Battle of Amendments?

Or Balance of Fittest ?

Related Flak [?]

[Reboot Reading List]
[No compunction or qualms with how others connect the dots ?]

This in no way* intends to imply that the amendments have any intention of being in any heirarchy, priority or clause.**

* nor weigh ?   [a Lean Forward, b  Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications. (b), c, d Ghost of X-mas Passed. , e One Heckuva Day. , f, g It's Obama's Turn , h The Fighting Ill Lie Nigh! , i Social Darwinism 2.0[!] , j Now this is the ticket. , k Weird Google of the Day. , l Speaking of Bowls, m X & Y Chromo Somes]
** (s.c.) scroll click[Maslow, clause(b.s.), wits]
[Reading List, RE:VIEWING, Reading List (UC) ]

[Face the Music ! ? ! (cheer/leader/ship/?)]

Fear and Running

in the Republican Party. 
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment 1-  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2-  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution.  But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument.  "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**.  But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.*** 

Post asterisks:  The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]

* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality.  But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.

[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one.  But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation.  It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments.  Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]

[Follow-up of sorts.  But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term.  I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above.  However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch.  Guns don't kill people, people do.  Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law?  Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad?  And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric.  I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course.  This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]

[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]

[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]

Image of Original In Tent

Re: Sources

C W
Homer, Plato**, Hell'nistic, Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian *: Evolutionary Thinking***.

* less than random link/Google of the day?
not fully read yet,
never completely endorsed, unlike Labelists [Well...not exactly.]

** lede not

[The under lying(pun) under standing(literal) as well as substance, regards semantics. Now that is a pretty firm line for a fluid foundation.
See W(hint pun/ribble)
The history of the constitution falls into this spectrum. The Federalist Papers were an argument, for what does not matter, it won and lost, as the amendments suggest. The constitution was signed but not without compromise. And we were never on the same page again. This is my perspective without the usual qualifiers.]
*** How prophetic?

[Unoriginal In tent: related links without hints]
[On the other hand... looking for spectrum.]

[Given the field of the Republican Presidential race, no apologies are in order. Excuses maybe, blame yourself. BTW: not disappointed by Herman Cain, to drop out but carry the mess age to the table. But in honor of the Federalists, the non-party party, here is a third field or party or option. Caution!]

[NPR: Re-education]
[Update: Herman

Cap and Trade?

[American Clean Energy and Security Act: Waxman/Markey Bill [** correction below]
Energy Bill narrowly passes House.(Carol Browner: White House Energy Advisor)
The Progress Report at Think Progress.

It seems that if the criticisms this energy plan, as well as that of the public component(The Ed Show) of health care reform have any merit, it will mean that there is no invisible hand of the market. If the competition that a not-for-profit health care option provides will do in the insurance industry, and if a market solution to incentivize pollution reduction is not feasible, then the market might not be the arena that solutions can be found. Maybe the solution would then be found in demand side economics. And given the compromises that comprise the effort to be non-partisan[*], further amendments should be well considered as to not weaken the progress or threaten failure, as further pressure for change might result.

[*]link linked post-post

[Pre-post err us missing link? generational accounting. Suffice to say: accounting is not economics nor math accounting...for values, let alone the right "scoring".]
[6-30-09: See Voodoo Economics Redux?
and "a new clean energy economy"]

[** Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill or another misnomer aka H.R. 2454]

The Tetrahedron Ramble*

What the heck** is the point? I revisit my Power Broker Mountain Project, or actually move on. What I call the prime disciplines as in fields of study, Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy form the base with Progress or their result as the point of their projection or application forming a reality or culture, as we know it, or think we know it, or feel we apply it, regardless.

The perspective that caused me to reconsider this model, or concept (as it also may be the perspective) is a proposition that Science, Religion, Politics, and Economics,(structures) have at least three things in common: Values, Ideology, and Power.(VIP) Now I don't want to be restricted to the math or geometry or insistence that there is meaning in them for some sake other than they are structures. But conceptually they are at the point of the tetrahedron and not the point of the tetrahedron any more than culture. Now to some this may have gotten nowhere, but we will get somewhere, with or without consideration of VIP and the Very Important Point of who and what we are or will become.

Is it no coincidence that there are three branches of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary based on the constitution and the preamble, or that the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Freedom and Justice are not forces to reckon*** with, but create.

