Or C ?
Bane or Change?
Don't call them stupid!
It only adds to their lip schtick!
aka Akin to Jindal.
let alone books Scarlet Badge of Ivanhoe or cam a lot?
We need a poll asking which clown car are you for?
Obama Clinton Warren Sanders or Bush, McCain, Romney, Palin, Paul, Walker et al?
Camel under tent and circling your cats, and the spectral meta~for! (or lemma-4)
Still / ~ / going.
[Daily KOS]
5-27-15 The Try Angle File. (NFRY label)
5-28-15 Not so circular file. Nor Try Angle [!]
[Thomas Roberts: Bush/Rubio~Putin]
Let alone NOW w/ Chimp See, Chimp sue? Let alone LIBtard HeGel?
Showing posts sorted by date for query stupid. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query stupid. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Friday, November 09, 2012
FC "Hammer"
Just the two of us?
Just because you have a hammer, everything is not a nail!*
See 3 PO
*Rookiepedia?(not wookie weally^ nor babawawa)
(fn)
True dat ? % $ (day oh?)
^ final insert (post image & F1-3)
[But really, the public option^^ is not just the health care but the democracy. Not to cap and trade or recycle old memes, but to reframe. Cap and trade is a term that may be DOA, but it is the congress and the market stupid.]
^^ returning to text later, not to un context but conn text in the form of revisiting footnotes for Hammer Time/Maslow Try Angle. Heck, this is good enough for trickle down or bubble up. You google or wiki and U-tubes. (or scroll over and click)
[Editors Note: Photo is mine from 88Keys, I told you everything was relative.[^^^] See(labels)/CtrlF Olympus D-550 (image-#5) shot # 2 (can still use a zoom and crop later)]
[^^^]: as I recall this is where I had an earlier mis-insert. i.e. elative(sic)
Note: Missing link caught 11-10-12 & there are two separate links under [^^^]'s.
Result: r"elative" link returned to earlier unintended insert, hopefully now "as was".
11-22-12 [C-VC]
Just because you have a hammer, everything is not a nail!*
See 3 PO
*Rookiepedia?(not wookie weally^ nor babawawa)
(fn)
True dat ? % $ (day oh?)
^ final insert (post image & F1-3)
[But really, the public option^^ is not just the health care but the democracy. Not to cap and trade or recycle old memes, but to reframe. Cap and trade is a term that may be DOA, but it is the congress and the market stupid.]
^^ returning to text later, not to un context but conn text in the form of revisiting footnotes for Hammer Time/Maslow Try Angle. Heck, this is good enough for trickle down or bubble up. You google or wiki and U-tubes. (or scroll over and click)
[Editors Note: Photo is mine from 88Keys, I told you everything was relative.[^^^] See(labels)/CtrlF Olympus D-550 (image-#5) shot # 2 (can still use a zoom and crop later)]
[^^^]: as I recall this is where I had an earlier mis-insert. i.e. elative(sic)
Note: Missing link caught 11-10-12 & there are two separate links under [^^^]'s.
Result: r"elative" link returned to earlier unintended insert, hopefully now "as was".
11-22-12 [C-VC]
Friday, October 05, 2012
Replacement Refs or Not...
If it were a debate* we would have stopped it.
Not to pun on Xfinity, but while the Comcast links*** will expire.**,
it's the congress John! Bring it on, Joe! The President needs to hold a Sit Down.
Before I get down to the task of preserving<*> those links whether read or not, I will explain the Rogue John and Wax Leak of the asterisks. Although the lesson learned from "Simon says"^^ might be to actually read links more thoroughly, the lesson from the Debate may be more complex but parallel of sorts. By "rogue",<*> I mean that former Presidential Candidate McCain(first link) confesses an expectation for him lowering the expectations of Paul Ryan, while disrespecting the Vice President and framing an expectation for gaffs. Then in regard to the " ball of wax " that Palin leaks, it connects the "boys" to the other "race" speech.^^^ (There, that's the GPS-uncross-Rhodes.)
