[Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Sun Oct 12 17:19:13 PDT 2008
Paul writes:
"I'm happy that Obama has some experience with Islam and Muslims." In addition, he argues that open discussion without conditions among those that disagree is generally desirable.
I can't agree strongly enough with the second sentiment. While discussion may not always lead to conflict resolution, having no discussion never does.
With regard to his first point:
I think it a very big mistake to think there is heterogeneity within the so-called Islamic community and within the so-called Christian Community.
There are two major Islamic sects between which there is very little harmony, theological or otherwise. In fact, active news readers will know that the division between the two sects is so great that it frequently provokes murderous acts and other atrocities.
According to The Encyclopedia of American Religion there are at least 280 identifiable Christian sects of some noteworthy size in the US each with significant but differing sub-sects. In addition, pick a major ethical issue -- abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, gun control, environmental stewardship, etc -- and it is easy to find major Christian sects on the opposite sides of the issue.
Nobody speaks for either the so-called Islamic community or so-called Christian community, and in reality rather than artificial semantic classification, there are no such communities. Things are far more complex ,and to some extent, much more fluid than that.
Discussion is very important. But it is important to know with whom you are having a discussion, who they may or may not represent, and what power or influence they may yield over those they may claim to represent. This is especially true on the national and international level.
W.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Rumelhart
To: No Weatherman
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy
I was planning on starting other issues threads, anyway. I guess I'd
like to start with the implication that simply sitting down to talk with
someone without preconditions is somehow the wrong thing to do. If we
don't start a dialogue, how are we supposed to get anywhere?
Diplomacy used to be this country's strong suit, before our current
President trashed out international reputation. Sit down, discuss, look
for points of potential compromise, stand firm on issues we have no room
for compromise on. It's an art that our country seems to have lost. We
have a lot more weapons in our arsenal than tanks and automatic rifles,
if we'd just use them.
Also, sitting down and discussing issues with bad people, even
terrorists, does not transfer those ideas automatically like some kind
of virus. Besides, today's terrorist is yesterday's CIA trainee. It's
a crazy world we live in, and uncompromising positions based on fear
doesn't serve us too well in it.
I'm happy that Obama has some experience with Islam and Muslims. He
might be able to get past this country's prejudices and find a solution
to Iraq that is workable for everyone. That is, if he doesn't get shot
because some idiot thinks he's an "Ayrab".
Paul
No Weatherman wrote:
> Paul:
>
> Don't be offended but I'd rather not participate in the economic part
> of the conversation because I don't believe any candidate can "fix"
> the economy and in the end both men offer loser plans.
>
> When you're ready, I'd like to address foreign policy and Barack
> Obama's willingness to sit down with rogue world leaders, without
> precoditions, like Iran's president who believes Israel should be
> "wiped off the map."
>
> The irony with this position is that while some of Obama's LOUD and
> dishonest supporters in this forum refuse to engage me at all, their
> homeboy Barack Obama wants to sit down with leaders of
> terrorist-sponsoring countries without any preconditions that would
> hold those countries responsible.
>
> I don't know the reason for Obama's naive approach to foreign policy
> but the best explanation for this policy is that Obama has spent a the
> vast majority of his adult life palling around with terrorists, both
> international and domestic, and so his foreign policy would be no
> different.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Right now, because the money has to come from somewhere and I'd rather it
>> not be on the backs of the middle class, I'd say I'm for shifting some of
>> the tax burden to the corporations instead. I wouldn't call it "penalizing"
>> them, but the money has to come from somewhere.
>>
>> Getting out of Iraq would also help the economy.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> No Weatherman wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies. My bad.
>>>
>>> So where are you on the issue?
>>>
>>> Penalize corporations or relieve their burden?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but the hell they do. I'm not saying that no corporations
>>>> should
>>>> make a profit. That would be silly. I'm saying that no _specific_
>>>> corporation has a right to a profit. They only have a right to be able
>>>> to
>>>> compete on a level playing field.
>>>> If Corporation X goes broke because Uncle Sam raised their taxes, then
>>>> Corporation Y (who has found a way to work a little leaner) will step in
>>>> and
>>>> take over their customers. Likewise, if Corporation X pulls up it's
>>>> stakes
>>>> in the US and moves it's headquarters to China, then Corporation Y might
>>>> just step up to the plate with a "made in America" ad campaign. It's not
>>>> like we're going to run every corporation into the ground because we're
>>>> raising taxes on them. Like you said, they'll just pass it on to the
>>>> customer anyway. But now said customer has a choice - should they spend
>>>> their extra paycheck money on shoes for the kids, or on a widget from
>>>> Company X?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> No Weatherman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Comrade Paul:
>>>>>
>>>>> Corporations absolutely have a right to make a profit and it's
>>>>> possible to tax them right out of existence or out of the country.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if they go broke or abandon the US, how where will the government
>>>>> get its tax revenues?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't we worry about where people are going to find their next meal
>>>>> before we worry about how corporations are supposed to make their
>>>>> profits?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you raise the gas prices, the transportation costs are sent on to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> consumer. If you raise the price of some component they need, the
>>>>>> costs
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> sent on to the consumer. If you raise the minimum wage, the costs are
>>>>>> sent
>>>>>> on to the consumer. What Obama wants to do is relieve some of the
>>>>>> burden
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the "consumer", by lowering their personal tax burden. With all these
>>>>>> costs
>>>>>> being passed on to them, lowering their tax burden might actually
>>>>>> convince
>>>>>> them that they can still buy their product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corporations don't have a right to make a profit. If economic times
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> tough, we should be focusing on the individual, not on how well Company
>>>>>> X
>>>>>> can sell widgets to people that probably don't even need them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a bunch of yahoos making more money than they know what to
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> with, why overly tax the person that's living on ramen noodles and
>>>>>> Koolaid?Why don't we worry about where people are going to find their
>>>>>> next meal
>>>>>> before we worry about how corporations are supposed to make their
>>>>>> profits?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my two cents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Weatherman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you raise taxes on corporations so that you can lower taxes for one
>>>>>>> sector of the population, how do you think those corporations will
>>>>>>> recover the money they lost by the tax increase?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THEY WILL RAISE PRICES ON THEIR PRODUCT TO RECOUP THEIR LOSSES.
>>>>>>> THEREFORE, ANY MONEY GAINED BY TAX RELIEF WILL BE LOST AT THE CHECKOUT
>>>>>>> STAND.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Punitive tax hikes on corporations do not take place in a black hole
>>>>>>> and neither does redistribution of wealth. These companies are in
>>>>>>> business to make money, not pay taxes, and they will make their
>>>>>>> profit, taxes or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is an attempt to get a discussion started on the issues instead
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> all the threads on who associates with who and who is encouraging the
>>>>>>>> most emotional responses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are links to the sections on the economy from the Democratic and
>>>>>>>> Republican candidates for office:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
>>>>>>>> Barack Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The biggest difference between the two, in my opinion, from my
>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>> is that John McCain is focusing on helping corporations through tax
>>>>>>>> breaks to help the economy whereas Barack Obama is focusing on tax
>>>>>>>> breaks for the middle class instead. Both plans have a lot of
>>>>>>>> provisions I like - both are looking at different ways that the
>>>>>>>> work/family balance can be strengthened, for example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a lot of information there to go through. Please let us know
>>>>>>>> your thoughts, so we can all become more educated on the candidates
>>>>>>>> positions. Also, if others want to tackle third-party positions on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> topics, please do. I'm not educated enough about them this time
>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>> to even know who they all are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> 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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081012/da0ffe21/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list