Para-model

I will begin at the end, or rather the present.
Less than two paragraphs in:
What's Left of the Left. Why do I begin at that moment? Allow me to begin again at this moment.
What is Left of the Left?
(the lede of the link)(4)***
Is this a geometric or quantitative heading?
What is not right about the left?
Or how much of the left is still there?

Now if I may do a Hansel and Gretel impersonation...my point is that I have worked out my path off-blog. i.e. left some pebbles to attempt to trace my path.
The reality is that I got the article from** MSNBC*, (current lede) Actually I got the link not the article. So I am still working it out, but will now save my Para-model.doc with this.

* actual clip here later
**anachronistic conundrum(or appropriate con un drum)[Cain beating the media.(1)]
*** post save doc: golf term "four"/Mulligan?

[Now I must note that I will square [bracket(#)] and or continue after reading more.]
[I should now note that I have left open a blog I was editing, which has now been inserted in my Para-model.doc ala my Hansel and Gretal MO. Apparently the pebbles were bread crumbs, but in reading What is Left of the Left, noticing that I have read only one of seven pages, I must MoveOn for the time being.]
[Now... actually just moments after the last bracket I will make a point.(see **(1) On what the heck is Cain doing? He is working the model of the media, in a fourth branch sort of way. He is getting attention, and I will sort out that fourth dimension. And I must note I am impressed with Joe the Plumber and Rupert the Survivor as candidates of a third kind. Not to call them, "Out There". But I think there is something to the polarity and needing more perspectives than our parties and branches provide. And this is reflected in a mechanics and dynamics, that is not just two dimensional. But Steven Jobs did point out to Rupert Murdoch that it can be either constructive or destructive. It is not about left or right, up or down, or forward or back again. It is about making progress or not. Everything else is how, and by and for whom? Does any of this embedded here or in my saved doc, explain: that the more radical a comment the more coverage it gets? It might depend on if one is Leaning Forward or Fair and Balanced. Now, I know that there is some perspectivism here, but Fair and Balanced does not mean two dimensional. Now it just depends on if I am talking about the Media or Faux News.]
[My apologies for my Quantum Leap over the Big Cheese, I feel my bread crumbs may be safe in draft see image.]


[Andrea Mitchell: Why has the president waited? Because he wanted congress to do their job! That was my preemptive answer to the preemptive question. Meaning, I was expecting the question and anticipated the answer, which just may be in the unfinished heading: What is Left of the Left.(No question mark or exclaimation mark?)]
[Speaking of Hands or Thumbs: L-curve anyone?]


[My para-model.doc is a bibliograpy of sorts(pun intended). Some Late Entries.: not to mention blog searches for con+scious, con+science, anarchy, tyranny, and thumb and buffet.]
[For the record Searches @thumb= Star Chamber/Big Cheese/Para-Model/Obama Doctrine/Who are they calling?. @buffet= Para-model/Big Cheese/From GOP to NOP/Brackets and Debt Clock/N-oddly Enough/All Politics is Local/Commander in Chief/Off the Cliff/Irony versus Hypocrisy. By this I am recording what the Al Gore Rythms find, just in case something changes.]
[This is bleapin' freaky considering my heading and intention here: The last of my late entries, and the last thing(or link) in my para-model.doc is this and (THIS)is the first thing Ed Schultz is talking about when I turn on his show. QED? Not to mention the rest of his show, which is yet to run(he is going on about Romney in Ohio? and a clear plan, and Democrats losing the message war, then Bernie Sanders and the NYtimes poll?), but is actually digitally delayed for local radio.]

Still going? QED?]

The Billy Club...

needs some explaining.

---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---

(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence

It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).

I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.

But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.

* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)

** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.

[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]

[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]

Mess Age Monger

Reading between the lines.
See Draft,(now that is a tangent),
but I will skip the sign over cosign.
Or See Cant [!]
[Follow-up.]

Two Points Determine a Line.

Foot:Notes (!0

[Now I will parse the irony. The two points are Occupy Wall Street and the National Defense Appropriations Act. (Rebranding a SALT or SLAT**) Actually only one of these last links was the trigger for this line of thought. My point is about the lines as we make them. We are an exceptional country that is at risk of being more like those in the past. Congress is responsible for drawing the lines, and the judiciary and executive are responsible for interpreting and navigating them. Sorry there is no punch line, but that is the dilemma. Re-leads* and typos.

* my original intent was our foundation or 4mat not type ohs.
[The people must be heard, not a herd, let alone hurd.(ouch) It is an uphill job.]

