[On the filibuster, bipartisanship and third party involvement.]
(02-02-01) {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.}
The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. It, like the Electoral College, is rarely used for the good they were intended. However, the vote for Ashcroft does help support it as a tool to define bipartisan, if anything can. The interesting thing is that both sides claim bipartisanship. The Republicans with the idea that it was a bipartisan vote since 8 Democrats were on the side of the nominee. The Democrats with the idea that they split votes and did not vote in a block. I would like a little more on why the Republicans can make this claim though.
It really seems that the Dems have three points on their side. One, the Democrats that voted for Ashcroft, were the ones that made that decision. Two, the Republicans were unified in their support. And three, the Democrats had enough to block a cloture if they had stuck together, but chose not to waste the country's time and offered another olive branch to a white flag.
I do feel that enough white flags(whoops)olive branches were offered with the earlier Senate confirmations, and if this was not important enough to filibuster, what would be?
However there are also three important political motives for the olive branches, and one is to define the terms that Bush uses. If they are surrounded by olive branches, the Republicans will be caught up in their own words, before they can get out.
The second political motive is that it only takes one to start a filibuster, but reality is, that not enough would choose to continue it because they are not being as partisan as the other side and its nominee. Third, they will have established this record and try to use it in the next election.
More important though, is that abolishing the filibuster will do too much to drive us to majority rule. That is a bigger point you saved for last. Decisions on the process, let alone legislation, should not be made based on the convenience of those with power. But wait till a third party tries to use it. Whoops. Maybe it would be worth having a third party, if it could contribute to the proper use of a dictionary without the shifting sands of political power.
Friday, September 06, 2002
Ashcroft Confirmed
[On bi-partisanship.]
(2-01-01)The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes to support a filibuster so why start one. There were enough votes that opposed Ashcroft to show that a filibuster was possible if the Democrats had been partisan. But a filibuster would have only drawn ire from the middle. Hopefully this is as Sen. Russell Feingold says, "an olive branch, not a white flag." Also I hope that when more important matters arise, that they will not fail to stand up for principles. Ashcroft has made some amazing statements contrary to previous actions so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.
(2-01-01)The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes to support a filibuster so why start one. There were enough votes that opposed Ashcroft to show that a filibuster was possible if the Democrats had been partisan. But a filibuster would have only drawn ire from the middle. Hopefully this is as Sen. Russell Feingold says, "an olive branch, not a white flag." Also I hope that when more important matters arise, that they will not fail to stand up for principles. Ashcroft has made some amazing statements contrary to previous actions so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.
Nader Stunned[While the selection of the President was what really cost Gore the election, Nader's voters and election violations were what allowed it turn on a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court. My criticism of Clinton in the following piece may be harsh and unjust, I really did understand much of his moderation, but would only lament that more progress on many issues was not achieved. In addition my intention was to blame him for the fact that Bush is what follows and progress will become regression.]
Dear Ralph Nader: (01-31-01)
In a brief recap online, of a USAToday article, I read that you were stunned by the backlash regarding your blame for costing Gore the election. While I have much more to say, I would just like to say that I am surprised that you are stunned. I would have expected that an intelligent person would have expected it.
Surely many of those who voted for you may never have voted anyway, or came from other than the two parties. However, given the closeness and irregularities of the election, I wonder if you really think that a small percentage of those, would not have voted for Gore and turned the election results around. There may be other possible rational for being stunned, and maybe further information will set me straight.
I am trying to figure out whether it was worth having a moderate like Clinton win the White House or go back to supporting Liberals whether they can make it or not. Judging by the actions of the new administration, we may soon wish Clinton had never been in, since so many of the things are only an extension of what Clinton allowed to happen, if not started himself. While I will probably continue to support progressive candidates, I am deeply concerned about the future and will look closely at those who are moderating their rhetoric as well as those who inflame.
It has been a little over a week, so it is too early to add up the pros and cons of the new administration. But it is not too late to keep score. My optimism leads me to try to take people and what they say at face value, but other traits will lead me to find the flaws. I will try to remain balanced and not refrain from contributing to anyone for the general good.
