You may never know everything that the enemy knows, but they can easily know that you are not saying what they know and you say you know.
They also may know that your friends know that you are not saying what they know and you said they knew.
Anyway on a related matter:
Not knowing what one means nor saying what one means, it is similar to a one handed poker game or blind bluff.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Establish-ment words.
"The ruling was attacked by supporters of the law, which was passed by the Legislature with bipartisan support in 2004."
"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
Focusing just on the comments which sound very familiar but are indeed a bipartisan problem: pardon me, but it is the job of a judge, to interpret the law and the constitution and cause executives to follow and representatives to sometimes have to rewrite the law, regardless of the legislative support, or an executives interpretation of the law.
Period. Not. That is the we part.
There should be equal but separate branches or jobs of government that seem to be preempted by preempting intelligence. The only job beyond those, that need more responsibility and accountability is the press that is our job one(see amendment I).
"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."
Ronald Reagan would have said about this: "There he goes again" and worried about the government being "here to help you". Well.. Uhh... there is a difference between establishment, the verb and the noun and "we" take both. "We the people of the United States, (are) in order to form..." that are the hard work.
Sorry, a little Bushism crept in too.
"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
Focusing just on the comments which sound very familiar but are indeed a bipartisan problem: pardon me, but it is the job of a judge, to interpret the law and the constitution and cause executives to follow and representatives to sometimes have to rewrite the law, regardless of the legislative support, or an executives interpretation of the law.
Period. Not. That is the we part.
There should be equal but separate branches or jobs of government that seem to be preempted by preempting intelligence. The only job beyond those, that need more responsibility and accountability is the press that is our job one(see amendment I).
"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."
Ronald Reagan would have said about this: "There he goes again" and worried about the government being "here to help you". Well.. Uhh... there is a difference between establishment, the verb and the noun and "we" take both. "We the people of the United States, (are) in order to form..." that are the hard work.
Sorry, a little Bushism crept in too.
Headings or Leads?
Looking back for my post on "cut and run" I must return to that search later. To be inserted here- __ ( ) : But here is the post scripted evidence of more of that theory. Or are the scripted posts? Congress cuts $500 million in military spending or vets benefits? House subcommittee cuts $2.4 billion in foreign aid or Iraq reconstruction? You read and it may not be there. But my point: is how often are there two votes that are unanimous in the Republican controlled House or even subcommittee? If that is not evidence of something I know what it is: Politics, yet not necessarily a win or a loss, just some are running and some may be working. The other commonality is that they are from Bush, the running, not the working.
Another light is on the perspective of the so-called "Liberal Media": are they fair and balanced or just con-fusing?
It need be noted that the links provided above were not the minimal AP sources from my local paper that sent me off on this commentary.
Another light is on the perspective of the so-called "Liberal Media": are they fair and balanced or just con-fusing?
It need be noted that the links provided above were not the minimal AP sources from my local paper that sent me off on this commentary.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Comprehensive English or Reform Immigration?
If English as a national language is enforced, what are the penalties and can we begin with George Bush. Is this not ironic that the Declaration of Independence was about King George III and we may now require English as a common unifying language from the same George that is the decider.
Note that there seems a parting of the waters as to the usage itself: Republicans "national" :63-34 and Democrats "common and unifying" 58-39
OR IS IT? Pronoun vs. Verb?
Or is it? Symbolism vs. Meaning?
Which is more meaningful and which is less government? Which one will be the end of it, and which will mean more government?
I must caution that I have not fully read the articles I link here, but as noted by many Bush is not read to well either. Note: like Bush it may seem that my grammar is in error but the joke actually means something in the "too" vs. "to" sense. Hence I am allowed to "cherry-pick" and leave you the same opportunity.
To paraphrase a pick, it doesn't seem to do much.
But what will be next?
Not so clear is that this is only part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, feeding the frenzy that may mean nothing.
Going back to my earlier post brought forth to today on Lou Dobbs Tonight, three concur that it will not be this year.