And a far as my Tan Gents(Dr. Trumps), being a Seahawk fan has nothing to do with my take on the moderator. Well, who knows? But Mr. Lerrer has been critcized for not moderating or having a good performance, but I think that given the style over substance versus substance with style, these are not legitimate debates. And within the political system (such as it is) it was not his job to interfere with the players being themselves in order to let them make the proper contrast. Again having only heard most of the debate on the radio, I thought that the President walked away with it, but that was under the condition that facts matter. Neither he nor Lehrer could have done a better job in the case that they don't.
BTW^: Speaking of "boys", we have heard cracks about the Harvard "professor" and I suspect he has had to deal with a few wise-guys or gulls[!]
*if the link were fact checked...ditto.
(McCain goes rogue.)(Palin leaks ball of wax .)
** not that I have read them yet or the recommend them.
***The point of this lede and the heading...
^ apologies to literary geeks for my style over elements.(But that was Core Knell.)
^^ added in edit mode
^^^ to be expanded later(but see lede and stupid...I mean congress and John, Joe & Ryan. i.e. the context of the politics of "relief' legislation.)
[In the spirit of medium...? ]
[Not to parse too acutely, but it is the medium and the mess age.]
(Bu' dump 'ump [!] ... )
Re:Ouch?(see FLASHNOTE)
Post-Subjectivism? Might it be, rational subjectivism?
<*> 10-7-12(See FLASHNOTE: under construction)
<*> 10-9-12 slight edit ( "r.... ",)
Not to pun on Xfinity, but while the Comcast links*** will expire.**,
it's the congress John! Bring it on, Joe! The President needs to hold a Sit Down.
Before I get down to the task of preserving<*> those links whether read or not, I will explain the Rogue John and Wax Leak of the asterisks. Although the lesson learned from "Simon says"^^ might be to actually read links more thoroughly, the lesson from the Debate may be more complex but parallel of sorts. By "rogue",<*> I mean that former Presidential Candidate McCain(first link) confesses an expectation for him lowering the expectations of Paul Ryan, while disrespecting the Vice President and framing an expectation for gaffs. Then in regard to the " ball of wax " that Palin leaks, it connects the "boys" to the other "race" speech.^^^ (There, that's the GPS-uncross-Rhodes.)
And a far as my Tan Gents(Dr. Trumps), being a Seahawk fan has nothing to do with my take on the moderator. Well, who knows? But Mr. Lerrer has been critcized for not moderating or having a good performance, but I think that given the style over substance versus substance with style, these are not legitimate debates. And within the political system (such as it is) it was not his job to interfere with the players being themselves in order to let them make the proper contrast. Again having only heard most of the debate on the radio, I thought that the President walked away with it, but that was under the condition that facts matter. Neither he nor Lehrer could have done a better job in the case that they don't.
BTW^: Speaking of "boys", we have heard cracks about the Harvard "professor" and I suspect he has had to deal with a few wise-guys or gulls[!]
*if the link were fact checked...ditto.
(McCain goes rogue.)(Palin leaks ball of wax .)
** not that I have read them yet or the recommend them.
***The point of this lede and the heading...
^ apologies to literary geeks for my style over elements.(But that was Core Knell.)
^^ added in edit mode
^^^ to be expanded later(but see lede and stupid...I mean congress and John, Joe & Ryan. i.e. the context of the politics of "relief' legislation.)
[In the spirit of medium...? ]
[Not to parse too acutely, but it is the medium and the mess age.]
(Bu' dump 'ump [!] ... )
Re:Ouch?(see FLASHNOTE)
Post-Subjectivism? Might it be, rational subjectivism?
<*> 10-7-12(See FLASHNOTE: under construction)
<*> 10-9-12 slight edit ( "r.... ",)
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Dancing &Co
Dancing and Bernstein*** and Simon Says.
Is Roger Simon concidering a genre change?
Or has he always been so sharp?
Unlike?(Wall Street Joe?)[Or is it Mourning Joe?]
9-28-12 Follow-up : Sharp Unlike.