With hopes for our enlightenment,
Roger Larson
Dear Ralph Nader: (01-31-01)
In a brief recap online, of a USAToday article, I read that you were stunned by the backlash regarding your blame for costing Gore the election. While I have much more to say, I would just like to say that I am surprised that you are stunned. I would have expected that an intelligent person would have expected it.
Surely many of those who voted for you may never have voted anyway, or came from other than the two parties. However, given the closeness and irregularities of the election, I wonder if you really think that a small percentage of those, would not have voted for Gore and turned the election results around. There may be other possible rational for being stunned, and maybe further information will set me straight.
I am trying to figure out whether it was worth having a moderate like Clinton win the White House or go back to supporting Liberals whether they can make it or not. Judging by the actions of the new administration, we may soon wish Clinton had never been in, since so many of the things are only an extension of what Clinton allowed to happen, if not started himself. While I will probably continue to support progressive candidates, I am deeply concerned about the future and will look closely at those who are moderating their rhetoric as well as those who inflame.
It has been a little over a week, so it is too early to add up the pros and cons of the new administration. But it is not too late to keep score. My optimism leads me to try to take people and what they say at face value, but other traits will lead me to find the flaws. I will try to remain balanced and not refrain from contributing to anyone for the general good.
With hopes for our enlightenment,
Roger Larson
The Gore Exception; A Layman's Guide...
[Mark Levine provided a Q&A analysis of the selection of the President. Titled:
THE “GORE EXCEPTION”:A Layman's Guide To The Supreme Court Decision In Bush V. Gore
Having read the decision myself, I asked him the following question.]
> Is my logic correct that the only thing bipartisan was the dissent?
His reply: yes.
There was no 7-2 decision. That was the spin of the Five Lawless Justices.
Note that none of the four dissenters concurred in any part of the majority
decision. If the had, it would have written "concurring in part, dissenting
in part."
Don't be fooled.
[Link added 2-11-07 although originally an email and this reflects an exchange with it's author at the time]
THE “GORE EXCEPTION”:A Layman's Guide To The Supreme Court Decision In Bush V. Gore
Having read the decision myself, I asked him the following question.]
> Is my logic correct that the only thing bipartisan was the dissent?
His reply: yes.
There was no 7-2 decision. That was the spin of the Five Lawless Justices.
Note that none of the four dissenters concurred in any part of the majority
decision. If the had, it would have written "concurring in part, dissenting
in part."
Don't be fooled.
[Link added 2-11-07 although originally an email and this reflects an exchange with it's author at the time]
Complications:
[Prior to the selection of the President, I urged following the process. It should have ended up in the hands of the electorate, a political process, but endorsed by the constitution. Instead it ended at the hands of the Supreme Court,(a political process) with questions left unanswered as time ran out aided by the court itself. It was an exception to any court precedence].
Letters to the Editor: Seattle Post-Intelligencer November 21, 2000
COMPLICATIONS
Process may be slow but it must be allowed to play itself out
I certainly hope this country doesn't remain divided over this election. But what's wrong with standing up for what's right? Both sides can believe they're right, but they can't both have it their way. That is why we have a constitutional process that's more complicated than just deciding by the popular vote. It's what many have fought and died for.
It's not up to one side to declare a winner before the process has completed. It's the duty of both sides to see it's completed right. But what is right? It's better to make sure this is determined by the legal system than settle for unanswered questions.
It may even turn out that the process needs a correction. But by settling for less, we may never find out. Ending up in the highest court may answer questions about the process and point to problems in it, decades faster than going through the process of a constitutional amendment.
Court decisions may even allow the process to continue and not address the immediate questions. The ugly partisan process may still have to play itself out. But we should respect the process, regardless of who's right. Or many have died in vain.
Letters to the Editor: Seattle Post-Intelligencer November 21, 2000
COMPLICATIONS
Process may be slow but it must be allowed to play itself out
I certainly hope this country doesn't remain divided over this election. But what's wrong with standing up for what's right? Both sides can believe they're right, but they can't both have it their way. That is why we have a constitutional process that's more complicated than just deciding by the popular vote. It's what many have fought and died for.
It's not up to one side to declare a winner before the process has completed. It's the duty of both sides to see it's completed right. But what is right? It's better to make sure this is determined by the legal system than settle for unanswered questions.
