[Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy
keely emerinemix
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Mon Oct 13 08:22:01 PDT 2008
And, Paul, please explain why five former Secretaries of State, three of them Republicans, would have the gall to disagree with our Weatherman.
Keely
http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:58:50 -0800
> From: no.weatherman at gmail.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy
>
> Paul:
>
> Please tell us why you think chit chatting with Ahmadinejad could
> possibly accomplish anything and tell us why you think he's a
> trustworthy fellow.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Correction. There's only one way to deal with them if that's the only
> > option you leave open for yourself. If you can save the lives of who knows
> > how many US troops and innocent Irani civilians through negotiations, why
> > not try? That's assuming our fears of their having nuclear weapons are
> > indeed well-founded, and their threats of attacking another sovereign nation
> > are real and imminent.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > No Weatherman wrote:
> >>
> >> It's not unreasonable to require a terrorist state that is armed to
> >> the teeth to take a sedative before discussions.
> >>
> >> It is completely absurd to ask a global leader to abandon its foreign
> >> policy as well as its international friends before discussions begin.
> >>
> >> Ahmadinejad is a lunatic who should not be allowed to host nukes. Iran
> >> would destroy Israel as fast as they'd hang a homosexual.
> >>
> >> There's only one way to deal effectively with terrorist leaders. It's
> >> not pleasant and the world community will frown on it but in the end
> >> terrorists understand only one kind of language — physical violence.
> >>
> >> The Neville Chamberlains and Barack Obamas of the world think they can
> >> reason with terrorists, but they cannot. Having tea with Adolf or
> >> talking shop with Ahmadinejad will only prolong the inevitable.
> >>
> >> The minute someone threatens to take another person's life, whether
> >> individually or nationally, all negotiations should cease and
> >> reasonable people must begin contemplating the very thing that Neville
> >> and Barack think they can avoid.
> >>
> >> Sooner or later someone is going to have to make the decision to take
> >> out Iran's nukes. It will probably be Israel, like they took out
> >> Iraq's in 81, and I hope they have the complete support of the US.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Iran is doing the exact same thing Bush is. They are attempting to get
> >>> the
> >>> other party to commit to exactly the outcome they want from the talks
> >>> before
> >>> they begin. It's the perfect way to look like you want to negotiate when
> >>> what you really want is your way or the highway.
> >>>
> >>> The fact that we do the same thing embarrasses me. This is not "higher
> >>> standards", it's on the level of what third-graders would do.
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> No Weatherman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just when I thought we had the fixin's for an interesting subject to
> >>>> discuss, Iran had to go and set two preconditions before they'd meet
> >>>> with the US:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/10/13/iran-refuses-meet-us-without-preconditions
> >>>>
> >>>> IOW, the president of a terrorist state has higher standards for
> >>>> negotiation than Barack Obama.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/12/08, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>> img20081013055300181communities 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
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> =======================================================
> >> 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
> =======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081013/1e85ea83/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list