Roger Simon's parody of a mockery on the campaign trail **. (Or cam pain?*)
Wall Street Journal agrees it is the stupid congress.
*Tommy Christopher digs deeper. 'zzzzzzzz'
(Iron knee of sat ire read it completely.)
** (b.s. ). satire mockery
*** can Ohioans do math or what [!] ?
(I know percentage does not equal vote but I am employing mythmatic. Chances of Romney win in Ohio below 4%. Yet to compare maps or 538.)
[Bottomline: It is not the prophets or Simon says corporate capitalizers, but it may be the Peter Paul and Mary principle. No, just the Peter principle and robbing Paul to pay Peter. A bird in the hand is worth not having two bushes or an etch-a-sketch Bush is more dangerous when they think they will do one^ better.]
^ not to (fn) butt...
Is Roger Simon concidering a genre change?
Or has he always been so sharp?
Unlike?(Wall Street Joe?)[Or is it Mourning Joe?]
9-28-12 Follow-up : Sharp Unlike.
Roger Simon's parody of a mockery on the campaign trail **. (Or cam pain?*)
Wall Street Journal agrees it is the stupid congress.
*Tommy Christopher digs deeper. 'zzzzzzzz'
(Iron knee of sat ire read it completely.)
** (b.s. ). satire mockery
*** can Ohioans do math or what [!] ?
(I know percentage does not equal vote but I am employing mythmatic. Chances of Romney win in Ohio below 4%. Yet to compare maps or 538.)
[Bottomline: It is not the prophets or Simon says corporate capitalizers, but it may be the Peter Paul and Mary principle. No, just the Peter principle and robbing Paul to pay Peter. A bird in the hand is worth not having two bushes or an etch-a-sketch Bush is more dangerous when they think they will do one^ better.]
^ not to (fn) butt...
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
War of the Skirts
Women are out front on the issues.
Romney skirts intellectual leader.
Obama lifts skirts.
@Romney: You can't handle the code*!(Hardball)
*AM (Hart)
[ Republicans Running from** the table in Ryan selection.]
**Share 'n Angle un-chained.
[Not exactly Hardball.***]
*** anachronistic asterisks aside(Wrong Knee Plan)
[Mediscared of his own shadow: Politics Nation and the big lie...
For Pete sake, it is the congress stupid!]
Note:
There is very deep irony in my last crack or seem[!], in regards to congress and getting things done.
[!] pun on seam and partisan checks and balances and Chinese checkers so to Say.
Romney skirts intellectual leader.
Obama lifts skirts.
@Romney: You can't handle the code*!(Hardball)
*AM (Hart)
[ Republicans Running from** the table in Ryan selection.]
**Share 'n Angle un-chained.
[Not exactly Hardball.***]
*** anachronistic asterisks aside(Wrong Knee Plan)
[Mediscared of his own shadow: Politics Nation and the big lie...
For Pete sake, it is the congress stupid!]
Note:
There is very deep irony in my last crack or seem[!], in regards to congress and getting things done.
[!] pun on seam and partisan checks and balances and Chinese checkers so to Say.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**
Not to spike the ball.
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
WWW Wisconsin Lesson?
Wisconsin Walker Walk-out not Winner.
Focus on Mittle? Jansing & Co.
Radical over-reach was the money message
Romney can't run.
Wisconsin issues are national temp late.
Money mess age matters.
It's the stupid economics.
Tag team of dialogue* is message for the mess age.
Morgon Freeman on physics lesson.
Chris Jansing on journalism/economics lesson?
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120604/US.Wisconsin.Recall/?cid=hero_media_sea
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120606/US.Battleground.Wisconsin/?cid=hero_media_sea
http://news.yahoo.com/whatever-walkers-fate-obama-leads-romney-wisco-213721900--abc-news-politics.html
Clinton is not Obama's Trump.
Is Jansing CBS's Rose?
*Obama's joker? Not!
Clinton is America's stand-up scholar.
Not so sure about Jansing's guests being voice of God!
Speaking of missing links, technical difficulties lost more than a few Re: Lean Forward.
