Just as President Bush's past State of the Union addresses, this one was a wonderful speech that tended as Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, "To pump--you up!" It really was a speech that was hopeful about the future yet short on the past.
A local paper suggested that the president clip a bit of it to his shaving mirror to read every day. I would suggest that they both review and work on the rest of their words further. I wonder how much would be left if the parts that were more faith-based than fact-based were removed. Then there are the portions that all Americans, especially Democrats could agree with.
It is wonderful to be hopeful, and looking only forward, that is all there is, when the facts are really just in the past. Of course I may be contradicting the facts, in that Bush did make reference to the past, while warning that that was turning back. While much of his speech was about concepts that should receive our support, what will matter most are the details and working together.
Unfortunately, his words do not bode well when he takes about one paragraph to do an about-face. From his claim that "...even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger", he takes only a few sentences to fight the quasi-quixotic foes on "...the road of isolationism and protectionism..." I really can’t answer how this will work when he seems more about exporting our leadership than working on the democracy and law "in order to form a more perfect union" here.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query pump. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query pump. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, February 03, 2006
Thursday, April 02, 2009
"The play's the thing"
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Republicans war against class war. nOT!
The Provacateur: ThinkProgress
My play with words was the thing and the The Provacateur is aptly titled and actually fair and balanced for a righty but the results will be the thing. Oops, my "war against class war" typo lost an "n" which I picked up in OT*, whose link is accidently apropos in dropping the ball of context, like employment, the housing bubble, and debt. Which allows me to pick up and run with a comment which almost dribbled off my court of discourse, called inflation. One can keep passing the ball or the buck but when there is a leak or continual need to pump it up, something has got to get charged up. And I almost had a turn over again, but the bottomline is, that the median income would not have risen without all the spending, which would not have happened without the borrowing, not to mention the cost of war which buried us more. It must be remembered that no budget can exclude true costs, and they have always said that freedom is not free, but the budget must include the cost of peace and progress. Not to mention the price of values and the passing the buck.
* I had meant "warn" against, but the slip was priceless in the OT
BTW, I did foul out here by plowing to the basket and missing the point which could clear the net: inflation is a tax [Should the zebras call for another net that conflates March Madness, the month of Fools and other institutions?]
[technical foul or side line HINTS: war and nOT links are more like the wikipedia (last 3) with some "facts" in dispute or cherry picked if not even left off the court of reading, but The Provacateur: ThinkProgress links are more comprehensive if not comprehended only from a team perspective.]
Republicans war against class war. nOT!
The Provacateur: ThinkProgress
My play with words was the thing and the The Provacateur is aptly titled and actually fair and balanced for a righty but the results will be the thing. Oops, my "war against class war" typo lost an "n" which I picked up in OT*, whose link is accidently apropos in dropping the ball of context, like employment, the housing bubble, and debt. Which allows me to pick up and run with a comment which almost dribbled off my court of discourse, called inflation. One can keep passing the ball or the buck but when there is a leak or continual need to pump it up, something has got to get charged up. And I almost had a turn over again, but the bottomline is, that the median income would not have risen without all the spending, which would not have happened without the borrowing, not to mention the cost of war which buried us more. It must be remembered that no budget can exclude true costs, and they have always said that freedom is not free, but the budget must include the cost of peace and progress. Not to mention the price of values and the passing the buck.
* I had meant "warn" against, but the slip was priceless in the OT
BTW, I did foul out here by plowing to the basket and missing the point which could clear the net: inflation is a tax [Should the zebras call for another net that conflates March Madness, the month of Fools and other institutions?]
[technical foul or side line HINTS: war and nOT links are more like the wikipedia (last 3) with some "facts" in dispute or cherry picked if not even left off the court of reading, but The Provacateur: ThinkProgress links are more comprehensive if not comprehended only from a team perspective.]
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Obama Leaks
Some might say he reeks,
but I say that there is more to the issue than liquids or gases.
Pump out the rhyme. This is just a leed into two points which I cannot tell where they came from.
