F'n P[!]

an-archy? / tan gent
[!] sarcasm irony punk.
Lede or Ship:  Heading

4 M or links in order of insert
(In F able. / punc. / -archy / gent)

War'n Buffet Rule
The P ?
Original Intent: almost lost, Footnotes Page # ?
Gephardt*  -House Republicans Changed the Rules to Keep Government Closed
McConnell  -Who Controls the House GOP?
Battle. -  George W. Bush and the Real Story of the Great Recession****  - (b.s.) Buffet + Warren
Re  - Buffet +Metaphor
:  - Rule + Field
congre$$ - [War'n Pic/MoveOn]
AM:
Pelosi/
Klobuchar
Gang **

** links/line anachronistic
AM=Andrea Mithell
*** Deep Files Go 4 it.

(buy Jim'n Knee: Faith 'n Progress ?)
[The Cycle? New Hostage on the Table. /  Measured Optimism ? ]
[If you don't vote, you won't get your pudding.  How can you get your pudding when you won't eat your meet?]

Kit Ten

Or Cat Tales?

Actually, is this residue or derivatives from a lucid snooze?[2]
If math is next to G*dliness, then how are words accountable?
Go google!  Or am I in violation by not CAPitalizing or is capitalisizing?
Go figure!
Then watch[1]  yourself.
Meanwhile I will pause to investigate where cats have nine lives or is it from their tails?

* not to offend(nor link or asterisk)
[1] watch 
[2] NFRY  "go all"

Nail Meet F--C---[!]

Fulcrum meet Hammer!

WTF?
OW/WTO?
Pro-Ce$$[!]
@'AX?
Seal?{C-L}
Process President: bit of ObTu$ity!
CommUni K-shuns?
6 S I G M A (b.s.) CtrlF[@'h]
Conn $ent Ration: BTL

11-22-12 [C-VC]

High8US

[7-6-11 links added]

(continued)
In ConText:
Over Helming.
Underwhelmed?
HiAteUS
Humpty Dumpty...
Ideology
Connecting the Dots
Way, Too Point Oh?
Way[!]
No Frackin' Way
Image Processing
Re:Verb
'nuff said
Ledership[!]
Antithesis of Nuance

Related sites:
Finance and Mandelbrot
Reader Supported News
Instutute for New Economic Thinking (Flip-flop and Obliquity)
The New Yorker*
The Economist
YouTube

Calm Pend I um? (or E'em)

*Footnote: Thank Finance and Mandelbrot for The New Yorker and The Economist links [also: errors(not fully read yet) and thank the Democrats for the YouTube.]

BTW: The above image and photo, did not turn out(inserted) as intended, not that there is anything wrong with that. (Sign Feld Pun )["Close enough for government work".[!] ]
[Writer's Almanac: KUOW, Natural Gas, Regenerating, Life After, Burning: Inslee and much More.]

Now Dat's...

what I am talkin' 'bout.
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.

Here it is:

Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.

[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.

Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.

BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.

*strains: on another thread elsewhere

What politics is about.

Progress for People

Hands Off Connecticut
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

My Tangent or Triangulation:

Much of what I may leave unsaid may be because if tables were turned I would not say them, but I do not think this is the case. While outside influence on a state's political race interferes with the local voter's intentions, it also flies back out of the state to others who feel that they understand what the party does not.

Until there is a viable third party and a change in primary and general election processes that can eliminate the hazzard that a third party will win it for the wrong side, outside help should focus on the general elections rather than in primaries. And for the dissappointed, there is value in voting for the lesser of two evils, provided that your vote does not put in office the greater.

For the voter in the primary, vote your conscience, it is not throwing a vote away or voting for the other guy. But come the general, things are black and white and you must vote for a viable winner or be satisfied that you will possibly be putting in a loser.

[Update: two evils (cartoon and labels added)]

Ideology and Process

[Printed in the Eastside Journal 12-16-02] Edited version of 12-6 post: IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
POLITICS
Voters too impatient

A Dec. 3 letter writer misinterpreted Donald Kaul's Nov. 24 piece, ``Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts.'' Beyond the system, Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology.

These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner-take-all nature allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.

The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas.

There are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or, rather, between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.

Roger Larson

Bellevue
[Note: 5-2-11 Lede and bottom (previous post)link (and Label)added]