The Place for Politics is (a missing link**) and the place for Share-Un-Angle and Ronald Reagan Jr.
** hour between*** Chuck and Chris
Owe the Iron Knee?
[Martin Bashir and goose or gander.]
[Romney answer Rachel Maddow maybe?]
*** found 6-7-12(not exactly)
Focus on Mittle? Jansing & Co.
Radical over-reach was the money message
Romney can't run.
Wisconsin issues are national temp late.
Money mess age matters.
It's the stupid economics.
Tag team of dialogue* is message for the mess age.
Morgon Freeman on physics lesson.
Chris Jansing on journalism/economics lesson?
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120604/US.Wisconsin.Recall/?cid=hero_media_sea
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120606/US.Battleground.Wisconsin/?cid=hero_media_sea
http://news.yahoo.com/whatever-walkers-fate-obama-leads-romney-wisco-213721900--abc-news-politics.html
Clinton is not Obama's Trump.
Is Jansing CBS's Rose?
*Obama's joker? Not!
Clinton is America's stand-up scholar.
Not so sure about Jansing's guests being voice of God!
Speaking of missing links, technical difficulties lost more than a few Re: Lean Forward.
The Place for Politics is (a missing link**) and the place for Share-Un-Angle and Ronald Reagan Jr.
** hour between*** Chuck and Chris
Owe the Iron Knee?
[Martin Bashir and goose or gander.]
[Romney answer Rachel Maddow maybe?]
*** found 6-7-12(not exactly)
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The Fighting Ill Lie Nigh!
Robert Greenwald on the Koch brothers on The Ed Show.
Who thinks whom is stupid?***
I'll trump your "campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions."
Who thinks whom is stupid?***
I'll trump your "campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions."
The Ill Lie Nigh crack goes to the reality of the campaign, regardless and inspite of the truth. Buy this, I mean, you better not buy it. Some on the Right have misused Illinois, making it a good example of this twist.*
And in regards to the youth wars, it is not so much that students have such huge debts from college**, it is that Republicans want to increase the interest at that.
** no disrespect to the Illini.
*** Speaking of Q&A^: Do not ask what good we do. On The Last Word.
[^ 4-26-12 Related: Krugman^^/ Bernstein / Twist?]
^^ This is the only one of the last four I have read complete.
^^^ INET
*** Speaking of Q&A^: Do not ask what good we do. On The Last Word.
[^ 4-26-12 Related: Krugman^^/ Bernstein / Twist?]
^^ This is the only one of the last four I have read complete.
^^^ INET
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
I Ron Knee Chef
Ctrl F Kitchen
Obama Takes it to the Kitchen.
OK, Lawrence O'Donnell is not there yet.[*]
True Man Label: Bring it On.
* 1-5-11 Lawrence O'Donnell: McCain Courage, Mormon Cult(ure) and perfect family. (Mitt Romney)
Recess appointment is perfect politics. Make our** day. (not to get Harry) i.e. take it to court or the people
Is Obama the 75% man? Mitt may be politically perfect, or the least of how many evils?
Trump wanted some enthusiasm, but who am I to be enthused by the choice of an even weaker candidate to face Obama? I hope the Republicans give us their best. It is a process that just might do that. Unfortunately their best for some Republicans, Libertarians, and farther wrongs would be worse for the country. A flip-flopping un-nuanced Romney is their best shot. Someone more extreme*** would be better for the race and the country by allowing Obama to carry the middle left.
** dirty Truman and his spatula
[Later The Daily Caller and Neo-Nuanced R's. ]
*** link added (**also & Neo)
[Neo-Bush, Frank/Dodd and Obamanomics.]
[Rachel Maddow, Star Chamber]
[Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Lawrence O'Donnell]
1-6-11 Paul Harvey, The Rest of the Story. "not really".
Jobs-check, Cuts-check, debt next, but that means revenue also. As for certainty?
Note: use of punctuation, (sic)/pun, "air quotes" or lack of... c-BTW/irony.
(Ctrl F: "best" link inserted above)
[Rachel Maddow follow up or vise verse us ? Steele and Obama!]
