Aurora Shooting Update* :
Update and effect on campaigns.
(label)
Today it looks like Mike Papantonio will be ranting** on hate and the nexus to violence. These are not exactly nuanced or non-inciteful, nor linked to today's Ed Schultz Show.(The Ring of Fire links{"hate" and "nexus"}are not associated with The Ed Schultz{radio"wegoted"}Show, MSNBC*** or Rachel Maddow, nor fully viewed by me.)
NorMan GoldMan - A Smart Alex[!]
*link has nuanced follow-up(&scrollup) re:"under...standing"
** not intended as negative term
*** best wishes to Wendy Schultz
[!] not to link NorMan or BaldWin to ALEC, but Get Smart to Raw Money.
Showing posts with label Aurora Shooting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aurora Shooting. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2012
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"]
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"]
Monday, July 23, 2012
"Feel the Love"?
Anger Management.
Caution: Who you talkin' to?
Too often it is the case in my blogging that I make cultural leaps without fully reading articles.
Example: Tan Gent to BaneOr**
But maybe my GPS Cross Rhodes*** process depends too much upon or may not consider sufficiently a diversity of understanding. Here I may have perfectly expressed the dilemma/dynamics of rhetorical progress. To bring it back to Earth, con descend shun is not pretty. Well, not exactly...
At least I did read the link I am now not paraphrasing*. My point is that I hope that it is read, but with caution and consideration for whom it tolls.
* note that the heading and lede line are referenced in the link, my not paraphrasing is a perspecitivizing. (caution scrolling over as well, some may choose not to bother with the other asterisks, BUT choose well to read the link.)
(PLEASE READ the full text of my post before bothering with asterisks or scroll overs)
** not to associate with the persons or perspectives
*** the pun stops where ?
(Follow-up: Specious and Spacious Species ofor Iron Knee[!])
[Look who's talkin'? (To be referenced later.)]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label) also re:"understanding"]
Caution: Who you talkin' to?
Too often it is the case in my blogging that I make cultural leaps without fully reading articles.
Example: Tan Gent to BaneOr**
But maybe my GPS Cross Rhodes*** process depends too much upon or may not consider sufficiently a diversity of understanding. Here I may have perfectly expressed the dilemma/dynamics of rhetorical progress. To bring it back to Earth, con descend shun is not pretty. Well, not exactly...
At least I did read the link I am now not paraphrasing*. My point is that I hope that it is read, but with caution and consideration for whom it tolls.
* note that the heading and lede line are referenced in the link, my not paraphrasing is a perspecitivizing. (caution scrolling over as well, some may choose not to bother with the other asterisks, BUT choose well to read the link.)
(PLEASE READ the full text of my post before bothering with asterisks or scroll overs)
** not to associate with the persons or perspectives
*** the pun stops where ?
(Follow-up: Specious and Spacious Species ofor Iron Knee[!])
[Look who's talkin'? (To be referenced later.)]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label) also re:"understanding"]
Friday, July 20, 2012
Tragedy in Aurora
First reports of a theater shooting in Aurora Colorado.(Dark Knight Rising)
Campaigns suspended.
Same here.
Ahhh... Heck! ?
[Not that I want to go there**, but have I been there before ?]*
* Bracketed links added post construction of sentence. Last 4words excepted.
** followed * closely (later)
[Not Quite ?]
[7-23-12 The post here precedes this follow up of sorts, for your digestion: Specious and Spacious Species.]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
Campaigns suspended.
Same here.
Ahhh... Heck! ?
[Not that I want to go there**, but have I been there before ?]*
* Bracketed links added post construction of sentence. Last 4words excepted.
** followed * closely (later)
[Not Quite ?]
[7-23-12 The post here precedes this follow up of sorts, for your digestion: Specious and Spacious Species.]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)