Note that there seems a parting of the waters as to the usage itself: Republicans "national" :63-34 and Democrats "common and unifying" 58-39
OR IS IT? Pronoun vs. Verb?
Or is it? Symbolism vs. Meaning?
Which is more meaningful and which is less government? Which one will be the end of it, and which will mean more government?
I must caution that I have not fully read the articles I link here, but as noted by many Bush is not read to well either. Note: like Bush it may seem that my grammar is in error but the joke actually means something in the "too" vs. "to" sense. Hence I am allowed to "cherry-pick" and leave you the same opportunity.
To paraphrase a pick, it doesn't seem to do much.
But what will be next?
Not so clear is that this is only part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, feeding the frenzy that may mean nothing.
Going back to my earlier post brought forth to today on Lou Dobbs Tonight, three concur that it will not be this year.
Why conservative...
Republicans love to select justices but hate justice. Because of the whole concept of separation of powers and checks and balance.
Bush the United
Bush the Unitary*
The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.
A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).
It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.
* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.
(i) = intentionally construed.
** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.
*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.
The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.
A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).
It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.
* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.
(i) = intentionally construed.
** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.
*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Values Head On!
THE FRAME WORKS!
The Progressive Identity Complex
The Four Confusions:
(or the Conservative Mantra)
Up the Ying-Yang?
What they believe and what they believe we are not.
A balancing act that only binds us.
Our "opposite: while progressives believe we're all in it together, conservatives believe we're all on our own and we're all out for ourselves."
(italics are quotes interspersed with my comments)
[ALL LINKS THANKS TO TOMPAINE.COM]
More Footnotes or Foot WORK:
THE AMERICAN DREAM
EXPORTING DEMOCRACY
WELL... Trickle-Down
The Progressive Identity Complex
The Four Confusions:
(or the Conservative Mantra)
small government, low taxes, strong defense and traditional values.
Up the Ying-Yang?
What they believe and what they believe we are not.
A balancing act that only binds us.
Our "opposite: while progressives believe we're all in it together, conservatives believe we're all on our own and we're all out for ourselves."
(italics are quotes interspersed with my comments)
[ALL LINKS THANKS TO TOMPAINE.COM]
More Footnotes or Foot WORK:
THE AMERICAN DREAM
EXPORTING DEMOCRACY
WELL... Trickle-Down
Monday, May 01, 2006
MAY DAY IN PEORIA!
Disenfranchisement of Labor: Nothing New.
"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to. New free States are the places for poor people to go to, and better their condition. For this use the nation needs these Territories." (Italics included,p.111-112) *
Not necessarily in May, nor politically correct, but these are the words of Abraham Lincoln in Peoria in 1847.
Lincoln had other interesting comments on issues that could shed light on our direction or needed course change or that there actually may be something new. Namely that if labor is not a right, then it is a substance whose abuse should be penalized, or the flow of both Manifest Destiny and Freedom are ebbing.**
HAPPY LAW AND ORDER DAY!
What was started in American was supplanted by power.
That is the same old thing.
* Hint: to update this reading replace the interest groups of Lincoln's time with labor, immigrants, corporations, and whatever needs or territory means?
** Things would be interesting if either Lincoln or FDR had made even more progress, not that loyal oppositition is not worthy, or at least it should be.
"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to. New free States are the places for poor people to go to, and better their condition. For this use the nation needs these Territories." (Italics included,p.111-112) *
Not necessarily in May, nor politically correct, but these are the words of Abraham Lincoln in Peoria in 1847.
Lincoln had other interesting comments on issues that could shed light on our direction or needed course change or that there actually may be something new. Namely that if labor is not a right, then it is a substance whose abuse should be penalized, or the flow of both Manifest Destiny and Freedom are ebbing.**
HAPPY LAW AND ORDER DAY!
What was started in American was supplanted by power.
That is the same old thing.
* Hint: to update this reading replace the interest groups of Lincoln's time with labor, immigrants, corporations, and whatever needs or territory means?
** Things would be interesting if either Lincoln or FDR had made even more progress, not that loyal oppositition is not worthy, or at least it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)