[Santorum: Civil ad cert'em, a lesson in logic and taking the 9th.]
[Lawrence O'Donnell follow-up and tetra heed run ! (c-1-5 "courage":It was noted that it would be a lack of courage for McCain not to endorse a Republican candidate at this late date. So he endorses after the first delegates have been selected? Typical fear of fear monger.)]
BTW: China Or Germany? Which Economy Stupid? This proves you can learn from others, but it doesn't say what.
Awkward Breaking(BTW/Less Embedded)News(Ein, Ein, Ayn?)
i.e. next post/segue!
Speaking of Newt Eyed Peas, what he said to the NAACP.
Just demand jobs instead of food stamps? Not to be snarky.
< previous post >
Obama Takes it to the Kitchen.
OK, Lawrence O'Donnell is not there yet.[*]
True Man Label: Bring it On.
* 1-5-11 Lawrence O'Donnell: McCain Courage, Mormon Cult(ure) and perfect family. (Mitt Romney)
Recess appointment is perfect politics. Make our** day. (not to get Harry) i.e. take it to court or the people
Is Obama the 75% man? Mitt may be politically perfect, or the least of how many evils?
Trump wanted some enthusiasm, but who am I to be enthused by the choice of an even weaker candidate to face Obama? I hope the Republicans give us their best. It is a process that just might do that. Unfortunately their best for some Republicans, Libertarians, and farther wrongs would be worse for the country. A flip-flopping un-nuanced Romney is their best shot. Someone more extreme*** would be better for the race and the country by allowing Obama to carry the middle left.
** dirty Truman and his spatula
[Later The Daily Caller and Neo-Nuanced R's. ]
*** link added (**also & Neo)
[Neo-Bush, Frank/Dodd and Obamanomics.]
[Rachel Maddow, Star Chamber]
[Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Lawrence O'Donnell]
1-6-11 Paul Harvey, The Rest of the Story. "not really".
Jobs-check, Cuts-check, debt next, but that means revenue also. As for certainty?
Note: use of punctuation, (sic)/pun, "air quotes" or lack of... c-BTW/irony.
(Ctrl F: "best" link inserted above)
[Rachel Maddow follow up or vise verse us ? Steele and Obama!]
[Santorum: Civil ad cert'em, a lesson in logic and taking the 9th.]
[Lawrence O'Donnell follow-up and tetra heed run ! (c-1-5 "courage":It was noted that it would be a lack of courage for McCain not to endorse a Republican candidate at this late date. So he endorses after the first delegates have been selected? Typical fear of fear monger.)]
BTW: China Or Germany? Which Economy Stupid? This proves you can learn from others, but it doesn't say what.
Awkward Breaking(BTW/Less Embedded)News(Ein, Ein, Ayn?)
i.e. next post/segue!
Speaking of Newt Eyed Peas, what he said to the NAACP.
Just demand jobs instead of food stamps? Not to be snarky.
< previous post >
Monday, November 14, 2011
Where everyone needs to read...
local that is, the Seattle Post Intelligencer and Joel Connelly**.
But* not so fast.
* related facebook comments: Since the original poster had little context, I will only post my replies here.
< Here is to Herman Cain: "Stupid people are ruining America." Then he attracks them like a moth to a flame. The irony is that corporate persons already suffer from a sort of cultural innoculation. Or is it "the hash they have made" or "in...difference" to reality". OWS, may not only be a breeding ground for what might "thin out the herd", but of "super" bugs that may just be the new yogurt or intenstinal fortitude that bugs king context. Flavor this economically pathological.>
< @K.O. Kudos for replying in mixed metaphor. Nice shuffle of the birds and the bees, you may have picked up on the "social Darwinism". But I am not sure we agree who the dealer is, or rather who counts, and who are the cards. Let alone who lives on borrowed money.>
< @K.O. BTW: I do believe you missed a "dis" or something, as V.H. pointed out. As in "How dare you dis Scott..." etc. And you are correct that Scott was neutral in the original posting, but if "context is king" then M.J. was not the royal pain. The original was a mere "'reporting", but that does not mean it was not leaning on some con text, as reactions have shown.>
Not so G(AB)W. C-fields.
