Comments on: Improvisational Blogging

By: PJ

PJ — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:20:04 +0000

I’ll make this easy. (Although Antonio beat me to the punch, these could be combined quite well if you put your mind to it and are so inclined).

The Problem of the Working Poor:

(1) robber barons
(2) the productivity wedge
(3) debt
(4) Scandanavia
(5) zombie on methamphetamine

Not necessarily in that order, but the html link is included.

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:06:22 +0000

Scott has added:

“callipygian”
“beyond cavil”
“breed discontent”
“Hamiltonian brilliance”
“six-shooter”

So The Commerce Clause will be my next post.

Then I’ll get to The Problem of the Working Poor for Antonio.

Tomorrow.

By: Antonio

Antonio — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:14:50 +0000

The Problem of the Working Poor (Fox News Edition)

“pull yourself up by the bootstraps”; “economic expansion in the service sector”; “a symbolic border wall is the best solution”; “I agree wholeheartedly with Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan”

For an added degree of difficulty, you should try the old job interview trick of not using any negative/negating words.

By: Jigmeister

Jigmeister — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:48:00 +0000

Windy,
I didn’t either. Mark, carnal will get you lots of hits.

By: Windypundit

Windypundit — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:42:42 +0000

I don’t know what “Lanyard Nation” means, but when I Google it, Defending People is already the #6 Google search result, so I say go for it.

Please try to work in the verb “stomp,” the adjectives “carnal” and “corpulent,” and the phrase “zombie on crack.”

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:30:49 +0000

SHG, that’s too easy. Give me three or four more words or phrases.

Jigmeister, of course. Look at the context: the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth aren’t talking about individual rights either. Why would the founders have stuck an individual right in among all of these corporate rights?

By: Jigmeister

Jigmeister — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:10:09 +0000

Of course it’s not an individual right. For the Supreme Court to rule otherwise would ignor the plain reading of the 2nd amendment and due injustice to the notion of stare decisis.

By: shg

shg — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:42:44 +0000

The Commerce Clause

“the commerce clause cannot be read too broadly to satisfy me…”