It may even turn out that the process needs a correction. But by settling for less, we may never find out. Ending up in the highest court may answer questions about the process and point to problems in it, decades faster than going through the process of a constitutional amendment.
Court decisions may even allow the process to continue and not address the immediate questions. The ugly partisan process may still have to play itself out. But we should respect the process, regardless of who's right. Or many have died in vain.
Could now delete.
Disregard post of 9/5/02 10:27:28 PM. Unable to edit or remove. Link goes nowhere.
[2-10-07: title added as are all previous titles which have been added today.]
[2-10-07: title added as are all previous titles which have been added today.]
Thursday, September 05, 2002
I like MoveOn.org [a little history]
I like MoveOn.org
[This is a posting that I was unable to edit at the time they were made.
So the above now stands corrected: 2-10-07 ]
[And times have not changed as I can now add this link as well:
http://pol.moveon.org/filibusterad ]
[This is a posting that I was unable to edit at the time they were made.
So the above now stands corrected: 2-10-07 ]
[And times have not changed as I can now add this link as well:
http://pol.moveon.org/filibusterad ]
Litmus tests?
QCN: (Quick Comment on News) The Senate Judiciary Committee REJECTed the confirmation of Justice Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Is the charge that Democrats are using a litmus test on the Owen vote fair or accurate?
No!. It could just as well be a rejection of litmus-tested candidates.
To spin or unspin, oh what a web.
Is the charge that Democrats are using a litmus test on the Owen vote fair or accurate?
No!. It could just as well be a rejection of litmus-tested candidates.
To spin or unspin, oh what a web.
OPEN LETTER: Chatter
[SO MUCH FOR MY PLANS: This piece is sort of an anthology. It does include a letter from the day after the President was selected. So I am posting these in order of importance or as I can access or find them and grow in this process. ]
An open letter to President Bush: August 20, 2002
Whether this will get through the "noise" that you call your consulting advisors or the "chatter" that you call your intelligence information, I would like to let you know that America agrees with you on two things. As you so eloquently said in your September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." And more recently you said, "the end does not justify the means".
To help you sort through the dots here, this means that patriotic people of principle will never be swayed by the results, if improper means are used. We know there are more dots to connect and so many lines to read between, that it is often beyond our means to know what means you mean.
Beyond the ends and the means there are reasons, but like you I am optimistic. I am optimistic that your reasons will not be left in the shadows, despite your apparent attempts to leave them there. These are just two or three points that you must connect before we have many more dots to connect.
Sincerely and respectfully, Roger Larson
Previously sent:
Dear President-elect Bush and Vice-President Gore: December 14th, 2000
Congratulations. As a faithful Democrat I heard two wonderful speeches last night. I wish the best for both sides in working together. I must be an optimist too, since I have hope that good things can be accomplished for America. I will try to put the past behind us, but will watch for actions beyond the words. While it is wrong to disavow the more partisan of each side, it would be helpful to keep their rhetoric from spokesperson roles. But we must be both open and critical of all sides. As president-elect you have started out on the right foot. It is now time for you to move the left, both figuratively and politically and we may move forward as a body.
Roger Larson.
Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST
September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly
unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While
the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack
on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find
and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if
retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake
up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around the
world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since
collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation
that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the
same terrible deeds.
[9-13-01 REFLECTING ON A CHOICE OF WORDS]
I have read and re-read my words and have read or heard those of others and
have come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of
words. A response to this horrific act is of course needed, but
encouragement comes from the first steps taken to get the support of others
in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this
process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is
needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of
sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are
not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the
spiral of hate.
An open letter to President Bush: August 20, 2002
Whether this will get through the "noise" that you call your consulting advisors or the "chatter" that you call your intelligence information, I would like to let you know that America agrees with you on two things. As you so eloquently said in your September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." And more recently you said, "the end does not justify the means".
To help you sort through the dots here, this means that patriotic people of principle will never be swayed by the results, if improper means are used. We know there are more dots to connect and so many lines to read between, that it is often beyond our means to know what means you mean.
Beyond the ends and the means there are reasons, but like you I am optimistic. I am optimistic that your reasons will not be left in the shadows, despite your apparent attempts to leave them there. These are just two or three points that you must connect before we have many more dots to connect.