[anachrogate? And more. Also KUOW with Mayor McGinn.]
** Original intent: local ledership and rail issues(see *). Bit*** of a stretch? Not really.
*** Rachel Maddow: debunktion junction. That as for a junction: Europe is not U.S when it comes to austerity, infrastructure or other investments.
[11-15-11: OWS/Reporting. Free Speech and Porta Pottys.]
[MSNBC: Rachel MadDow [!][and Aye of Newt?]
[Articulate.
But* not so fast.
* related facebook comments: Since the original poster had little context, I will only post my replies here.
< Here is to Herman Cain: "Stupid people are ruining America." Then he attracks them like a moth to a flame. The irony is that corporate persons already suffer from a sort of cultural innoculation. Or is it "the hash they have made" or "in...difference" to reality". OWS, may not only be a breeding ground for what might "thin out the herd", but of "super" bugs that may just be the new yogurt or intenstinal fortitude that bugs king context. Flavor this economically pathological.>
< @K.O. Kudos for replying in mixed metaphor. Nice shuffle of the birds and the bees, you may have picked up on the "social Darwinism". But I am not sure we agree who the dealer is, or rather who counts, and who are the cards. Let alone who lives on borrowed money.>
< @K.O. BTW: I do believe you missed a "dis" or something, as V.H. pointed out. As in "How dare you dis Scott..." etc. And you are correct that Scott was neutral in the original posting, but if "context is king" then M.J. was not the royal pain. The original was a mere "'reporting", but that does not mean it was not leaning on some con text, as reactions have shown.>
Not so G(AB)W. C-fields.
[anachrogate? And more. Also KUOW with Mayor McGinn.]
** Original intent: local ledership and rail issues(see *). Bit*** of a stretch? Not really.
*** Rachel Maddow: debunktion junction. That as for a junction: Europe is not U.S when it comes to austerity, infrastructure or other investments.
[11-15-11: OWS/Reporting. Free Speech and Porta Pottys.]
[MSNBC: Rachel MadDow [!][and Aye of Newt?]
[Articulate.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Martin Bashir and GUESTS
There is the Beef[!]
...Winner by De Fault?
That has been my parsing of the 2012 GOP dilemma/process.
FORe-D or Lean?
It is frequently mentioned that President Obama...
you name it... the economy stupid, the Jobs#/Tags
But I think that it is a Rovian shot as well as good mechanics and political calculus, that they attack what works, and fear what works.
Physics not ideology.
My original in tent, was that the Bashir segment, expressed the chances or whom might win the Republican race, and that anyone could win by default if not convention.
Now, I will refrain from reframe* or further embedding of pun,
but will note the spell check of this vous do witch might work.
* not
[Note: there are only three links inserted** and here will be the Bashir Squad when available.]
** not counting squad or PEP...let alone(star)[and just out of my inbox]
...Winner by De Fault?
That has been my parsing of the 2012 GOP dilemma/process.
FORe-D or Lean?
It is frequently mentioned that President Obama...
you name it... the economy stupid, the Jobs#/Tags
But I think that it is a Rovian shot as well as good mechanics and political calculus, that they attack what works, and fear what works.
Physics not ideology.
My original in tent, was that the Bashir segment, expressed the chances or whom might win the Republican race, and that anyone could win by default if not convention.
Now, I will refrain from reframe* or further embedding of pun,
but will note the spell check of this vous do witch might work.
* not
[Note: there are only three links inserted** and here will be the Bashir Squad when available.]
** not counting squad or PEP...let alone(star)[and just out of my inbox]
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
The Curve or Nuance Thing
In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..
Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.
Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.
This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.
* two charts
** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.
[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]
[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]
[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]
Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.
Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.
This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.
* two charts
** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.
[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]
[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]
[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Let them eat cake!