Un-Seg-Way.
[** Strategic Argument Limitations Treaty or Strategic Lines Assault Tactics. Are you with M or again M? V4 VOTE! That is the spell/check of sorts.]

[Speaking of witch or spell checking...two notes of caution. I do not mean to make light of violence, food products or Occupy Wall Street. Or the Heck do I? But is there a line for satire or freedom?(Comity Central in mind.) And R we exceptional or the exception? And you rule!***

*** not original two notes of caution
[Not to mention: On the other hand, save the POST OFFICE and consider upgrading our constitutional links to include the internet. The internet is a post road. And congress legislates regarding commerce.]

[Follow up / un-M-beds]

[Speaking of Timing: Norman Goldman and Sasha. Redo taxes from the ground up. I did not catch enough to know if it was the same Sasha, but it is interesting that I had run across the connection, in follow-up. Not to mention Bill Maher on the question of taxes and class war and who is following [up] or being lead. And how prophetic in my lede and how I followed up in bold. Norman feels it is a misread of sorts. BTW: it is S. 1867 that has s. 1031 & 1032 respecting Amendment 1107.]

Hang down your head Paul Krugman!

On Meet the Press Jonathan Mann is the bright spot and I do not mean to dis Paul Krugman but the idea that they were talking about owning the economy is my point.
Obama will not own the economy unless...
Oh, heck I fell in the trap.
But hang down your heads, Will and Dowd.

But the time horizon is a factor. It took almost 8 years for the economy to be the issue. It has been over 25 that Reaganomics has been the problem, not to mention, over twice that since FDR and Charlie McCarthyism *have been in the background.
(OH and I will not link Charlie Wilson and another Joe)
BUT THEY ARE THE SHADOWS!
Will is proctor hoc post [*] or we have the Charlie/Joe fallacy.

Re:links Owning the Shadows
and more?
* Socionomics of hope? And the vicious cycle.

[The reference in the title goes no deeper than the reference to a song.(period) (note)...(not) that it is a song of the century but it may be about our economic and cultural heritage...] [or the potential of a carbon based world in a dollar debased economy or justice period.]
[How can you not smile **and be curious Mann?

** Thanks to Jon Stewart and Yes We Can!

[the bottom line? the Greenspan put may need a flip-flop to the Krugman take or is it really about our take>]
[And I thought that would be the last spin but who needs a hair cut and who will*** be the barber?]

*** need segment link to bailout discussion

[*] 8-13-09 link adjusted to correct spelling but still a missing Charly

Our Patriotic "Duty"

One may wonder if I have prescience, but it is more likely what may need to become more common sense. Common sense is really only a sense of what is more common. It may take a more radical sense to detect what is real. If that is hard to follow, at least it makes sense to me why it is.

Anyway, the connection from point to point is the word "loyalty" and to who or what.

Keith Olbermann has done it again! Bush owes us an apology.
[find in link: Ctrl F "duty"]

Of course an apology is only part of the solution, the rest is a change of course. Let us hope that he is not completely around the bend.

LASTLY AND TO START WITH: Why the heck are we exporting "democracy" when too many are pounding the table about it here and others worrying about whose ground they are standing upon when they are expressing it?


P.S. Of course the link in the previous post is expired. My apologies, and for how many, I do not know. But that only means that this point has moved forward, in case I do not make it back to add links to the past references. At least these are tied closely.

Notes from Al-Qaeda

"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007

The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons

Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.

Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]

These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.

Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.

Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.

Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.

And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.

So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.

OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.

Use Dispersants On BP!

Not the chemical kind, the market kind.

The Answer to BP is Dispersants

Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.

Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.

If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**

Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.

* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress

[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]

[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]

The Straw Bear

If a Republican runs in the woods and can’t see the forest for the trees and the Republican falls, does anyone hear what the bear does in the woods?

A little riddle on the straw bear of propaganda.
Ah, the power of myth.
Maybe this is a mother goose chase but those were the days. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Speaking of Teddy Bear, did you know that Wilson made Pershing the first general since the Civil War? The Palin Romney romp through the woods with a bear is quite humorous. It reminds me of, if a tree falls and what a bear does and if anyone will see the forest for what we hear* fall.

The point is that the use of "some people" makes faulty facts bearable. I do not think there is any information that the U.S. was anywhere near losing its dominance in military spending or economic might. In fact I believe that it was over twice the combined spending of the China and the former Soviet Union at the time it fell. In fact it was them coming to an economic grip with reality that did them in. So now China is a different bear and we need no bull in our cabinets.

So war is a straw bear argument. That just means that you have to keep fighting it; the fear mongering and comedy that goes back to our nations birth. Heck beyond, I will say probably cave paintings. But it is no laughing matter that even if the current 6 to 1 ratio has the profit factored out, we could be in trouble.

