[Vision2020] Fred Thompson, Bloomberg, Gore For President 2008?
Saundra Lund
sslund at roadrunner.com
Mon Jun 25 13:16:06 PDT 2007
In part, Pat Kraut wrote:
"Who else ownes a company wherein you can 'buy' carbon offsets??"
What are you talking about???
In under a 30 seconds, I found:
http://terrapass.com (for profit)
http://carbonfund.org/ (non-profit)
http://www.driveneutral.org/ (non-profit)
www.buycarbon.org/
I don't see that Al Gore owns *any* of those.
Am I missing your point, or did you just ill-advisedly think this was
another opportunity for you to bash those with whom you disagree?
Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke
***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of pkraut at moscow.com
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:22 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fred Thompson, Bloomberg, Gore For President 2008?
I do not believe Gore is honest he is just promoting his movie and his
companies with his agenda. Who else ownes a company wherein you can 'buy'
carbon offsets?? He is driving the need/desire for them and he makes the
money. His movie is not correct nor is his agenda and his life style is
not in agreement with his own agenda. BUT, he wants to make sure that all
the little people drive less, eat less and use less stuff. He is an
arrogant jerk!
> Gore would be better than Hilary Clinton, because I think he is at least
honest. Hilary is
corrupt. I think a woman president would be great, just not Hilary. I
don't think it would
be good to have a lot of deferent parties. One or two more strong parties
would probably
be good. I would like to see the Libertarian party stronger and possibly
one other party.
If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes there should be a
run off. between
the top two.
>
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:25:37 -0700
> To: "Paul Rumelhart" godshatter at yahoo.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Fred Thompson, Bloomberg, Gore For President 2008?
>
> > Paul et. al.
> >
> > Yes, first electing significant numbers of senators and
representatives to
> > the US Congress in alternative parties is clearly the way to go if an
> > alternative party is ever to have a chance at the presidency. I find
it
> > amazing that here in the land of individualism (or so we think),
> > competition, and freedom of choice and lifestyle, that only two
political
> > parties dominate our federal government. This is like letting two oil
> > corporations dominate the oil business, and expecting them to not take
> > corrupting advantage of their duopoly.
> >
> > Your comments on republicans voting for Hillary in the democratic
primaries
> > in order to guarantee they run against her, reminds me of the
republican
> > funded ad campaigns for Nader in 2000. I'm not sure that either
republicans
> > or democrats could dominate the primaries of their opposition parties
enough
> > to pull off the scenario you suggest. Maybe if the vote was close.
> >
> > Former Tennessee Senator and Hollywood actor Fred Thompson may end up
being
> > the republican nominee, given the current weak republican field,
assuming he
> > announces his bid, which is expected. This is hot news in political
> > circles. And some still speculate that former Tennessee Senator Al
Gore may
> > run again... We could see two former Tennessee Senators, Thompson &
Gore,
> > battle, both with a Hollywood aura, now that Gore is a "movie star"
after
> > "Inconvenient Truth." I would rather see Gore as the democratic
nominee
> > than H. Clinton, and I think he has more of a chance than Clinton, who
seems
> > to inspire considerable opposition among some voting blocks, though
Gore
> > does also. I don't think the US is ready for a women president. Too
much
> > macho sexism still prevalent...
> >
> > A huge development would be the entrance of New York Mayor Bloomberg, a
> > billionaire who could fund his own campaign in a third party. He has
> > recently switched his party registration to independent, and some
insiders
> > are claiming Bloomberg has signaled he will run for president. I
think he
> > appeals to "both sides" a bit more than Ron Paul would, so I am not
sure how
> > he would tilt the election, but some think Bloomberg would be more of
a draw
> > for the democratic slanted independent vote, thus possibly being a
spoiler,
> > putting a republican in the White House, as Perot was a spoiler in
1996,
> > assuring the democrats the White House.
> >
> > To see the election cycle for the 2008 presidential race in full swing
so
> > early is a bit ridiculous, but the 24/7 news cycle of CNN, MSNBC, and
FOX
> > news milks this for all its worth.
> >
> > All the current official candidates may be history by the time of the
> > election... We could see a Thompson/Gore/Bloomberg battle.
> >
> > Ted Moffett
> >
> >
> > On 6/20/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > You're probably very right that Ron Paul would never win.
> > >
> > > I, also, wish that we had more than the two too-similar parties that
had
> > > any impact in politics in this country. I think that has to start
from the
> > > bottom and then filter to the top. The Presidential race is too
corporate,
> > > it will take a large number of non-democrat non-republican members
of the
> > > Senate and House for that to happen. That would take a large number
of the
> > > same at the State level, and so on down to the city level.
> > >
> > > What I was trying to avoid by choosing a candidate that can be
reached out
> > > to is the following:
> > >
> > > Republicans vote in the democratic primaries to swing the vote to
Hilary
> > > Clinton, which many people hate with an irrational passion. The
same thing
> > > happens in reverse, giving the republican party their worse
candidate (I'm
> > > not sure who that is right at the moment). Then we have a split
country
> > > again that is severely polarized. If the other party takes the
House and/or
> > > Senate, then nothing goes through. If they get a majority in both,
then
> > > they can ram whatever they want down our throats.
