Running Joke

Guilt by association, innocent my label.
Well rather*, she runs...innocent by no association with reality.

Upon first hearing of the Christine O'Donnell victory, my first reaction was hmmm, a new and improved Sarah Palin. But in all actuality, for an English major? She is rather loose with her labels. She attended Phoenix Institute which rented space at an Oxford campus, and she attended Claremont Instute which she labeled "Claremont Graduate University". And apparently her English major might be actually English Literature, but she may have made up for any deficiencies. Her employment record seems to be heavily reliant on her academic studies[**], not that she has recorded much income or communicated clearly. But if it was not her who communicated these errors, just who was paid to commit them? My point is...that problem is solved.
[Bottom line: She studied Constitutional Government under a graduate fellowship at a conservative think tank. QED: by degree in lipstick.]

* original paraphrase: Some run with "Guilt by association, but are guilty of (& innocent by) no association with reality". (But I often evolve mid-sentence, or mid-their revolution.)
[**] Zoominfo updated link.

MAY 2013 FP THREE

5-1-13:  guilt by buy (b.s.)= blog search or not S.C. Gnot!{1} Pre-knot:(b.s.) guilt+by/Running Joke(s.c.) , Now Dat's...(s.c.), Post Inserted(s.c.), Red Labeling!.  line+to+walk/ line+to+cross/  rising+tide  / swift+craft (b,c)

{1}Currently no links @G and only 1 link @ot
Late Knot.

5-10-13 Rhythm: Pre-Pan FRY. Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.

5-15-13 (b.s.): * French not Cheney: (a.) FRANKNESS: SERVING US ALL? Right., (b.)They started it., (c.)au contraire, Clearwater muddy., Hitting Snooze Button.

5-17-13 I need boots !  But seriously folks!

5-30-13:  Between Iraq and a Hard Work!  Tan Gent shall ism ?

MAY 2013 Footnote Page Four

5-1-13:  More (b.s.)*= Nail Meet F--C---[!], More Breaking Filters, Regime Rhetoric Reply, Flash Back(s.c. ?), Fast Forward(s.c.)   / / Continued from FP3: (guilt by & swift craft, done) Line+to+cross: A(a), B, C, D, E(e), F, G, H, I, J(j), K(k), LOL, M.  Line+top+walk: A, B, C(c), D(d), E(e), F(f)  
Rise+Tide: A(a), B(b), C, D,  E (e), F(f)**, G(g)**, H(h) . (it is not so much to keep up with the message but to record the change

* not exactly(WTO) but blog search hit the fulcrum
** expired must refresh also

5-10-13 Knot? A. Poetic Justice,  B. Justice?,  c,  D. Technical Difficulties!, E. Pass the Trillion.

5-15-13 TFR : Not to pan.[ A., (fn)FOR D..., Budget Bandits?, D., E., F.The Read C?, G., H.Jabber Walkie?, I.Pun it?, J.Game+Lock, K.Connecting the Dots, L.Filibuster Bluster*, M.Knot Even, N.Re:Figure,  O.All Politics is Local!, P.Me a , Q, R. ] ( Mind your P's and Q's.) Speaking of brackets!

5-17-13 Not to jump in the Lacuna [!]

5-30-13: RE Tan Gent shall ism ?

The Guilt Trip

No, not this analysis: the opposition to* truth and consequences.

All the judgments that the typical or rabid anti-abortion believer might attribute to the pro-choice or pro-abortion practitioner, seem to be emblematic of a belief in freedom from cause.  Could an equivalent judgement be made that they want all the social consequences from lack of such freedom? 

I know this is complicated, but such seem the hazards of putting oneself in another's shoes or rational or is it just judgement? 

Let alone transportation [!] ?

* or of?
 

Now Dat's...

what I am talkin' 'bout.
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.

Here it is:

Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.

[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.

Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.

BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.

*strains: on another thread elsewhere

Red Labeling!

Maybe I need to point out the irony in A Wonderful Conversation.
Baiting Obama [*]demonstrates the tactic of fear mongering.
The Republicans who label themselves the Grand Old Party really are the Red Labelers by relying on Good Old Phobias of labels.

They utilize guilt by association, but run guilty of no association. It is really fear of any meaning. FDR in his first inaugural said:

...first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

I will point out that this was in the depth of the depression, and he points out:

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things.

Now it is said about FDR, that little was know of his plans. So do not take that as any swap at or comparison to the current candidates, Democratic at least. And of course Republican plans have been shown to mean little anyway. Bush in this blog, and McCain in his Flip-Flopper-Krafting, it is plain as the red on their faces. And the only thing green is the buck which is past and the envy behind their angry red labels.

[There is nothing humorous about the situation, except that humor does present an approach which should be investigated as a cover for anger. I presented a perspective that Swift Boaters have sunk the good name of a branch of the military-- Swift Boat Veterans-- (not so directly), in The New Wave, but Andy Borowitz (thanks to Thom Hartmann) takes it to the delta.]
[*] Henceforth the bold links will be the featured article I will be sure to read fully.

Post Inserted

Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)[*]

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

[*] edit to two words "changed" and "remain".
Editor Comment: This post is dated as is because of the time it was written but it was posted closer to this time and updated near this time.