On the Other Plan(s)

[Originally I was amending or running on the last link.]
...on the other hand: while I am not advocating Independents or Single Payer, they just might be the way things need to go. As the Reverend Al Sharpton said this morning, it would be unseemly for the President to be an advocate for any separate interests, as I paraphrase him, and as others would call it leadership in reference to the parade. This was linked anachronistically. Note the tetra of DRIP, (now that was manipulated: Democratic Republican Independent Progress), not to mention the Bloomin' ** Fringe. And an earlier thought about this field, Creationist Recreation Applied Properly, no CRAP. Speaking of anachronism, if someone turned water into wine, who turned whine*** into trickle down? Answer? Just a Laffer. No disrespect to the good nature and good deeds of Reagan and Nixon or vice verse us, but they have certainly been proved to be relative.]

** EPA = Expletive Properly Applied.
*** Needlessly(sic)

Underlying this thinking is a reaction to those that think we think we know better, and those that think they are we. I directly refer to the rhetoric of the Right and the fact that they are the minority for a reason, continually evidenced by their behavior as well as the fact that polls change and they had better.* Wow, I think that was anti-sic or at least freely punctuated, but who the Fringe knows or is it the Shadow or Charlie McCarthy(**)ism?
* Bold summary and link(correction: reference) to other asterisk not to mention runonwordplay.
[belated ** talk about prophetic gathering of moss I am not sure I know yet.]
[Well...not exactly, but close enough for Hurts work or Wads-worth.]

Speaking of Fudging?

or dot, dot, dot!
This is a bit fringe!
And a bit of a bloomin' concern and not to mention more grown up*attention.

* updated this link today

[Miscellaneous links hotlinked 3-31-10]
Rhetorical
Charges?
Reported
links?
loopiness?

MSNBC guilty of fair and balanced, Radigan guilty of equivalence.

A funny think happened

on the way to the protest.
[SAVED IN DRAFT "AS IS": RELEASED 3-29-10]

I was going to report to Media Matters Beck's use of a September 2000 clip where(at 2:07 to 2:40) he yells, "Look at this! Far Left!".

I intentionally framed my original protest(speaking of "Hot Standby" including the finger/air quotes)to Media Matters as, "MSNBC let up on Beck!" but now see my own bit too hot of a standby and oops. Incidently, not the oops noted, as that involved other adjustments to my thinking(or spelling), not the thing(sic*) intended.

OK, after yesterday's heavy linked play of words, I had better stand down a bit. BUT...
The September 2009, Pittsburgh G-20 Summit was covered, but the intention of its undercoverage is mixed. So, back to my message to Media Matters(not yet sent and still evolving):

Originally my outrage was over the appearance that it was Sept. 2000, well no one is perfect. Beck still misuses the facts it seems. BUT there is an odd twist which is actually standing operating procedures at FOX. It was a G-20 Summit (2009) and the violence sprung from free speech zones, or the caging of it, so to speak. So I would hate to imagine what Tea Party events might be like if they were corralled or hurded away from a major event or prohibited from getting their message out? It almost seems like MSNBC is attempting Fair and Balanced or is it nuance?

It really seems the mixed intention of the coverage or undercoverage issue fits right in with the fanning or under fanning of messages perspective, not to mention who is running or leading for what.
[Sometimes oops can evolve, sometimes being right don't.]
[Or sometimes you feel like a bloomin' ...]

* flip-flop of intended spelling(this time)
** see the oops of seque(sic)[there]: truly mispelled but I may have no lemony snippets but there might be some natural snickers.

FAUX CAMP (II)

My reason for bumping up, the extended portion of FAUX NEWS, is Rachel Maddow and the Constitution, namely the 1st Amendment,
regarding the free press, not my extended references in this blog.
NOT TO MENTION FINALLY THE BILL IS BLOOMIN' DONE>

I propose that Republicans are furthering their childish rhetoric to get attention as they are really running from a free press, in the likes of MSNBC. Not to mention the questions that they would have to face in the likes of Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann(and Lawrence O'Donnell*). Dylan Ratigan and Chris Matthews are no slouches, but the latter is a bit too sophisticated for my taste at times.

I can understand now why Scott Brown in Massachusetts is running against Rachel Maddow since he actually thinks she is campaigning against him, when it is really he who is running on running from her.

* Lawrence O'Donnell catches the reality in this link on Olbermann's Countdown.

BTW: FOX's whole existence was built on the myth of the liberal media, aka The Mainstream Media, and it is a shame that it justifies MSNBC's approach or calling it out and calling on the country to wake-up and behave. And Lawrence, in seque[oops/Segue] to Rachel: not today, but between you and I, yes we did![oops and bold updated 3-26-10]