Perhaps fid can even administer a PIT too? (Political Intelligence Test) On Jan 24, 1:14 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > If I was an oligarch and, surely, there's more than one out there, I > would be preparing the blueprint for taking away control and > possession of more and more of resources spent by the government ... > and, through that, all the political and executive decisions as well. > Much can be done in this 5 - year period and a lot, lot more in the > next five ! > > I believe, the five who voted in favour ought to be back - checked > ( ! ) ... and cases of vested motives studied, pursued and brought to > public domain. Since Obama is on record on this, he might as well > offer an opportunity of achieving fame to his favourite lawyer firm, > making their refusal public before settling on the one that is in the > mould of one of us ! > > On Jan 24, 1:53 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Fid, normally you at least remain consistent. Here you relegate the > > video words to the waste-bin and then agree with his main point. > > Sadly, you follow this with the clearly inaccurate implied correlation > > between corporate influence and union influence. This type of media > > meme is all too often parroted and all too seldom examined. > > > And then to suggest that the ignorant will be influenced even more > > places the ‘blame’ on the victims rather than the perpetrators. > > Perhaps your fanaticized ‘political intelligence test’ for voting will > > include some sort of ethos testing for those who rule on the law, buy > > both the media and politicians as well as the politicians themselves… > > for clearly the ignorant (read: stupid) at least have an innate > > ‘excuse’…the others, well, I’ll leave it to you to create the test. > > However, surely it would include the need for an IQ above 120, right? > > Perhaps even a religious test…all theists being excluded. Am I getting > > warm? > > > It would be interesting to learn how you would place the 170,000,000 > > or so currently registered voters so that they could ‘earn’ the right > > to vote too…perhaps in the military? Perhaps handing out political > > handbills? Perhaps paging for congress? I’m sure we could repopulate > > our National Guard to some extent too. Last decade W could have had a > > lot of brush cleared. Of course, there would have to be exemptions for > > the wealthy and influential. > > > As to the media having finally ‘elected’ a president by which we all > > ‘suffered’, I wonder what happened to the money that has been spent on > > the media by political parties for countless decades now. As far as I > > know, commercials are nothing new and IF they weren’t effective, > > wouldn’t cost so much. Evidence suggests this truth. Evidence also > > suggests that ‘bribes’ are nothing new either. Oh, and political > > editorials by the different forms of media, while deceptively shrouded > > in apparent objectivity in the past, have existed for, well, perhaps > > almost as long as the country has. > > > The only ‘new’ thing here is the stripping away of any limit of monies > > corporations can spend on elections…something that you at least agree > > is ‘terrible’ and will have a ‘serious detrimental effect’ on the US. > > Perhaps Keith wasn’t so off base after all. Perhaps as he suggests > > Rush and his ilk haven’t quite grasped the consequences yet either. > > > On Jan 23, 11:59 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Anything said by Olberman can be safely relegated to the waste-bin > > > along with Limbaugh's comments, both are shills that refuse to see any > > > point but that of the most far removed from centre in their respective > > > directions. > > > > Sadly, I do feel that this decision is terrible and will have a > > > serious detrimental effect on America. With corporations having no > > > restrictions on truth,lies, or spending for the republicans and unions > > > having no restrictions on these either for the democrats... > > > As so many in this nation keep themselves utterly ignorant of issues, > > > politicians, and science they will be influenced to a degree even > > > worse than they have been. > > > > I have long been a proponent of some form of political intelligence > > > test for voting, or perhaps "earning" the right to vote by service. > > > This would be the only way to insure an intelligent and reality based > > > elections process in a nation where both the left and right have so > > > much mental sway. We have just suffered the first election of a > > > president by the media alone, and now all that will matter is who buys > > > (bribes) the most broadcasters and buys the most commercial time in > > > election years. > > > > On Jan 23, 10:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > While a bit on the hyperbolic side, this video of a special comment by > > > > Keith Olbermann on this week’s US Supreme Court decision points out > > > > much that quite logically follows from said legal decision. Perhaps > > > > those who appreciate democracy have a comment?...or even those who > > > > don’t appreciate it?... > > > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/34985508#34985508-Hidequoted text > > > >- > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