*somewhat impromptu
** search fuzzy math and English; not to mention viscious cycle or golden rule
*** "bottom line"

Clause Wits (3.0)?

Politics is...
Economics is...
Hume or is...*

There should be no doubt that this is the most transparent administration...

Not that I enjoin...**
Nor dot dot dot  [!]. ^

*not to jest
^ow = mo ot (or 3rd ot [?])

g? Clause Wits (3.0)?
A. Neo-Romulan or Anti-Uncle?
B. Speculative Physics
C.
D?  Pre-Pan FRY.
E. Clause Wits
f. Battle of Amendments?

Hint: [ ? ] Caution: links R anachronistic of sorts. (c*^)
** 3-26-14 finally read: NOW NFRY, nfry 2.oh?
[RealPerspectivism / On the wall verses on the table.]

Whining to Win.

First it was about the economy and from a McCain advisor, then it was about the media. Actually quite a bit transpired in between. But the image thing, composite or not, should be compared to The Dean Scream. Actually I am not attributing Deans loss to his scream, but it was a turning point and cover for the media turning. While the light that McCain is cast in, should be examined more carefully, not to mention Palin.

As misinforming as the position Pro-Life is, maybe a better bumper sticker would be Pro-Baby. Whining begins at conception.
Or maybe: Baby First!

[Speaking of winning expressions that is: See The View as contexted here, and watch the first video of him under fire for his ads. Talk about getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and blaming the baby, or is it the bath water.

[9-17-08: The above was posted before a caller to The Thom Hartmann Show, [*] noted some research backup for my anecdotal unRoveing.]
[In my opinion the easy dismissal of studies by one side of the ideological spectrum, defines the spectrum. One side defines the parameters to study, the other attacks the study to define their way. It could be described as "might makes right" while meaning gets left behind. A point that may have been neutrally arrived at by one critic. "So next time, give 'em something to really cry about."]
[*]: yesterday's caller but again today: the above amendments were posted prior to today's show begining on the topic of smear or coverage - In discussion with the author a reference to Caesar's work(not his words but mine and McCain's), places it as the foundation of our country, while apparently the press has become a fifth column.

Post Script

Stephanie Miller
Walking/Gum and Rick Perry "Dominionist"*: Crooks and Liars Guest

Labelists/Labelism = the word/amendments
Running to Govern v. Governing to Run.
The Constitution is the Campaign.
Move to Amend and get her done.

* quick reference on the Stephanie Miller show.
** a computer or DonKeyOte tilt lost my asterisk (original intent was to cap the post, not ionically.)

[I think it was the word** but the comment needs retreival.]
[The Word, Labelism/anachronism/gridlock, coats of arms or champagne or old Taxes?]

Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.

Stuck in the game frame?
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 coast

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. 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.

Hierarchy of Hypocrisy

Hating to generalize I note my potential logical fallacy in the following. Nevertheless, between the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment, there seems a hierarchy for some. From Right to Bear Arms to Citizenship Rights where does the 1st amendment fit in? (*)

A. There is no hierarchy in constitutional amendments.
B. There are Supreme Court rulings that influence their dynamics.
C. So many blogs are moot points. (GOTO 1st sentence)

Of course maybe my posts are just moot or problematic. Problematic in generalizing and leaping. Unfortunately you must read, to decide. In generalizing there may be some association between the authors of certain events but not necessarily relevant. In the above case I simply point to fact that removal of citizenship is being considered for some but not their guns, while free speech is an element that might be fringe but relative. Meanwhile in an earlier and adjacent thought, some of this new found legislative fury seem like WMD.** Weapons of Mass Distraction. It would seem that all this populist rancor is really keeping Homeland Securiy busy. And while I support all rights reasonably used, I cannot help but feel that it really is a burden on our security. A bit more responsible reporting and responsible associating might help, but then how one goes about that...almost makes me long for a unitary executive. BTW: the dot, dot, dot was a rhetorical segue or moot question.

My potential obtuseness was not an attempt to be excedingly careful***, yet the cause and effect might be anachronistic(i.e. flip-flopped). The links to previous word choices were not intentionally designed to be more than a search for my previous usage, but they do seem to bring up some previous associations which show the importance of the process and progress, not to mention providing hope.