> > >
> > > So, my idea is this. If the democrats can propose a candidate that
can
> > > get a significant portion of the republican vote, or if the
republicans can
> > > propose a candidate that can get a significant portion of the
democratic
> > > vote, then we've in effect bridged that divide. I'd rather go with a
> > > candidate that I'm opposed to on some issues than get this country
back into
> > > a situation where one party can rule everything, and Americans are
at each
> > > other's throats all the time. Also, the people that jumped the
aisle when
> > > they voted might be more inclined not to vote the party ticket next
time and
> > > might actually give third-party candidates more than a disdainful
glance.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Ted Moffett wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul et. al.
> > >
> > > Ron Paul will never get the Republican nomination. If he wants to
offer
> > > voters an option, he should run in another party. Otherwise he will
just be
> > > a Republican version of Kucinich, someone who gets media time and
has a
> > > large following, who speaks his mind a bit more bluntly than the
other
> > > candidates in part because he has no chance anyway and can thus
offend
> > > without worry of alienating critical voting blocks.
> > >
> > > If Ron Paul ran in another political party, he could split the more
> > > "conservative" vote, giving the democratic candidate a huge
advantage, like
> > > Perot in 1996. He would not win the presidency. Various "powers
that be"
> > > with the deepest pockets, which after all is what wins presidential
> > > elections in the current system, would go after Ron Paul with a
vengeance.
> > >
> > > As far as a candidate that "both sides" can reach out to, this very
way of
> > > thinking is part of the reason democracy is the USA is sadly
limited. Look
> > > at some of the other democratic governments today and witness the
diversity
> > > of political parties in their nations. I want far more diversity
that an
> > > almost entirely republican/democrat controlled US Congress and
executive.
> > > I'd love to see the US Congress be 10 percent Libertarian/Free
Market, 10
> > > percent Green Party, 10 percent Christian Fundamentalist (let them
call
> > > themselves what they are when they control our nation in the name of
their
> > > religion), 10 percent Socialist, 10 percent Atheist, 10 percent
Gaiaist
> > > (more spiritual version of the Green Party), 10 percent Agaiaist (my
new
> > > word, similar to "Atheist," for those heretical deniers of the true
faith of
> > > Goddess Earth Worship that is the only path to humanity's
salvation!), then
> > > maybe those arrogant democrats and republicans that have a
stranglehold over
> > > politics in the USA can fight over what is left.
> > >
> > > Both sides? Why not 9 sides as I listed above?
> > >
> > > Ted Moffett, trying to think "outside the box," which seems to
enclose
> > > thought no matter how I think.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/18/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In an effort to switch topics, I'd like to pose the following
question:
> > > >
> > > > What are people's thoughts on Ron Paul (Republican candidate for
> > > > President)?
> > > >
> > > > I'll start it off by saying that I'm on the lookout for candidates
that
> > > > might be somewhat palatable to both sides who don't care to
establish
> > > > more Presidential power or remove any more of my civil liberties,
or
> > > > force us to go to war with any other countries unjustifiably. I
fear
> > > > that Hilary Clinton will prove to be a rallying point for
Republicans to
> > > > react against. I'd be willing to switch my vote from my usual
vote for
> > > > Democrats or Independents if it means stopping the kind of trouble
we're
> > > > in the midst of now.
> > > >
> > > > As for Ron Paul himself, I really like his stance on civil
liberties. I
> > > > also like many of his Libertarian positions, but not all of them.
I
> > > > like that he voted against the Patriot Act, and that he voted
against
> > > > the war in Iraq. I don't like his isolationist tendencies, or his
> > > > willingness to fence off Mexico. I like that he wants to place
more
> > > > decisions in the hands of the individual states, even though I'm
in the
> > > > minority in Idaho. He seems to be very principled, and doesn't
seem to
> > > > be in any corporations pocket. I especially like that he
sponsored a
> > > > bill to have Congress declare an actual war in Iraq, although he
stated
> > > > he wouldn't vote for it. He wanted a real declaration of war if
we were
> > > > going to war, not some Presidential power play.
> > > >
> > > > As for his most famous recent stance, I think he is right that our
> > > > actions in the past have caused a situation where we have made
ourselves
> > > > a target. The concept of "blowback" is very real. Our removal of
a
> > > > democratically-elected leader in Iran to be replaced by the Shah
and the
> > > >
> > > > Iran-Contra affair haven't helped. Training Osama Bin-Laden how to
> > > > fight was probably not such a bright idea, either. I'm not saying
that
> > > > we're to blame for 9/11, just that we may share in the blame in a
small
> > > > way through bad diplomatic or political decisions - and that we
should
> > > > take that into account when making more such decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, enough of my opinions. What does everyone else think? Is
this
> > > > a candidate that can be reached out to by both sides? If not,
then who?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =======================================================
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > =======================================================
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.com/
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list