1. the debt does not matter
2. social security does not matter to the debt
3. GE I did not know I was going to stick with the meta4, but of course both matter. And the underlying points I want to make, which I cannot source particularly is that the President's plan when accepted will establish one and two. In other words, the kind of debt matters(tax cuts v. investments) and an opening of the "lock box" that makes congress accountable for social security regardless of debt. Neither are easy to say, leak of the leeds** or reek of the leads, but taxes do matter to everyone, but so do budget calculations and the big picture whether you are a person, corporation, state or fed/global.
[And please note that I have not really made much of the Wikileaks controversy, as I do not support the methods and reasons for its existence. While we do need to have better journalism and government, I am not sure it will help in the scheme of things. Rupert Murdock as a source of inspiration, now supports my feelings in this area, as well as the reference or links of reasoning to scientific journalism.* While my crack at GE hints at the $marminess of some journalism, I will cover that with this mud. The mud in this case is the subjective skills that are responsibly noted which makes raw leaks only facts not truth. Raw data(information) is not just objective but subjective itself.]
*12-9-10(comma added)Rupert Murdock does not support my feelings, him as an inspiration supports my feelings to the contrary, as well as an erroneous scientific take. And last link brackets (information is not just in the form of numbers, but even they are subject to context and formulas).
** [1-17-12 C-(sic): ledes is the intended spelling in this typo]
but I say that there is more to the issue than liquids or gases.
Pump out the rhyme. This is just a leed into two points which I cannot tell where they came from.
1. the debt does not matter
2. social security does not matter to the debt
3. GE I did not know I was going to stick with the meta4, but of course both matter. And the underlying points I want to make, which I cannot source particularly is that the President's plan when accepted will establish one and two. In other words, the kind of debt matters(tax cuts v. investments) and an opening of the "lock box" that makes congress accountable for social security regardless of debt. Neither are easy to say, leak of the leeds** or reek of the leads, but taxes do matter to everyone, but so do budget calculations and the big picture whether you are a person, corporation, state or fed/global.
[And please note that I have not really made much of the Wikileaks controversy, as I do not support the methods and reasons for its existence. While we do need to have better journalism and government, I am not sure it will help in the scheme of things. Rupert Murdock as a source of inspiration, now supports my feelings in this area, as well as the reference or links of reasoning to scientific journalism.* While my crack at GE hints at the $marminess of some journalism, I will cover that with this mud. The mud in this case is the subjective skills that are responsibly noted which makes raw leaks only facts not truth. Raw data(information) is not just objective but subjective itself.]
*12-9-10(comma added)Rupert Murdock does not support my feelings, him as an inspiration supports my feelings to the contrary, as well as an erroneous scientific take. And last link brackets (information is not just in the form of numbers, but even they are subject to context and formulas).
** [1-17-12 C-(sic): ledes is the intended spelling in this typo]
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**
Not to spike the ball.
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
PIT Spot?
Meta-cystical point or so duh?
Not to pump the mess anger or dis-road improvements.
i.e. change of(4) course
At this point, I will refrain from inserting links to confound or unfuse the above.
My O.I. is in the Lab3ls [!]
A. NFRY
B. Meta-slash
C. Ribble
4. P.C.
RSN: Smallest Font- Unread, Normal Font- Read, Small Font (or bold)- of special interest
Nicholas Kristof New York Times, Agence France-Presse, David Remnick, The New Yorker, Jason Rosenbaum, National Public Radio, (...under construction) Frank Rich, New York Magazine
TO: (...Under Construction) .Yana Kunichoff, Truthout | Interview..
Spoiler alert? The Last Word, Howard Dean ? IBT: wps
Not to pump the mess anger or dis-road improvements.
i.e. change of(4) course
At this point, I will refrain from inserting links to confound or unfuse the above.
My O.I. is in the Lab3ls [!]
A. NFRY
B. Meta-slash
C. Ribble
4. P.C.
RSN: Smallest Font- Unread, Normal Font- Read, Small Font (or bold)- of special interest
Nicholas Kristof New York Times, Agence France-Presse, David Remnick, The New Yorker, Jason Rosenbaum, National Public Radio, (...under construction) Frank Rich, New York Magazine
TO: (...Under Construction) .Yana Kunichoff, Truthout | Interview..
Spoiler alert? The Last Word, Howard Dean ? IBT: wps
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)