Showing posts sorted by relevance for query no pun. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query no pun. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Framing Narratives

Don't even Think of an Elephant!


The gist of this riff?
The impact of whine and geez!
Walk** Like an Egyptian!*

[3-14-12 asterisks added ]

[ "I feel like I can say anything[!]..." NOT!***]

*It is ironic that Betty Knox went on to be a war correspondent.

*** an example of spin: former quote actually in latter link.
(warning under "anything" (maybe)requires Facebook membership)
[Not to pun on Dead C Scrolls, but I hope there are no cross ups(2) in my links.]
[Oops, see comments, and cartoon.]



Under "never mind" I have now read the latter and the former maybe later. The "mind" is a very academic place. The "never" a more pragmatic problem under the umbrella of our creators. Whether I ever get to read the "git mo" piece may be irrelevant. The point germinates from our "Try Angle" and the dilemma of transparency and the dangers of ab-solutions. (pun on absolutes) [I don't think absolute freedom of information is possible, let alone pragmatic. But the emphasis it on "absolute", as well as a careful reading of our architectural documents, which I believe lay the organic groundwork for progress, as opposed to Jeramiahs(^). Critics of the president must realize that he is responsible whether Congress frames the right tools or the Global Village (let alone Supreme Court) goes along. Yet I am still digesting James Fallows take here, where ultimately it is our choice to choose forward or Re-verse. C- Elephant (3)]

(^) 3-16-12 spell check Jeremiah
(Original: synonym for pessimists, not to pun on prophetic hope.)

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Connecting the Dots

Yesterday's post was a bit too way out,(Way, Too Point Oh?), from the Campaign for America's Future's Star Wars attack to the Institute for New Economic Thinking's flip-flop of the free market fantasia. By way of explaining the stretch, from the Wall Street Bull to the Statue of Liberty there is the Bully Poor Pit.

Obama is no Trekky or cable guy, but he is more bullish than just hat. I was recently reminded that the "bully" in "bully pulpit" is not the bully of the school yard but was Teddy's term for good. Bully for him. President Obama is no messiah, no FDR and no Teddy, but he is also no bull nor bully. He will be at the Bully Pulpit, and that is a good thing. No pun.
[See 1st Comment]
[update Chris Matthews: more links and follow-up today.]

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Child's Play

Freak Show vs. Bogeyman:

While my original intent was the feeling that this is getting old, or rather childish. Then to see the nature of the exchange on Morning Joe, it takes some perspectivising.* Martin Bashir covers another aspect of the picture show. Back to the future, I mean Morning Joe, who is in the drivers seat? Mika or Joe? The image of President Obama getting into a car at an auto show. Who is in the drivers seat? Politically the President is. But it is like one of those drivers-ed cars with a second wheel and brakes on the passenger side, and congress is in that seat. But with Batman, I mean Bashir on West, Republicans would have no message if they did not have imagined monsters: "equality of achievement", "economic dependency"and "enslaving".

So...bottom line, Political is a double-edged sword. There is the race and there is the economy. Congress plays a role in both, and negative is not just ugly, it can have actual facts. So Mika can say that Obama is behind the wheel. And Joe can say he is not. Now you may see that the president is not the only one in the car, with a hand on the wheel.

* not that I take the Mediaite perspective (Donny Deutsch made a reasonable point, see negative/ugly/facts.)



[Not to call it a hatefest, just a hecuvafest.]
[Not to rob Peter to pay Paul. See Freudian/Austrian. Lit-urgeical hint]
[Couched Analogy?]
[not to leap fest** but I am missing a piece on certainty***.]
[Action item: FEC apointments & expired terms]

** tba: no pun on SBA, but to be arranged
*** dba? a pun/myst on the "free market" need(see drives-ed car) for certainty
[BTW: if you need GPS, why not Ctrl F frackin' fudgin"? Pun with acronyms, not to mention initialism. Speaking of caricatures and labelism.]

Monday, January 03, 2011

Inconvenient

or ignoble* hope.

* original word more bombastic but escapes me
[I will get straight to the point, the bold link is the point, and it will be thrilling if Republicans think they can sustain their gameplan. It is clear that this is an overreach** of analysis and polling to think that Republicans will have a veto-proof House and is admitted in their very next step, a "piecemeal approach".]

** this link is self-reflective not on Krugman's (Voodoo to Dance Video)
No pun intended.

[vis a vis "on the other hand", the fulcrum of the see saw?]
seesaw = pun on perspectivism (Right-Left, Tea Party-No Label, Republican-Obama)Progressive is the fulcrum not the lever, people are the load and counterbalance. In the last contrast; a party with a leader, we may have something. I can't really see No Labels as a movement, let alone a party, but it could have a dialogue at a coffee party.

Friday, May 20, 2011

We need Ed!