Sincerely and respectfully, Roger Larson
Previously sent:
Dear President-elect Bush and Vice-President Gore: December 14th, 2000
Congratulations. As a faithful Democrat I heard two wonderful speeches last night. I wish the best for both sides in working together. I must be an optimist too, since I have hope that good things can be accomplished for America. I will try to put the past behind us, but will watch for actions beyond the words. While it is wrong to disavow the more partisan of each side, it would be helpful to keep their rhetoric from spokesperson roles. But we must be both open and critical of all sides. As president-elect you have started out on the right foot. It is now time for you to move the left, both figuratively and politically and we may move forward as a body.
Roger Larson.
Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST
September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly
unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While
the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack
on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find
and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if
retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake
up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around the
world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since
collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation
that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the
same terrible deeds.
[9-13-01 REFLECTING ON A CHOICE OF WORDS]
I have read and re-read my words and have read or heard those of others and
have come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of
words. A response to this horrific act is of course needed, but
encouragement comes from the first steps taken to get the support of others
in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this
process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is
needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of
sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are
not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the
spiral of hate.
Page One
This will start with a backlog of earlier pieces. It may seem like connecting the dots only harder. I attempt to be brief and maybe too fearful of seeming condescending. Like a comedian, I will refrain from explaining my word selection, as that would disturb the literary flow, so I offer a word of caution. I may just be excusing lack of skill or logic, but unlike speaking to the choir, these were addressed to specific audiences or individuals and may have not been on target but hopefully hit them clearly. Contrary to the characteristic of blogs evolving, I will refrain from editing the early originals and only add commentary when necessary.
I offer this preface to alert you to read between the time-lines of my writing. (An example of my punditry or poor wordsmithing.) I have been told that I come across “odd”. I hope this process will allow me to evolve in that respect. I have tried my best to hit the nail on the head the first time.
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution: This really is Page One(September 5th 2002) and all pages are as dated unless* noted, although sometimes obtusely.
* These July 2002 posts are the exception or the rule that they are actually posted Ten Years After. i.e. 2012 ]
I offer this preface to alert you to read between the time-lines of my writing. (An example of my punditry or poor wordsmithing.) I have been told that I come across “odd”. I hope this process will allow me to evolve in that respect. I have tried my best to hit the nail on the head the first time.
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution: This really is Page One(September 5th 2002) and all pages are as dated unless* noted, although sometimes obtusely.
* These July 2002 posts are the exception or the rule that they are actually posted Ten Years After. i.e. 2012 ]
Thursday, July 25, 2002
(x) July 25th, 2012
First task(see reminder*): footnote b.s. (blog search)
1. Mitt's BO*Son
2. Bring It On!
"for goodness sake" " we are the RNC" on AM?
[bleepin'(or in-eFf-able) non-anachronistic tan(not so)gents]
3. Who Let the Dogs Out?
woof woof**
4. Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.
* anachronism to be noted
[post dated 7-25-12 (page x)]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
(apologies for the inserts, for Pete sake{a-f}.)
** {a-g} second apologies
[Not 2 pun on 4 moo lahs but... for goodness sake, won heckuva hint.]
1. Mitt's BO*Son
2. Bring It On!
"for goodness sake" " we are the RNC" on AM?
[bleepin'(or in-eFf-able) non-anachronistic tan(not so)gents]
3. Who Let the Dogs Out?
woof woof**
4. Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.
* anachronism to be noted
[post dated 7-25-12 (page x)]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
(apologies for the inserts, for Pete sake{a-f}.)
** {a-g} second apologies
[Not 2 pun on 4 moo lahs but... for goodness sake, won heckuva hint.]
Saturday, July 20, 2002
Thursday, July 18, 2002
Too Cubed =(viii)
[post dated 7-18-12 (page viii)]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
Or Low8US?
TamRon Hall took me on a Tan Gent or blame game myself.** (C- lede/segue above.)