And have it too. OK, I am mixing metaphors or idioms. But apparently the Republicans deserve congratulations for taking the House and the Democrats have just escaped losing the Senate. A question was asked; why did this happen? The above was a bit of a spin on my first thought. My later thought was that people had not had enough. The(y)[*] had not gotten enough change, and hopefully they will not get more of the same. I would say this falls under the category of two previous comments. The Economy Stupid and Foreign Legions.
[* speaking of timing, typo corrections are not always noted, but in this case the (y) seemmed appropriate to note, as I am crafting a post at the moment.]
[update under construction here: dot-dot-dot]
[* speaking of timing, typo corrections are not always noted, but in this case the (y) seemmed appropriate to note, as I am crafting a post at the moment.]
[update under construction here: dot-dot-dot]
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Re: Sabbatical
Why Vote?
Oh Sasha!
Buck Up!
Compendium.
Mandelbrot.
Fox'd! [insert link 10-22-10]
Separation of Constitution [But for Bush Inserted 10-31-10]
Good and Evil
Oh Sasha!
au contraire
Debt and tax cuts
independent comment
Revolt of the Zombies
Obama v. Foreign Legions
Game On! [Post inserted 10-22-10]
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
interview with [Generalization Warfare 10-27-10]
The Bully
Buck up (II)
The Red(Turn)Coats
Back up to Buck Up.[Obama v. The Economy Stupid 10-29-10]
[Parting or Pausing Post.]
Oh Sasha!
Buck Up!
Compendium.
Mandelbrot.
Fox'd! [insert link 10-22-10]
Separation of Constitution [But for Bush Inserted 10-31-10]
Good and Evil
Oh Sasha!
au contraire
Debt and tax cuts
independent comment
Revolt of the Zombies
Obama v. Foreign Legions
Game On! [Post inserted 10-22-10]
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
interview with [Generalization Warfare 10-27-10]
The Bully
Buck up (II)
The Red(Turn)Coats
Back up to Buck Up.[Obama v. The Economy Stupid 10-29-10]
[Parting or Pausing Post.]
Friday, October 01, 2010
Obama v. The Economy Stupid
Monday, June 28, 2010
Getting...
R Done.
Reprising The Exit Strategy?
A serious loss, RIP, Senator Robert Byrd.
Lessons, Corrections.
But importantly, a warning, from Paul Krugman. It's the jobs, stupid? Robert Kutner G20? Naomi Klein.
Reprising The Exit Strategy?
A serious loss, RIP, Senator Robert Byrd.
Lessons, Corrections.
But importantly, a warning, from Paul Krugman. It's the jobs, stupid? Robert Kutner G20? Naomi Klein.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Irony of the Message
The Politics of Fear[*] was not on the cover.
One has to open the magazine and I presume read.
They even might like you to buy the New Yorker.
There is one irony. The reader who already gets it, probably gets it and will read the articles. The reader who doesn't get it, might not get to the articles, let alone get them. Maybe that is the satire.
Here are some I might not get to:
Politics of Fear (2005)
The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear (2006)
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004)
Speaking of "caricatures and satire:
Lost in the message?
[7-16-08 And Characters "my friends", By George...
Uncuruious & ...George of the Jungle.]
[No Teddy: No Pragmatist: Is talking to Iran a ploy? Advice should be Speak clearly and stop waving the stick.]
[*] 4-13-09: link substituted Hint: It was the title of the art work.
[Bonus search: stuck on stupid]
One has to open the magazine and I presume read.
They even might like you to buy the New Yorker.
There is one irony. The reader who already gets it, probably gets it and will read the articles. The reader who doesn't get it, might not get to the articles, let alone get them. Maybe that is the satire.
Here are some I might not get to:
Politics of Fear (2005)
The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear (2006)
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004)
Speaking of "caricatures and satire:
witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan SwiftNot exactly Swift or Swift Boating, but can we count on certain believers in McCain to know the difference or do they believe in Lilliputians? (and pardon me I am a bit dingy today, not that you'd notice)
Lost in the message?
[7-16-08 And Characters "my friends", By George...
Uncuruious & ...George of the Jungle.]