Top Left Search of this Blogspot. No pun or April Fools!
Ed Schultz has a Guest Host(Jeff Santos) today, but it reminded me to think more locally. Ma Bell?

OK, this is not a good start, but I must MoveOn. (i.e. this is heavily embedded with edutainment) Not pun on the (actually that usually means there is a pun) but the Other Ryan, is like the Other Washington, then there is the Other Bellevue. Kudos to Jeff Santos for having the dialogue with the Ohio Ryan(Rep. Tim Ryan D-OH) rather than the Wisconsin Ryan. (House Budget Committe Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan R-WI) Speaking of two Homers. Dough Nuts. Not to mention Other Simpsons. Alan v Homer.

Foot Note: DFA noted as well as...oops. Bully Metaphor.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

What is ledership?

Is it really the press? In first amendment terms it might be. This is no pun on spelling, but it maybe hits on being able to follow and keep our freedoms.
Ribble: Actually it might be a pun on spelling, or just looking for a silver lining. Speaking of which, I am sure I have a few to be corrected.

BTW: If you are a bit tuckered out by this, then maybe get out of the kitchen? But I lay no claim to being an original intender but...

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

There is No Con in Team!

The President hit the right notes in the State of the Union.
No pun on what was left, but even Mitt Romney knew it would be a tool for his re-election*.

* fact-check: NOT (awkward Salon segue)

[asterisk excused: the "fact check" that was NOT, was more "political circumstances", while Salon was rightly pun and circumstance, not to pomp the re-election.]

[Speaking of double negatives and slight of**hand. Not to mention less*** slights.]

** from false flags of fear to, if wishes were fishes (knitting the net)
*** (reality politics[!])

[* NOT revisited: JB nails it.]
[Daniels nails it: Ctrl F "worse": see comment 2 and just plain wrong. When Daniels speaks of "worse" it can't be anything but just plain wrong. ]
[Following up with On the Economy(see JB)and more]
[and progressive REview?]


< previous post >
[2-9-12 New Page, unknown: Footnotes, Charts].


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.]

Monday, February 13, 2012

Catch-22?

Or welcome to the Rat Race?
The actual trap.
Liberal reticence an oxymoron?
The new Rat Trap?

The real catch?
(And some missed.)

*sp![Ctrl F(sic) if not SB ?]
[Bold fully read. Rat Trap in the "balanced". The "real catch" is the timing.]

[No mas, no pun, no gain]

[To say the least.]

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

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"]

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Technical Difficulties

Anomalies or Synchronicities? By definition they are hard to explain. But there was first the missing link that I referenced here and then the Eli Pariser "bubble" context. Then there is the Wrap(5***) problem* and follow up **.

* in context is biased
** also needs follow-up and labels
*** anomoly (2) / anomaly(1) (W itch Are)
[then there is the Al Gore Rhythm Spell Check problem, and follow ups.]
(note: numbers in (brackets) are links as found in search to check any change in the algorithms C-W r a p(5).)
Note: Psychology Label added, Physics and Philosophy already applied(6), not necessarily used well.
[By Jove I may have it.]
[Speaking of hunches Gingrich may be wit Mitt. He may be making Mitt and others look good, and working the churned media for his own Obamanation.]

Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Technical difficulties is no pun on Speaker Boehner calling the government broke or Ed Schultz calling it broken. Or was it? Given the anomalies and synchronicity theories who knows? But it was about looking at my own modus operandi and then blogspot having its difficulties and Eli Pariser's TED Talk on the Internet. The word follow-up(4) may have popped up and is applicable(2 to insert here).

Friday, May 20th, 2011
Speaking of difficulties, I had to correct yesterday being Friday. I guess I get a second shot. Note Psychology Label added for reasons then above and follow up, references "rational expectations" not to mention talk and guts. (Bush v. Lakoff) Speaking of talk, yesterday's inserts (2 became 3) are economic talks(YouTube) from INETeconomics.org. And a reminder that problem* above is a Koch Brothers spin. And note to self** is still pending* while I might return to Risk and Robustness.

Since it is Friday and I have several posts in draft that relate to this link, I might note that this is still under construction if I ever get back to it. But in this regard I will say that this is the first INET link I watched and have found several others I might recommend that have been imbedded above but will simple list here:
Raghuram Rajan: Delineating the Role of Government
Also see prior ** not fully read yet but gives context right off the bat***
Lance Taylor: Maynard's Revenge
Reforming the Macroeconomic Framework: Sushil Wadhwani
IMF Calls for New Economic Thinking: Or Does It?

Keynes in a box? I will not expound upon this academic pun except to note the room and a flip-flop. i.e. what I took from Huntington and what Fukuyama may have learned or changed.