(*) an alternative link.
(**) not that early: My first referencing of Weapon of Mass Distraction.
(***) but maybe an antidote to some talk show hosts that muddle the search for terrorist

[Oh, and I do not vouch for the legal analysis or terminology in my ABC's. And had not intended to close with the SCOTUS link when I set out. Let alone the less than inflammable association with security. But it does seem that it is wierd that flammable and moot have similar usage issues as does the roots or branches of Faust, let alone Devil's Advocates. But no, that is the legal process, not to mention political, and word and world modifying dynamics, or as I have stumbled out(or coined) "dymanics". I will conclude with the issue that there was some Beckian confusion in the topic of a National Prayer Day in regard to what was canceled and what is being fought and by whom. But the ideas which Thom Hartmann yesterday contrasted was a National Day of Reason to share and balance the National Day of Prayer. While I suggested a National Day of Faith. But would that be legal? Not without debate, moot and inflammable or not.]

Everything on the table?

Post date: 2-24-10 9:20AM

The Bi-Partisan Senate Bill,
Reconciliation and Nuclear Option?

There is a fine distinction between using the process of up or down votes and ending the filibuster. One thing is clear: They are Republican ideas. Using them would be the bi-partisan thing to do. In fact, if both are not on the table, start removing the Republican amendments with up or down votes, under reconciliation, after first sacrificing the nuclear option, their idea that they have now flip-flopped on, but hold them to reconciliation. Still bi-partisan. In fact, one could end up with a fair and balanced progressive bill using Republican ideas and call it a Republican Health Care Bill, with proper use of flip-flop and government run programs.

If this seems* like fanciful reasoning, you don't know Republican logic. Or was it Marie Antoinette? More than you, knot.

[link back to March on Washington]

* 2-24-10 see point blank

Footnotes Page Two JUNE 2014

Re:b.s.[!] (FP2)  Check Heading [i.e. (s.c.) FP2 above]
2B FP2 6-4-14
(hegel+popper) Too Random..., (fp1), Reigning Wags and Tales., Knot 2B3, (fp2,11-13).
(maslow+needs) Maslow Search , TruthOut.org
(heirarchy) Intelligence Gathering, Battle of Amendments?, C. BLANK NETWORK, D. Ditto Heads Unite!, Post-Pyth?.
Speaking of Rhodes. (It was under my radar)

MoveOn sense of senate.

MoveOn.org was noted in a "sense of Senate" resolution passed today.
(if this is the current version)

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

The "troops" were noted four times in that ad

"...last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress."

"We may hear a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops."

"But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops."

"General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years."

Plus noted "...more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there."

I don't know if this was removed from final passage. But if MoveOn was not mentioned...

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

My point is, it is nonsense if not disgusting to connect criticism of a politicized General with any disrespect for the troops. Or is that too personal? It does more harm to the troops to categorize MoveOn.org as liberal for wanting congress to do their jobs. Misleading some to think that they are not the majority and others to miss that only 2 out of 10 (00337 to 00346)legislative actions in the Senate passed all week! Rejected were the Levin, Feingold, Boxer, McCain, and Webb amendments INCLUDING two cloture votes on habeus corpus and D.C. voting rights.

Five troop related actions were rejected this week, two of which were only "sense of the Senate". How does that compare to the MoveOn.org ad?

[The above was an analysis of the Senate MoveOn.org stunt week, but for a coulda shoulda strategic preemption that could still have some merit.]

The Truly Historic Moment

Thank You,
MSNBC

And I wish to thank a staffer at the Minority Leader's office for a discussion on the nature of the Republican complaints...(in progress/the process...) I have a message that might be returned regarding a dispute that there were 166 Republican amendments and some rhetoric about what the New York Times came out with yesterday.

Thank you.
Thank you, Very Much

H.R.4872 next up for Senate Reconciliation.[awkwardly phrased, linked and/or sourced]

Index 9-21-11

Note bottom Link, indicates chronology or previous post.
Here I will develop a new MO.
[Under construction...probably obvious.] But I should note that all links have any edits, up till now, only as noted and dated. And in the case linked @"now", it is only some musical rearrangements and grammatical or punctuation corrections. Which up to recently have been very rare if not noted. i.e. dated or linked somehow

Same day run-ons(amendments) are [bracketed].
Note: Ribble*, D'Ribble, and G'Ribble
Navigation(see label)
Navigation T-point Oh! c= Tangent, Tea, T'em, etc. (Nav-2or3&pun.)
Boogie-T.** Yes Tangent back.

