"Colonel Kurtz" wrote in message
...

On 2-Aug-2010, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

I very much liked dumb and dumber, a moron is the current and 2
previous
administrations, but with the gross ignorance of the inhabitants of the
former U.S., racist has become nothing more than TV show gibberish.

Sorry, but Obama is incredibly smart. I know that must hurt you somehow.
Bush was a true idiot. Clinton was a consummate politician and a Rhodes
Scholar. The only thing that's gibberish on the subject of racism on TV
is

from the moron right-wingnuts.

Obama has the capability to learn, reason, deduct, but is way out of
league
in experience with anything but rah rah fraternity style promotion. I
almost
feel sorry for him, but not his blind followers. UNDERSTAND that I was not
a
sycophant for Mr. Magoo either, but the fact that the corrupt ruling
parties
gave the average schlub those two choices is alone grounds for serious
doubt
about the population's ability to think. Neither of these fools should
have
even been on the mock ballot.

You're wrong. Obama is an amazing intellect. Experience isn't the end all
and be all of being President. Bush was out of his league intellectually,
and he had very little experience.

The two party system works, mostly. It would be interesting to have a viable
third party, but so far nothing seems likely. Yes, both parties have corrupt
elements, but they are not in and of themselves corrupt.

As long as you suffer the right vs left vs republican vs democrat crap,
you
remain part of the problem. The corrupt political syndicates and their
lackeys WANT you to think that way to keep you from paying attention to
what
is going on, and what is right and wrong.

I'm only interested in a candidate who can actually make a difference,
including getting elected. McCain, in the last election, was not viable for
a host of reasons. Obama certainly isn't perfect, but there are very few who
qualify as perfect.

The only way to pay attention is to try and find as unbiased a source as
possible, and listen and evaluate all information sources (not necessarily
equally - it's called judgment, so comparing Faux to NPR isn't a reasonable
comparison). Who decides what's important? In some respects it's the media
(an entity mentioned in the Constitution), and in other respects it's one's
own due diligence.

They are doing it successfully, including getting entertainment TV (called
"news") to subscribe to their empty rhetoric.

Faux isn't news, although they would like you to believe they are. MSNBC is
mostly entertainment and what I would call insightful commentary with some
news mixed in. The major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) are trying to find a
balance between corporate interest, news, and entertainment - unsuccessfully
in my opinion). NPR is pretty balanced, but only part of the story. The
foreign press has advantages and disadvantages.