* the tree is yet to fall on Countdown re: Congressman Cantor listening tour denial
[5-7-09: I did not hear this coming. Nor see "the tree" fall. At least not in real time.][Not to mention lost in the forest I am trying to dig up a Romney reference to us and them(found 6-3-09), the revolutionists versus the royalists which is more flip-flop.]

QCON: In this case Quick CONcept!

TALKING POINTS:*

OURS: Things we should talk about.

THEIRS: Things they want us to to talk about, so we don't have to talk about what we should talk about. Their best talking point: There are no talking points and they better not get out.

Another name for talking points?
Bu-- Sh--, either way you abbreviate it.

What we need is a B.S. filter, a gold standard filter for news.

Could it be Air America Radio?
Could I nominate Jon Stewart as chief or first anchor for a Real News Network?

Media Matters is certainly working in that direction as well as the Center for American Progress and TruthOut.org
Even post-Bush we will have more Bu--sh-- to deal with.

Maybe we can use more than one filter, maybe we just need a reality bug, as in a Reality Certified Logo. Heck, could we settle for "Fair and Balanced Certified", so that we can really decide?

*I provided the Talking Points link above as I am sure they are doing part of the job I describe, but I do my own filtering of filters and this distinction/denial is not just a DeLay tactic or "talking point" or Rather pun.

[link to the future: label and link added 8-17-07 GoLeft TV ]

Tin Foil Herman

[11-30-11]It's official, unless it's not.

I guess I am not "some people". I wanted a business man to run, for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the debate. For the sake of settling* what the heck market forces have to do with running a government.

* Cain references** in order:
Temporal
No Teddy
Nailed it! T-point Oh!
Never the Twain
From GOP to NOP
Bite of the Big Apple?
Courting Jesters
Apples and Oranges?
Para-Model
Cain Un-Able
Two Points
Sat Ire[!]

** Not the same Cain, or "machine"
[I might not have all the facts, but that doesn't leave Cain*** out.]

[More to sort. Witch Cain first and why did he cross the road?]
*** The "Cain" and "facts" links apparently are interchangable.(that is Jon Stewart and a YouTube)

[Sort: Search Cain is good. NOT!]
[Sorting Cheese Heads]
[Look up
attack strength.]
[Original Break on Halloween?]
Cain is an art project?
Buffet v. Trump
Cain un-Able
Ron Paul Scariest
[Meanwhile: Papa mmmm MOW OW! Michigan is still coming along, but the Bill is the Word in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Takin' out the Trash Men.]
[Rachel Maddow: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I]
[Geez Heads Unite!Ed(!)]

Citizens United?

WHAT NERVE!

We know he has nerve, but does he have a conscience. When he was running the first time, his conscience not the law was his guide, and he is still on the same course. The Einstein and King George III juxtaposition about following one’s conscience no matter the state is another interesting twist on uncurious George being worried about his own nerve. He is the state and he has only nerve. While he serves others I might add.

On the immigration tangent, if labor is only a substance to be used by those with the power to do so, then it is a drug where the users and abusers should be reigned in. This may mean a new perspective on the health of individuals and the community as well. Retrogressing to my earlier less footnoted or linked style of commentary, I will try to catch up on these later.

Before closing this post I was going to provide only one link, but ran across a news item where only the title sent me on a tangent to a comment:
What the heck is wrong with having a locally adjusted tax credit for the cost of living, by state. That would involve a deduction for the basic costs of living and then a flat rate based on the cost of doing business and government. More details may be the devil, but not necessarily any worse than requiring health care or pushing healthcare savings plans.

NOTE: The "more details" were not that bad in this case as they were more or less just a I imagined and went off on.

...promote the general...

Welfare(the 29th word in the Constitution).



Pre-Obama^, starker contrast.

And this is^^^ pre-Romney's Rough Road on MSNBC.
Jobs First? But not foremost.  Running from politics. 
His best defense is his cuff and hope he is phoney and fisher of men.
(I won't go there.) But the map is looking familiar. 
Fixing News(pun on breaking news): Carney(Obama "we are in this together").

Ari Melber is almost there where I haven't gotten yet. That is, what is actually taken from the paychecks of the middle class.  Payroll tax. NOW Alex Wagner is almost there.  Not only do the top 4%* get the same tax deductions and breaks as the bottom brackets(a. how many %) they get a break from the payroll tax from a second and third point. (b. over $97,500  c. capital gains ) 






[Now please take no offense at the significance of any Cretans.]

