Parsing Systems

P.S.  Are we Charlie?  Or why aren't we French? 
It is a shame that fame comes under such horrible circumstances.

Not to bury the lede in nuance or labels, but I intend to more heavily edit** insertion of links for the time being.  Unfortunately I may have now buried more nonsense*.  I am not Forbes, The Atlantic or Slate.  Not that I have placed then in any order of sense.  My point was to review any prior use elsewhere that I have yet to place in context~. 

*not that I have parsed the nonsense, be it the Daily Caller, the New York Times, David Brooks or any of their words.

** carefully filter

*~* I am not a Paper Bird! 
Je ne pax The String! 
Nor Car Tunist. 
R we all sat-irists?

RFD? ?[?]  Not to withdraw weapons.



1-13-15 The vig ? ** not fully read IRONY!

I am not Forbes ~!~  Context:  This is a difficult read.  Is it really necessary to disseminate examples to determine that the killings are not justified? Maybe we are more French than we might like[!]  Further context:  Images and cartoons in reaction to the massacre are not comparable to the images or cartoons that Charlie Hebdo publishes.  Not that I have avoided either, I just wished to review my m-beds.  i.e. links I have yet to parse or deconstruct
 
(Now, Romney? The Reid Report, pre-The Cycle. Un-parsed: -)

Unity March

Retreading* Charlie Hebdo
Aborting the euphemism. 
Still ... an excuse to file.

It is with trepidation that I have used the CH tragedy as a euphemism for a car wreck/churned media of lede or ship~made ya' look childishness.  Thanks to the Jon Stewart apology in conjunkshun^ with the vehicle/road metaphor(a4 menshunned), not to mention trip~tiring references, I hereby vow to never use CH in vain.  And darned if I didn't spell it correctly, weather it flows or not[!]

A sub-plot to this 4M might be; "are we there yet?" ^^


*retiring

[last down]
(3) we are Charlie
(2) share n' angle Mitt's BO*Son
(~) lost order
(6) SELF DEFEATING TRIBALISM
(8) Obama with Drama
(1) Cruz Hillary Dream
(4) Perlstein Huckabee Apocalypse
(5) Crack Hawks Fund
(7) Hillary media jokes
(11)Stewart apology
(9) of the forth kind
(10) of the fourth kind

^ coin-age
^^ spoiler alert  (re:trip tiring ref) UM? (nor StewArt [!])
(8)~(*)

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.]

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