Today's post merits some serious footnoting if not 4mat change.
verge :
CNBC :
Lean :
use :
Fauxword :
interesting :
how :
the :
words :
play :
out :
[AM OC "DNC Uses Dressage Horse to Hit Romney on Tax Returns." Hiding behind the
skirt :
far :
Not :
I :
was :
starting :
from :
there :
Oops :
maybe :
Here : TLR "enterpreneurs are special"
is where : NOW w/Alex Wagner 7-17
started : MSNBC Thomas Roberts Move-On Tricky Mitt 7-18
how : Ibid. Su-no-no Ron Reagan
far : NOW Sheriff Birther Joe
will : Ibid. Reid Congress Fiscal Cliff
See :Andrea Mitchel Fiscal Cliff Bernanke/Nunn
* correction
** Romney backs up under false flag[all's fair in love ad war?]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
Or Low8US?
TamRon Hall took me on a Tan Gent or blame game myself.** (C- lede/segue above.)
Today's post merits some serious footnoting if not 4mat change.
verge :
CNBC :
Lean :
use :
Fauxword :
interesting :
how :
the :
words :
play :
out :
[AM OC "DNC Uses Dressage Horse to Hit Romney on Tax Returns." Hiding behind the
skirt :
far :
Not :
I :
was :
starting :
from :
there :
Oops :
maybe :
Here : TLR "enterpreneurs are special"
is where : NOW w/Alex Wagner 7-17
started : MSNBC Thomas Roberts Move-On Tricky Mitt 7-18
how : Ibid. Su-no-no Ron Reagan
far : NOW Sheriff Birther Joe
will : Ibid. Reid Congress Fiscal Cliff
See :Andrea Mitchel Fiscal Cliff Bernanke/Nunn
* correction
** Romney backs up under false flag[all's fair in love ad war?]
Tuesday, July 16, 2002
Friday, July 12, 2002
i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy
[Post dated 7-12-12]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
Tetra Heed Run?
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
Tetra Heed Run?
Speaking of Tetras, not the fish.
(Not to mention NOW, "there, there". Romney Files.)
T for Bane or, E for Cain, Tr for Issa and A for Priebus?
i.e. Raw Money the 5th Elephant or L-lament?
Re: the Tetra Heed Ron, the I Ron Knee of the BOron or MoRon?
Ne BO*Son re:Biden
Re: Paragons v. Paragones
Re: Models v. Meta4s
(Not exactly) Re: Caricatures and Labels
Note that the third image is my original in[!]tent or rather Platonic Tetra Heed Run[!].
[!]= sarcasm/satire paragon/paragone thing
The top two tetrahedron are later labeling, but may also represent a die-caught-o'me,
Thursday, July 11, 2002
Wednesday, July 10, 2002
Lyin's and Tigers [(iv) bears]
Tuesday, July 09, 2002
B.S iii(point oh)?
page iii [POST DATED 7-9-12]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
Balanced Solutions ?
Not to triangle late, but I have yet to read these links!
Oops, lost the original intent of Roman Numerals or Pound Signs.
(from blog search to Balanced Solutions, things will change but here are the current links @ each)
bs-
A-T/U-2L
B.S.-
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
H...S,
cont.
T...W
X,Y
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
Balanced Solutions ?
Not to triangle late, but I have yet to read these links!
Oops, lost the original intent of Roman Numerals or Pound Signs.
(from blog search to Balanced Solutions, things will change but here are the current links @ each)
bs-
A-T/U-2L
B.S.-
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
H...S,
cont.
T...W
X,Y
Saturday, July 06, 2002
Roman (#)Numeral ii
page ii
[ACTUAL POST DATED:7-6-12]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ](*)
[ Seg Way ?]
Rough notes:
Rachell Maddow / Mitt Romney
Rupert Murdoc / Raw Money / Running From Raw Money
Freedom R*
www.ffrf.org**
Freedom from Reagan 4m
Freedom for Robbed Me?
Robert Langdon / De-Le-Roy code?
Bull in a China Shop
This is a Test………?
Hamm handed?
The Last Word
TQM? Taxing Question Mitt
Romney's Atax Dog?
BOA: Betting On America
*Free Riders
**credit to Norman Goldman***
*** not exactly a smooth aster risk, but Norman Goldman gives some insight into topic selection and so-called FOX News. Rupert Murdoc is a late link insert above, as I roll into MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell from Ed Seg!