*Search "riddle" (see scroll over or click on)
But to un-coin(sort) the word: a ribble is a cross between a riddle and a ribbing.

-------
Re: MO intent...
Riddle search The Miller Team, Not to mention Randi and Lawrence, and Zombie Talk/Miller and Gold-man.

** boogey man/Zombies slash(/***)ledership
*** not a redundancy: / is sometimes spelled out for punditry sake.

Bravo Maria

Senator Cantwell,
on Finance Committee Baucus Bill:
"I wouldn't vote for a bill that doesn't have Medicare reform and the public option,"

I would say that what comes out of committee will still be only one of what?
(3 on the table)

Republicans* are now officially at the table. And if it gets out of committee they will be on the floor for an up or down fight, amendment or reconciliation. **

* ironically their only plan other than the 160 amendments in the House bills and weeks of fighting the public option, that is what they have to show for bipartisanship. A choice between an option or no option.

[Update 9-18-09: On Republicans at the table. (McClatchy - WonkRoom ]

** 9-18-09 back to the table.

Bury the lede?

Or bury the hatchet?(1)

To be cautious, I am speaking of journalism and myth.  To be clear, I have not finished viewing the latter, but the former is certainly an example of Popperism and both contain quilting.**  



Facebook Being Liberal

FYI wars?

(1) YouTubes: [Social Darwinism 1] counterexample? [Bill Gates...Alex Jones]
c. Too Random... / A Tale of Two Manicheans.
d. The Hegel Myth and Its Method
e.^ Proxymoron? / Social Darwinism? / Social Darwinism 2.0[!] / Catch-44 / Pink Floyd / (FP) / Di-Spencer With... /  (FP)  / Battle of Amendments? /  Now the Un-Voodoo Math / Un-Social Darwinism. / The Daily Counter Balance / Where everyone needs to read... / "a royal huff" / Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

[Label check*, with all the irony of the History Channel.]

* Social Darwinism label as of this date: Bury the lede? / Kant we get along... / 2 Reid's later? / Di-Spencer With...
^ the un-quilting of Social Darwinism
un-related?
** quilting: Ctrl F "quilt"
[Re:genre?] HA !

Neo-Romulan or Anti-Uncle?

* (FP?)

Bane or Song,
Dutch Treat,
Trans-Parent C?
pair a digm / docs
who
ran A. The Maze of Mace, B. C3-PO?, D.TBA, E. Fair and Balanced..., F. Parallel (Or Not So Pair o' Lax) Channels
off


clock A., B. 11-30-11 , C. Reigning Wags and Tales. D. Refrain Post Frain?, E. Cut the Cow Pie! , F., G. Anachronism , H. I. Leveling the World Stage? , J. Initialism, K. L.


* 1. Spenserian Neo-Platonics?
2. All In?
3. Neo-Romulan
4. A. Speculative Physics, B., C. Pre-Pan FRY. , D. Clause Wits, E. Battle of Amendments?

Z Y X[?] budda bias?

Who needs Republicans

with fungible Democrats who don't even know they are at the table. Well, consider that they may have pushed themselves from the table and no scraps for the blue dogs.[*] But if and when they vote for the bill or not, they can be considered bi-partisan. I mean that is the fungible logic that has come from Republicans**.

[7-24-09 * asterisk and link added(and bold to first link) of this saved in draft QCON which I now post with the addition of two perspectives: Obama at Shaker Heights / Spinning Health Care: A Bad Case of Vertigo Norman Soloman - Truthout Perspective
** I need a better link to the logic of previous Republican claims of their bipartisanship, but I think fungible applies to their logic almost across the board. And I am not suggesting we remove the Blue Dog scraps and Republican amendments, but you might better see the link I make depending on how they vote.]

Original Intent?

Strict Constructionists?

Life begins at conception, what about right to privacy.
Yes? No?

Are either of these in the constitution? No.
But they both fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now this does nothing to make things any easier, except to prove that it is not as simple as those that have the answers think it is. Also that even their positions cannot be sustained without complicated gyrations, usually known as hypocrisy, that would be contrary to the "rights retained by the people" which are protected by powers reserved "to the people". This would stand orginal intent on it's head, while even the power of the people need to be checked.

See the link?