*scroll or click but nfry = not fully read yet
**Why I am not an Austrian Economist
*** see can(under bat)

[Not So Frackin' Funny: Demand a...side. (or Borg)Not Pop'nCulture]

Monday, May 16, 2011

Calm Pend E Um

[slight word corrections on 9-28-11 but there was a coincidence that it is about lede or ship.]

Re: Friday the 13th.
Ally Gory of the Bubble.

On Friday after my posts, or it could have been Thursday, I was reflecting on the apparent synchronicity or was it anachronicity? Gotcha. Actually, I was reflecting more on my writing style or flow(hyperbole/hyperbola). Suffice to say, I was curious about the convenience of some of my searches when I would be in need of embedding some meaning. In particular, at some point I searched my blogspot for "blue" and was amazed to find only five prior uses, which is not correct**. (See Bold Bubble above) But there is a point that our own meaning is involved in our style which I will not reconstruct. While somewhere in this loopiness there is an AL GORE rythm, here is one segment unembedded from other work:
Fight of the Century may be the TOE in the door. (Theory of Everythink (sic)) No pun on C-sic. Not to bug you...
[Third times a charm or cut to the chase, I juxtaposition 5 links above.*
Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two
Why I am not an Austrian Economist
A new powerhouse for ridiculous GOP economics
Raghuram Rajan: Delineating the Role of Governmentand
Risk and Robustness

and you might scroll over (or not click) to get a sixth sense under Economix.]
* is lost con text

The main point is that there is an old acronym from IBM, about computers, GIGO ("Garbage In, Garbage Out") and the user is not the only one that puts garbage in, yet sometimes you just might get "Good Out".

** see "scientific aside" there along with updated link

Saturday, November 19, 2011

A wonder...

[Finally posted 11-29-11]
Be careful what you wish for. Actually I was just wondering if I alway have the best of intentions. I believe I do. Actually(and the word literally may be the key *) I am usually wondering, and not usually about wishes or intentions. What I was concerned about is not being taken correctly. And that is dangersous with satire, not to mention other's ways with words. I wonder if that is what M(in)M had in mind when he punned his nom de plume.

* some(or sum) might say trigger

I
II

III

IV
V
V

11-22-11
SEGUE OWS: True Footnote now makes three. Missing link(bottom) noted, no pun on evolution. But it is "A wonder..." and Revolution 11-21-11 that suff ice? Draft?(a,b,c,d, e,f,g,h,i,j, k,l,m,n,p,o,q,r, s,t,u) No u v, but up to you. (meta yogurt)

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Weigh In or Way Out?

This is just to note that I have not weighed in on Cheney's Putter, the Golf War Dis-aster(sp!). Nor might* I way out on the recent SCOTUS nomination.

* Normite(sp!) not applicable, but I have aster risked the hints...not exactly.

[We've come a long way Katy! Pardon the innuendo**, but from Oil welfare rich Alaska to VP candidate to BP and back, I mean really... ]

** seriously I allude to the three women from politician to journalist and potential jurist, but there is caveat of commity* in word play.) (Is there a commity* network?)

[No! I did not know that.] Hint: Johnny or Jay Walker?] SNL?

[update: Not exactly! Tangent or See Can't or just Penn Station?

*[5-17-10] spell check (sp?!) legend: as intended? OK! In this case, alright.
In other cases (sp!) as intended, (sp!?) maybe more than one intention?
aka: no pun intended, or was there? This is a long narrative to say I don't intend to correct the unintended misspell, as in other minds it may mean something. But my intention was to insert the caveat channel.

Monday, April 13, 2009

On the wall verses on the table.

My punctuation and spelling are as intented,
versus not exactly clear.

From a discussion[*] on the Wiemar Republic and the issue of gun control springs the economic impact in the Treaty of Versailles*, the word Realpolitik, crept into my search which landed me on Noopolitik which brought me this source on a letter and this reference to Fred Kaplan. (My earlier comment on similar material including Fred Kaplan.)
[To be update as well as linked to economics--not to mention boat and recent links:
Humpty Dumpty
"Trust but verify"
Atlas
American Exceptionalism!]

* no pun on vs or vs., nor reliance on this article per se.
[bold links for referenced revisiting and no slouches embedded there]
[A Plan to B-Team: upgraded in progress]
[especially naught / exactly]

[*] this is not necessarily the discussion but the source was the Thom Hartmann show last week to which I had my own contribution via the ethernet, I might per se.

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

No Teddy[!]

BULL!



* LANDMARK SPEECH!

* Martin Bashir
unrelated?
No pun.
FIXED NEWS... meaning not here yet.
But this** is what I have been talking about.

** to be up dated (oops) HERE!

[BULLY PULPIT!!!!]