(*)7-20-12 correction see * link
[ACTUAL POST DATED:7-6-12]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ](*)
[ Seg Way ?]
Rough notes:
Rachell Maddow / Mitt Romney
Rupert Murdoc / Raw Money / Running From Raw Money
Freedom R*
www.ffrf.org**
Freedom from Reagan 4m
Freedom for Robbed Me?
Robert Langdon / De-Le-Roy code?
Bull in a China Shop
This is a Test………?
Hamm handed?
The Last Word
TQM? Taxing Question Mitt
Romney's Atax Dog?
BOA: Betting On America
*Free Riders
**credit to Norman Goldman***
*** not exactly a smooth aster risk, but Norman Goldman gives some insight into topic selection and so-called FOX News. Rupert Murdoc is a late link insert above, as I roll into MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell from Ed Seg!
(*)7-20-12 correction see * link
Friday, July 05, 2002
ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ](*)
page i
[ACTUAL POST DATE 7-5-12]
(i) want to back this up.
Pardon the pun on Her-man, not to mention His-story.
QED? (not exactly)
A: Etch-A-Sketch 2.0
B: bs-Cain
C: bs-Cain+flop
D: bs-Romney
E: bs-her+story
(A throuh E are the scroll overs for this post.)
Back-up for 1,2,3
i.e. footnotes from QED up.
(From Etch-a-Sketch 2.0, I wish to back-up the links from the bottom up.)
I. "Strategy" bs Rosen ( a, b, c, d )
II. "attacks" bs vaccine ( a, b )
III. "vaccinating" Contempt for Courage
IV: "behind" bs zipper ( a, b )
V: "math" bs S.E. ( a, b, c, d , e, f, *)
VI: "due" bs Kant+Hegel ( a ** )
VII: "vu" bs die+manics ( a, b, )
* will not include search find for this post
[by George it works: a - f = 6 ***]
** does not include embedded bs (blog searches)
*** provided the al gore rythms hold
[Not to further parse the links but so far it holds 4gore = a - l]
(*) asterisk * updated
Saturday, December 23, 1995
At this point.
Saturday, December 02, 1995
C.P.U.
Citizens Progressives Untied [!]*
* Ctrl F WeGeBoard
(FP!)
1. Too Random...
2. Coin-age of the day. , Post-Pyth?
3. FP-3-14, Rat Races Van Mices?
4. Woh?
(*)
5. FP-4-13, Culture War.
Now WeGotEd!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But back to CPU or Mary Shelly!
Or who cast the first stein ?
* Ctrl F WeGeBoard
(FP!)
1. Too Random...
2. Coin-age of the day. , Post-Pyth?
3. FP-3-14, Rat Races Van Mices?
4. Woh?
(*)
5. FP-4-13, Culture War.
Now WeGotEd!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But back to CPU or Mary Shelly!
Or who cast the first stein ?
Tuesday, September 05, 1995
Hint:
under-6: at this time:
We have met the yogurt , Anachronism
OW:(subset[?]matrix) under this time,
We have met the yogurt
9-3-14
FP3 To Reads
August
Too Nuanced and
in draft
9-3A ATB in her story
9-3B Is F the AEF Re:Cycle?
We have met the yogurt , Anachronism
OW:(subset[?]matrix) under this time,
We have met the yogurt
9-3-14
FP3 To Reads
August
Too Nuanced and
in draft
9-3A ATB in her story
9-3B Is F the AEF Re:Cycle?
Friday, July 14, 1995
Sunday, July 02, 1995
Tuesday, February 21, 1995
MSM Bungler Alert
In-"F"able Fallout?
Vu due the meth.
Parlay vous Fudge eh ?
Chaize Knee ?
Jimmy Buffet ?
OK, I could not find the flippin' table image, and the fact that these appointments are embarrassing is not to be denied, but in reality it is like the half pipe or thin ice(or thick slush) of scoring? Do they take the best or ski cross figures? i.e. As I have calculated there are 115 career and 58 political ambassadors holding office. Which includes 36 career versus 40 political in the second term. That seems to mean that 79 "careers" and 18 "politicals" were at their posts in the first heat/term.
Chump Change
Le Stet et tu?
Stet Damnit! / "Adam Smith" ^^ / Herbert Spenser
This is a poematto, or pomato, not quite true, not quite F'onion.