* 96% should be the Obama "entitle" R's [!]**

NOTE: Charts are being filled out here. See PAGES (right column)
NOTE: Charts of Sorts.( Tetra Heed Rons, and Wedges & Corny Copy Yeah)

** rough math but look at the right side of the second chart and see on the left that $250,000 -- and now John Sununu is doing the W'rithatic on Andrea Mitchell, but it goes to the arithmatic that is wrong -- it should be clear that the middle class is well below what Romney thinks it is and the President is for the bottom 96% well more than the 47% Romney thinks supports Obama.

^ missing link as to how I stumbled on this one (but there is a mixing of metaphors for horses and Teddy(Obama^^) Bulls. 
^^

^^^ inserted post charts et al
[Last Word ? Yeah right ! Or Left ! Re: Cycle ? R ! Not !]
[Brilliance of Democracy.]

[Strategic Pause: News Nation: No, Time is not a-side ! ]

[What the heck is the point?  It is the process and the purpose.]

Immigration Reform

and Political Maneuvering:
[Posted* elsewhere under construction.]

* I had an earlier comment [found it: SEE (scroll to)"To Heck with the Political..." 2010-07-08 12:04] not at the above elsewhere link

[My point is that Republicans are too often for something before they are against it. Some people believe there are absolutes, and do not see the gray** in their words. Present company included. Then there are people that follow leaders or misleaders. In regards to Immigration Reform, Ronald Reagan was not so demonized for his amnesty for illegal or undocumented workers. And Senator McCain was for comprehensive reform before he was against it. But the big issue is who is responsible and that is the federal government.[***] There is an optional federal E-verify program, and there are two AZ laws that are at issue. The problem is Republicans making it an issue for state political calculations, and not addressing it at the federal level for the federal political calculations.]

** or is it purple or constitutional/political separations
[*** post post links added]

[The current policy is that hiring of undocumented workers is the crime without punishment. Comprehensive Immigration Reform would be documentation with punishment but at least a process. My theory is that you cannot just enforce laws at will without interpretation and implimentation consideration, unless you are Republican. The Federal Goverment is not just the Obama Administration, it is also congress. Congress is not just the House but also the Senate. While the House is solidly in Democratic control, the Senate is in minority control, Republican 41, even though there is a bi-partisan majority. 56-D/2-I]

[Mini-Meta- Meme? I just mean a heckuva job filtering, when there is so much out there. Keep in mind: A. what a job it would be to check MSNBC & FOX and B. the fact that Politifact began only during the 2008 campaign.]

Debt and Tax Cuts,

debt and tax cuts,
go together like love and cha-nge...
you can't have one without the - other.
Well...not exactly but close enough for government work. BTW, what the heck does running a business have to do with running a government? Well one important feature is investment. While profit is not really the purpose of government, let alone the main point of any needs related services, let alone infrastructure, health care, education, insurance and banking.

Investment seems a basic feature that even those in business don't understand when it comes to their own tax situation. And when it comes to taxes cuts it is a no brainer that they increase debt. It is a fallacy that cutting taxes increase revenues. That only works on one side of the Laffer Curve not the other. i.e. it is a bell curve.

And apparently no means yes in some cirles, while apparently the tea party does not understand "taxation without representation". A prohibition of legislative change to an initiative means that what is not in the initiative can be in the future. But not without the legislature paying a price they do not want to pay now. In other words the only way to prevent the possibility of change is to takeaway the possibility of representation and politics to have an effect. When it comes to what is not in the ads or not on the table, it is as ridiculous(if not more so) to claim that supporters of I-1098 are not telling you it is an income tax, (5% over $200K for single/$400K for couples or 1% of the tax filers) as it is that the same ads don't mention a 20% reduction in state property taxes and an over 1000%* increase in the B&O TAX CREDIT which will bring the benefit to 80% of businesses.
* actually this is my calculation of $420 being raised to $4800

Bermuda

Try Angle ? 

Before I tan gent:  It is a clear choice. 
It might B 2 late, butt...  'twain GWB and DC*, pre and post selection. 
Not to jump in the Lakoff, but it about Clause Wits** and spectral orders.

[Translation / D'Ribble?: 'tween Bush and world order, or between what Bush ran on(not being policeman to the world), and what America runs on(speaking of spectral orders), the three branches of government and who the heck they work for.  Do we want a second shot at getting democracy right or just war left?  OW!]

* (sc) later: Bush(43)/vP-resident Cheney
**to parse Clausewitz later(or higher archy)

FP(k)not: A. / B. c. D. E. F. trope? ***

*** not to Footnote but NFRY. (Not to bury Neo-Cons, but to place in the mix, nor Peter, Paul or Merry.