I must say I'm disappointed with what appears to be the over-all contempt for the constitution and in particular the 1st amendment I see reflected here. The McCain/Feingold act was clearly unconstitutional from the get go. Obama found a way around the spirit of the bill by welshing on his first campaign promise to take public funds. Thing is there will always be a way around it. I don't get why so many people favor restricting free speech. The media outlets(yup, they're corps too) were given a pass and this worked out really well for Democrats considering the vast majority of journalists are left of center and show news favorable to their side and squelch news that's not.
Yes, some form of campaign finance reform is due but more care should be taken to see it doesn't violate the constitution. The extreme the other way is what is happening in Venezuela. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704562504575022152217076696.html It saddens me that many of you probably support this kind of fascist leadership just so long as that leadership is in favor of wealth redistribution. How can anyone like ANYTHING about this shameful thug Chavez? I just don't get it. He's running his country into the ground and blaming America and getting totally away with it. Tell me, which is better. Unrestricted free speech(barring the obligatory "Fire" in the theatre) or blatant suppression/forced control over the content of that speech? I'll take the first one. Every time. -Don On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:52 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > What's 'old' in this judicial decision is that it is vague enough for > none of us to know what it means, a typical legal trick to ensure work > for lawyers and law of no practical use to ordinary people. We don't > allow political advertising here (it probably offends the Queen or her > Corgis), but have party political broadcasts, so named to ensure we > can avoid them. This year we are going to be subject to our first > 'great leader debates' which we will probably watch because we are > gullible to new fashion. Our governments do engage in advertising by > other means and polls show we now have less faith in statistics > (originally meaning 'numbers of the State') than even our colonial and > European cousins. We are probably surprised, over here, that you > chaps have a Supreme Court, believing as we do that you have a more > effective and primitive form of law involving speed with pistols and > big sticks. We now have a Supreme Court, a body of privileged idiots > that, needless to say, replaced the previous and ancient body of > privileged idiots we cede such tedium to. It's first decision was to > stop the Office of Fair Trading acting against banks because they are > being unfair, presumably undermining any purpose of an Office of Fair > Trading. The judgement was apparently "technical". > > On 24 Jan, 09:46, fiddler <[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. >> >> I occasionally agree with limbaugh also, the problem is the delivery >> less than the message. Both are strictly partisan and ridiculously >> biased. >> >> > And then to suggest that the ignorant will be influenced even more >> > places the ‘blame’ on the victims rather than the perpetrators. >> >> Not at all, watch the polls jump and dive after each new round of >> attack ads airs to see the truth in the matter. >> >> > 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. >> >> You are reading far more into this than I can possibly argue with. >> fanaticized? I simply envision voters that know the difference between >> legislators and judges, or laws and bills, or elected officials and >> appointed, or... >> A sad number of voters do not understand the difference between ANY of >> these. >> >> > 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. >> >> Again, reading far more into this than I can respond to. I made a >> vague and rather open concept and you have now equated it with the >> worst possible interpretations. >> >> > 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. >> >> By "media elected" I was referring to the fact that immediately after >> his election to senate, reporters were proclaiming him to possibly be >> the next president, even a 2006 political science textbook discussed >> the fact that he had his eye on the presidency and had a campaign >> machine built. The media single handedly insured his election by >> burying interviews and segments that cast him in a negative light (his >> own remarks that cast him in that light, not the interviewers). >> >> > 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. >> >> Olberman has been a proponent of removing any restrictions on unions >> for as long as he's been a commentator, he received a partial win >> here. >> >> I have obviously stepped on your political toe here, but please don't >> take the habit of some others that enjoy telling people what they >> said, think, and intend in order to argue how wrong they are. >> >> I watch and listen to people across the political spectrum, most >> rarely "report" and instead proselytise whatever opinion they hold >> most dear, ad nauseum. >> >> On Jan 24, 12:53 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > 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. >> >> > 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? >> >> 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. >> >> > 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 - > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
