[Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy

Mon Oct 13 08:35:38 PDT 2008

Ms. Mix,

I wish this forum had a resident expert on logic to confirm this, but
I believe you just committed the fallacy of the ad populum, or appeal
to the people:

"Appeal to the People
"If you suggest too strongly that someone's claim or argument is
correct simply because it's what most everyone believes, then you've
committed the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you
suggest too strongly that someone's claim or argument is mistaken
simply because it's not what most everyone believes, then you've also
committed the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not
necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular
opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume
it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you're guilty of committing this
fallacy. It is also called mob appeal, appeal to the gallery, argument
from popularity, and argumentum ad populum. The 'too strongly' is
important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone
believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things
considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is
overestimated.

"Example:
"You should turn to channel 6. It's the most watched channel this year.
This is fallacious because of its implicitly accepting the
questionable premise that the most watched channel this year is, for
that reason alone, the best channel for you."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Appeal to the People

You have your authorities and I have mine — former US UN ambassador John Bolton:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/05/bolton-iran-strike-prudent/

I think he has a little more foreign policy experience than you.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 7:22 AM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
> 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. See Now