[Follow-up: Ratigan, Matthews, Sharpton]
The president talks the talk, congress must walk the walk. Propose/Dispose
MC Hammer: Middle Class Schtick is the Leverage.
Channeling Warren and Pokemon
(Boot straps anyone?).

[I rest my case. Bridge anyone?]
[Ed Schultz,(Defining moment) Rachel Maddow]

Friday, January 16, 2009

Weak End Update: Fun'n Edifying

(No, I actually intended to spell it that way.)
A post or so ago, my flip-flop ofor satire to sarcasm, merited a correction or at least clarification.
(Again spelling checked and intended)
Mis-Infotainment Tonight segued into...

Actual Fun'n Edifying (as corrected)

*** A TRIBUTE TO ***
Miller, Rhodes, Stewart and Colbert

*** FOR ACTUAL
Fun'n Edifying: ***
The Stephanie Miller Show
The Randi Rhodes Show
LOCAL RADIO
and Real Infotainment *.
(And National Fun'n Edifying:
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report

As opposed to Enternewsmeant

* forgive the self-reference and tribute to Secretary Rumsfled
(again spelling...check!) And ofor Miller time?
Not to mention Miss-"Frame of Reference" Goldwater/Buzz Killer
[Actual *footnote: Secretary of Infotainment was my pet name for Rumsfeld.(no pun on departure)]

Thursday, September 08, 2011

American Jobs Act

President Obama before a Joint Session of Congress.

This is an act of leadership, not ledership. Meaning that I make no pun with the American Jobs Act as a lede to the President before Congress. He took it to the people, in Trumanesque form. [*]
It may not have been what Congresswoman Maxine Waters wanted in scope. It may not have been calling for everything(more of the same) that was opposed by Republicans in the last two congresses. But it was a pitch that puts the ball in the kitchen or is it the bread basket?

9-9-11 Not even you can bind future congresses. But you can hold their feet to the kitchen. The president hit it out of the park, it is now on the people court. I had already used the Grand Slam metaphor(Eugene Robinson), but this is no competition. Pass the act or rev up the circus.

[*] 9-10-11 Lakoff agrees.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Biff Boom Bam

Platonic Dialogue.

[BTW:(2.0) Scroll down 4 my own See4 bin Laden.]

Current Media and
Super Heroes or C-Quells.

Note: blogspot is having technical difficulties intefering with the previous post being available at this time
(Churned Media makes me... C...(sic) hopes to be available soon, if not, I already have some sequels in the can.)
No pun intended, there is a missing link. Honestly the guildportal link was not heard of or googled prior to my lede, and I had no pow in tension.

NOTE 2.0: Sum Links are anachronistic some are re-runs.

BTW: Not to suggest another sabbatical, but this may be a good calm pend E um.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Follow-up

And post insert.[Update]

Old Digs: Slate on Health Reform

Case Study:
If his crime is so clear he should be prosecuted, but that is part of the problem. Part of the constitution involves treaties being the law of the land. I did not get into the particulars of his charges but his treatment is possibly a violation as well. If his intent or principle was to be a whistle blower for international crimes, he should have been more select, not that he would not have to face justice just the same. The likely reason he can't face justice is our country can't face justice. So I am saying that even if he thought he had principles he should not have done what he did. And even if he does, he must face trial, but then there is the difficulty of exposing more by allowing him a defense and having to defend the country. So I do not willy nilly and neither do the PsySR expect that there not be standard treatment for traitors,(which it seems has been gone beyond) but if this is it, then that is another exposure and point of my so called Case Study...Justice and American Exceptionalism.

A calling of Blues and Jazz?

Under the QCON this is a ramble of sorts and news. There is a common thread in the contact of the tangent being others only lightly referenced or embedded.

P.S. A particular charge(PC?) that one side makes is that the otherside has not read bills. I posit two concerns. Have they read the bill? Of course it is valid that they do not have the time sometimes. But why not at least mention what they have issue with. This of course this is especially related to the second link in this post. I will not be reading all of these things, but we can sometimes let others be our filters.

[BREAKING: Not to Lampoon*, but up on READING?]
*no pun intended but this just in my INBOX and upon reading makes it back to the P.S.[and just prior...an update]

[There is more than a Ribble run through this, and it is not just Dialogue or Dialectic, nor wordplay intended, but it seams** American Exceptionalism.]
** see Labels

[In a less uniting manner Thom Hartmann comes through again, not that there is anything wrong. But he does correct a name and give some party history.***]

*** Thom has altered his course in regard to pronouncing Boehner's name despite the principle it was founded on, Bane or Democratic Republic. It is interesting that Jefferson and Lincoln are involved in the history of party name changes. BTW: would it be too far fetched to call the No Labels Party, the Platonic Party? It is not really a party, but then it might be the latest niche in the evolution. I came to this in a reflective(read bounce) way. Would it be right to call them The Republic Party?