I am with you, Don ! Fascists of every kind is anathema. The whole point is learning along the way, between " Business & Economy " growth on one hand and " Social Justice " on the other.
Unfortunately, nations grow in a skewed manner along the Time scale. They'd see economy focus and business growth for, say, a decade or two ( or more ), before the social problems become acute enough for people to protest, create social upheavals in order to be merely heard, and the focus swings its way for a decade or two. It's the see - saw to progress, between wealth formation and social justice ! It requires our understanding ... polarisation between left and right ... why both are important, not inimical, for us to progress forward. On Jan 25, 2:28 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/SB1000142405274870456250457502215221707... > > 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-Hidequotedtext > >> > > > - > > >> > > - 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 > > athttp://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.
