The 2010 campaign has just begun. It is very apporpriate that the politics has just become fired up. After all, Democrats have been busy doing their jobs*, and there are so many checks and balances from the big tent diversity of the likes of the Blue Dogs or as some would say corporatists or others say capitalists, (the right are just prostitutes(some used a different word) for the trickle-down. [Pardon the in-your-end Oh! NOT!]
* see word link and campaign link
[speaking of Taxin' Questions and graduated billionaires and less of a persons(10m 26sec).]
Showing posts with label 2010 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 Election. Show all posts
Friday, October 01, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Running Joke
Guilt by association, innocent my label.
Well rather*, she runs...innocent by no association with reality.
Upon first hearing of the Christine O'Donnell victory, my first reaction was hmmm, a new and improved Sarah Palin. But in all actuality, for an English major? She is rather loose with her labels. She attended Phoenix Institute which rented space at an Oxford campus, and she attended Claremont Instute which she labeled "Claremont Graduate University". And apparently her English major might be actually English Literature, but she may have made up for any deficiencies. Her employment record seems to be heavily reliant on her academic studies[**], not that she has recorded much income or communicated clearly. But if it was not her who communicated these errors, just who was paid to commit them? My point is...that problem is solved.
[Bottom line: She studied Constitutional Government under a graduate fellowship at a conservative think tank. QED: by degree in lipstick.]
* original paraphrase: Some run with "Guilt by association, but are guilty of (& innocent by) no association with reality". (But I often evolve mid-sentence, or mid-their revolution.)
[**] Zoominfo updated link.
Well rather*, she runs...innocent by no association with reality.
Upon first hearing of the Christine O'Donnell victory, my first reaction was hmmm, a new and improved Sarah Palin. But in all actuality, for an English major? She is rather loose with her labels. She attended Phoenix Institute which rented space at an Oxford campus, and she attended Claremont Instute which she labeled "Claremont Graduate University". And apparently her English major might be actually English Literature, but she may have made up for any deficiencies. Her employment record seems to be heavily reliant on her academic studies[**], not that she has recorded much income or communicated clearly. But if it was not her who communicated these errors, just who was paid to commit them? My point is...that problem is solved.
[Bottom line: She studied Constitutional Government under a graduate fellowship at a conservative think tank. QED: by degree in lipstick.]
* original paraphrase: Some run with "Guilt by association, but are guilty of (& innocent by) no association with reality". (But I often evolve mid-sentence, or mid-their revolution.)
[**] Zoominfo updated link.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Lemon or Orange?
Or Green*? Why vote?
Ralph Nader asks: Why say yes to the party of no? The answer is, one shouldn't.
*"At the risk of being obvious..." began my letter to the editor, but I guess I went underboard.
** if you want more anger and debt don't vote
[Speaking of info wars]
Ralph Nader asks: Why say yes to the party of no? The answer is, one shouldn't.
*"At the risk of being obvious..." began my letter to the editor, but I guess I went underboard.
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 Green or any other color being a factor in making us see red.**
[Please note the bold "Green or any other" was struck by the editor, apparently not obvious enough that Nader was the Green party, (and green)the almighty buck and envy. And these days if you need a Tea Party pallet, just smear the colors and brown with hints of purple works nicely.]
** if you want more anger and debt don't vote
[Speaking of info wars]
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Nightmare Act
I didn't plan this.
The Challenge to America...and any independents or disappointed moderates or liberals who are considering sending a message* that will result in Republicans or Tea-Party candidates replacing a Democrat, because that is what will happen if you don't vote, and don't read the Pledge to America and ask, what's new. (Fwhew, deep breath)-
Really now, I don't want to read it all by my lonesome, but I will give everyone a head start. And when you are reading it, ask what is new, has it worked in the past, is it not at least part of the current solution, and do we really need more in that direction or another. This questioning of the dynamics is hard work. Keeping in mind that tax cuts raise debt unless cuts match them. Spending cuts, cut services and risk jobs and infrastructure. Keep in mind that in more successful times in our history we had higher taxes and paid for wars, while cutting taxes and not paying for them have increased the debt and lost jobs. Then there is the war on terror and global concerns such as they are... Is the Pledge to American really new, or are they just wanting their hands back on the steering wheel to turn us back over the bridges they burned? You read, you decide.
[Related comments, reviews and concerns or other sources]
The Challenge to America...and any independents or disappointed moderates or liberals who are considering sending a message* that will result in Republicans or Tea-Party candidates replacing a Democrat, because that is what will happen if you don't vote, and don't read the Pledge to America and ask, what's new. (Fwhew, deep breath)-
Really now, I don't want to read it all by my lonesome, but I will give everyone a head start. And when you are reading it, ask what is new, has it worked in the past, is it not at least part of the current solution, and do we really need more in that direction or another. This questioning of the dynamics is hard work. Keeping in mind that tax cuts raise debt unless cuts match them. Spending cuts, cut services and risk jobs and infrastructure. Keep in mind that in more successful times in our history we had higher taxes and paid for wars, while cutting taxes and not paying for them have increased the debt and lost jobs. Then there is the war on terror and global concerns such as they are... Is the Pledge to American really new, or are they just wanting their hands back on the steering wheel to turn us back over the bridges they burned? You read, you decide.
[Related comments, reviews and concerns or other sources]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)