre Clash, C.
(gravitas): A. 4Mat, B. Way, Too Point Oh?, C. Or ask for a third, D. Funneling Crisis?
ticket: A. Hump Day? , B. The New Compendium , C. Primary Boogeyman , D. Not to make light... , E. Monkey Business , F. The Hope'd4 Campaign , G. ( ), H. Not to Follow-Up... , I. The other ground game... , J. What Obama can't say. , K. Checking In: , L. Two Wrongs Make a Right? , M. Churned Media , N. Republicans can't run against congress anymore. , O. Co-Op-Ed , P. Where does this fit? , Q. On any given day? , R. Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ? (...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)