Chutzpah Schlemazle, hasafah incorporated.
1 Luke 22
2 Scar Burrow(townhall)
3 Matthew 22
4 sovereign Tea(FB)
5 b.s. frack Charlotte 2012!, No Frackin' Way(B), No(ooo)(/\/), D, Tetra Heed Ron
6 ion Coordinary , A Tale of Two Manicheans. , New Page , Mawryuh! ,F'N HpyNYOTES , Rhetorical Been Laden[*] In-Chief , Literary Hero Passes , Bane(Or) Change(H) , Canard Lines(I)
7 Schlick
8 maze mace A. The Maze of Mace, Neo-Romulan or Anti-Uncle?, (C), C3-PO? , E, Fair and Balanced...(f), Parallel (Or Not So Pair o' Lax) Channels(G)
9 More or less (MW)bunk?
Saw Vern Tea and the Imacculate D... Oops Ten Eh scious Rhe.
"^^" Not of 1776 work or 9th Congressional
Stand Latin? Under 8G MM O'Reilly Beck ? [!]
[Note: Facetious Time Stamp 2014]
Stet Damnit! / "Adam Smith" ^^ / Herbert Spenser
This is a poematto, or pomato, not quite true, not quite F'onion.
Chutzpah Schlemazle, hasafah incorporated.
1 Luke 22
2 Scar Burrow(townhall)
3 Matthew 22
4 sovereign Tea(FB)
5 b.s. frack Charlotte 2012!, No Frackin' Way(B), No(ooo)(/\/), D, Tetra Heed Ron
6 ion Coordinary , A Tale of Two Manicheans. , New Page , Mawryuh! ,F'N HpyNYOTES , Rhetorical Been Laden[*] In-Chief , Literary Hero Passes , Bane(Or) Change(H) , Canard Lines(I)
7 Schlick
8 maze mace A. The Maze of Mace, Neo-Romulan or Anti-Uncle?, (C), C3-PO? , E, Fair and Balanced...(f), Parallel (Or Not So Pair o' Lax) Channels(G)
9 More or less (MW)bunk?
Saw Vern Tea and the Imacculate D... Oops Ten Eh scious Rhe.
"^^" Not of 1776 work or 9th Congressional
Stand Latin? Under 8G MM O'Reilly Beck ? [!]
[Note: Facetious Time Stamp 2014]
Saturday, February 18, 1995
ClimateMeme2
Joe Brewer
PlatipLus ?
10th man TV?
Jellin Yellin?
Why not a special prosecutor!
Pearlstein, Benghazi, Congress!
Laffer, Hoyle, Jenga!
[Note: Facetious Time Stamp 2014]
PlatipLus ?
10th man TV?
Jellin Yellin?
Why not a special prosecutor!
Pearlstein, Benghazi, Congress!
Laffer, Hoyle, Jenga!
[Note: Facetious Time Stamp 2014]
George Clue Knee
Friday, January 28, 1977
Post-Pyth?
Logical Positivism?
Chomsky's Poker?
Inspiration Hegel:
L P above? Vienna Circle another D?
The following are unread yet representative sources
L P, ironically LW, Pop/per*, Chomsky
(ironically or logically? v.c.? )
A. B. C. D?
Chomsky? Heirarchy? Parsing? Sch^ ?
Chomsky may be the point [!]
x, y, z ?
OW !
[Note: Facetious* Time Stamp 2014]
* [!] (~)
12-2-14
War on Hillary[!] A. The Un-Revolved(~) Thread B. AsIMovian Principles. C. (fp2)
Chomsky's Poker?
 |
| source of link needed arrow of time? |
Inspiration Hegel:
L P above? Vienna Circle another D?
The following are unread yet representative sources
L P, ironically LW, Pop/per*, Chomsky
(ironically or logically? v.c.? )
A. B. C. D?
Chomsky? Heirarchy? Parsing? Sch^ ?
Chomsky may be the point [!]
x, y, z ?
OW !
[Note: Facetious* Time Stamp 2014]
* [!] (~)
12-2-14
War on Hillary[!] A. The Un-Revolved(~) Thread B. AsIMovian Principles. C. (fp2)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)