[Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Wed Oct 15 12:07:51 PDT 2008
Working with the United Nations is "dangerous". Too many unsavory nations have veto power in the Security Council.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:07:09 -0700
To: No Weatherman no.weatherman at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy
> Well, I'm late for work, so I'll just say that characterizing diplomacy
> as "chit chatting" and assuming I think that Ahmadinejad is a
> trustworthy fellow is disingenuous. I love that word. I hate to broach
> this subject as well, since I'm pretty sure how well it will go down,
> but we can actually work with the United Nations and bring the
> diplomatic might of the rest of the world to bear as well.
>
> Paul
>
> No Weatherman wrote:
> > 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
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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