[No Teddy: No Pragmatist: Is talking to Iran a ploy? Advice should be Speak clearly and stop waving the stick.]
[*] 4-13-09: link substituted Hint: It was the title of the art work.
[Bonus search: stuck on stupid]
Monday, March 31, 2008
Just a JAG?
Just a Guess?
It’s the W of course or off course.
It’s the War, stupid,
It’s the War Economy or Economy War, stupid.
It’s stupid W, it’s war is Stupid,
not We are the World and must Win.
JAG : Justice and Guts.
(saved from Friday or earlier,
a flip-flop on the D word, defeat?
just...who?)
[updated: 4-1-08 link added below "Cross of Iron" (irony?)]
It’s the W of course or off course.
It’s the War, stupid,
It’s the War Economy or Economy War, stupid.
It’s stupid W, it’s war is Stupid,
not We are the World and must Win.
JAG : Justice and Guts.
(saved from Friday or earlier,
a flip-flop on the D word, defeat?
just...who?)
[updated: 4-1-08 link added below "Cross of Iron" (irony?)]
Thursday, January 24, 2008
It's the Economy Stupid!
It's Stupid's Economy!
And stupid is as stupid does.
And in most cases it is stall.
Life is like a box of cherries.
And Bush is the pit picker.
OK! Now that that rant has rambled.
Democratic Leaders Delay Contempt Again
By Matt Renner t r u t h o u t | Report
So as long as there is room for failure there is room for delay, as a bargaining chip for unaccountability. Democrats and the people will have a long haul. I hope that it works out for us. The administration and its supporters, meaning those that will not be bipartisan to help the economy without giving Bush a free pass have the constitution and the economy over a barrel. And the people are taking it in the shorts which is a barrel and keep getting kicked and rolled.
No wonder they can't see the spin.
Speaking of spin, here is an interesting turn:
Bush budget won't fully fund Iraq war
And stupid is as stupid does.
And in most cases it is stall.
Life is like a box of cherries.
And Bush is the pit picker.
OK! Now that that rant has rambled.
Democratic Leaders Delay Contempt Again
By Matt Renner t r u t h o u t | Report
So as long as there is room for failure there is room for delay, as a bargaining chip for unaccountability. Democrats and the people will have a long haul. I hope that it works out for us. The administration and its supporters, meaning those that will not be bipartisan to help the economy without giving Bush a free pass have the constitution and the economy over a barrel. And the people are taking it in the shorts which is a barrel and keep getting kicked and rolled.
No wonder they can't see the spin.
Speaking of spin, here is an interesting turn:
Bush budget won't fully fund Iraq war
Looking back, the great irony of this administration will be that the only time Bush asked for a full year’s funding for Iraq was in his 2008 request -- in the first months of a new Democratic Congress. He succeeded in getting what he needed but also used the war expenditures as a hammer of sorts to squelch other spending demands. Yet again Wednesday, the House failed to override Bush’s veto of a bill adding $35 billion over five years to expand health insurance for children of low-income families.Speaking of interesting and speaking of irony.
Monday, March 19, 2007
OH WHAT A WEB
WE UNWEAVE
In following up on the matters in the last two posts, and hearing Thom Hartmann quote Dwight Eisenhower, in just looking for a phone contact I found it.
Dwight Eisenhower was a remarkable man, and should have been listened to and still should be heard.
While still just a man and words are just words, there are dreams and there are nightmares, which should we work for? Now that is not to say that some of these noted items he would not say went too far, there are those that say they need to be reformed when really they mean to replace with privatization which really means corporatization, which is not a far cry from the military-industrial complex he also warned of...
In following up on the matters in the last two posts, and hearing Thom Hartmann quote Dwight Eisenhower, in just looking for a phone contact I found it.
Dwight Eisenhower was a remarkable man, and should have been listened to and still should be heard.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
While still just a man and words are just words, there are dreams and there are nightmares, which should we work for? Now that is not to say that some of these noted items he would not say went too far, there are those that say they need to be reformed when really they mean to replace with privatization which really means corporatization, which is not a far cry from the military-industrial complex he also warned of...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)