[Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers

Sun Sep 2 10:23:35 PDT 2012

I don't see much of a difference between this and not voting at all.

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> That would be true if those were our only two choices.  I don't know if any
> 3rd party candidates will make the ballot in Idaho, but you can always write
> somebody in.  I'm still thinking of writing in Ron Paul, since he's the only
> guy out there that even makes noise about this kind of stuff, but I'll also
> be looking into 3rd party candidates as well.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 09/02/2012 07:51 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> How can "Obama is just like all the other politicians" or "It doesn't
>> matter who is President since he has no control over the military" be
>> a reason for NOT voting for Obama rather than some other guy? You go
>> into a restaurant and there are two tables. The hostess asks you if
>> you want to sit in table A or table B. You say: "Well table A is just
>> like table B, so I don't want to sit there." Makes no sense.
>>
>> Of course, if both tables are equally bad you might not want to sit at
>> either. But in this case eventually you'll be sitting at one of the
>> tables. They are both the same in one respect (evil foreign policy)
>> but one is considerably better in another respect (one has an evil
>> domestic policy as well).
>>
>> I don't like the fact that my presidential choices are often choosing
>> between the lesser of two evils but given that this one is ...
>> Personally, I wouldn't be comforted by not voting, by saying "I'm not
>> the one who elected that guy," especially given that our country is
>> structured such that it doesn't matter who's in charge. There is
>> something wrong with the US foreign policy and like it or not we're
>> all implicated in that wrongness in some small way for letting it get
>> this bad.
>>
>> The big problem with our political system is that we want someone who
>> is perfect, no spots on their record. But no one who is an eligible
>> presidential candidate -- over 45 (practically speaking) and rich --
>> is going to be perfect. What we get are folks who look perfect because
>> they've been careful their whole lives to be deceptive and seem good,
>> and honest, and socially conscious while all the time being selfish,
>> and egotistical, and power hungry. A lot like divorce lawyers, so our
>> presidency is hardly the only part of our society where this
>> phenomenon exists.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm with Sunil on this topic.
>>>
>>> With Obama getting no traction on getting out of either front (Iraq or
>>> Afghanistan), with his willingness to go into Libya (at least with air
>>> support), with his inability to get Gitmo closed down and those
>>> incarcerated
>>> to stand a real trial, and with his willingness to run the
>>> assassination-by-drone program, I can come up with only two possible
>>> conclusions about Obama:
>>>
>>> 1.  Obama is just like any other politician, he jumped on the "change"
>>> bandwagon and has turned out to be cut from the same cloth as everyone
>>> else.
>>> He talks a good game, but has no intention of actually doing what he
>>> says.
>>> This is my basic assumption.  It's a horrible thing, especially since I
>>> fell
>>> for his "change" and "see, I'm not like Bush" lies.  But it's better than
>>> this possibility:
>>>
>>> 2.  The Office of the President has for all intents and purposes lost
>>> control of this nation's military.  Basically, those in control are so
>>> powerful that a sitting President will bow to their will despite their
>>> ideological differences.
>>>
>>> Let's hope it's only the first one.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/01/2012 05:59 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
>>>
>>> Joe,
>>>
>>> I agree with you on the first half of your argument. Given his
>>> willingness
>>> to cave in to the Republicans (well, is it caving, or does he believe in
>>> what he does?) as well as his willingness to put Social Security and
>>> Medicare on the table, I don't agree with the second half of your
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> But for me, by continuing the Bush foreign policy he forfeits my support,
>>> meaningless as that is. I think people who are against that foreign
>>> policy
>>> need to say "I will not vote for anyone who does this." Without that
>>> message, the policies will continue. I don't expect better from the
>>> Republicans on this point, but I do expect better from the guy who
>>> promised
>>> change. I think we are fools to reward him for spitting in our faces.
>>>
>>> And it's bigger than just the foreign policy issue. Cusack and Turley
>>> also
>>> talk about the meaning of the decision to let the torturers walk, and the
>>> assassination policy. The latter is an unconstitutional power grab. Bush
>>> went to town violating the Constitution, and Obama is doing the same. Do
>>> you
>>> think the next president will be any different? We're on the road to hell
>>> if
>>> we don't say 'No.'
>>>
>>> People who think the Constitution and it's balance of power and due
>>> process
>>> are important are not supporting those values if they vote for Obama.
>>>
>>> Sunil
>>>
>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:34:37 -0700
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>
>>>> My argument is more like this: Romney and Obama are the same when it
>>>> comes to foreign policy but Obama is better when it comes to the
>>>> policies within our borders. Joe
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
>>>> <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand a lot of people say that as they continue to support
>>>>> Obama,
>>>>> and
>>>>> this is ultimately their position:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'I don't care about atrocities he commits outside our borders, as long
>>>>> as I
>>>>> can support his policies within our borders.'
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't go along with that any more. I'm not pretending Romney will be
>>>>> any
>>>>> better on foreign policy, but he can't get much worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 14:52:54 -0700
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>>>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>>>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a tough decision. I agree with you that Obama was no better in
>>>>>> many respects than Bush, not wrt military involvement at least. But I
>>>>>> fear that if a Republican gets elected there will be a rollback of
>>>>>> abortion rights and other rights. Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
>>>>>> <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm about half way through this interview of Jonathan Turley by John
>>>>>>> Cusack,
>>>>>>> looking at Obama's repugnant foreign policy:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A s long as we support the people implementing these policies, they
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>> on. I'm not voting for Obama again, because of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: betsyd at turbonet.com
>>>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:57:13 -0700
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Betsy Dickow [mailto:betsyd at turbonet.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM
>>>>>>>> To: 'Joe Campbell'
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And most of the poor will be poor through not fault of their
>>>>>>>> own...how
>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>> people are working hard and often overtime at the University of
>>>>>>>> Idaho
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> not making ends meet...many many many. And here it's no different
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Wall Street corporate model...administrators win big and everyone
>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> peon, working for peanuts.
>>>>>>>> This is democracy? No, this is the will of a few billionaires and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Republican Party...Get your head out of the sand and stop thinking
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>> of party loyalty.
>>>>>>>> Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>>>>>>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:46 AM
>>>>>>>> To: lfalen
>>>>>>>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How is Ayn Rand's philosophy basically correct? Do you think the
>>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> lazy? Do you disagree that some people have a bad lot and without
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>> of outside assistance, they are unlikely to realize the American
>>>>>>>> dream?
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>> so, then Rand is just plain wrong. Tweaking her view to allow for
>>>>>>>> compassion
>>>>>>>> is in this case equivalent to rejecting her view. That is what
>>>>>>>> separates
>>>>>>>> Rand's philosophy from the kind of view that Brooks is suggesting.
>>>>>>>> Brooks'
>>>>>>>> offers a much better, more realistic take on humanity, as I see it.
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:18 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not a big fan of David Brooks, but this is not a bad article.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rice also. I have some problems with Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is
>>>>>>>> basicly
>>>>>>>> correct, but it need s to be tempered by some compassion, which she
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> lack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>>>> -----Original message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:51:28 -0700
>>>>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=ww
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> w.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1=34aeaaa2/80e4ddbc&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787508c_nyt5&ad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> =BOSW_120x60_June13_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ec
>>>>>>>>>> om%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> August 30, 2012
>>>>>>>>>> Party of Strivers By DAVID
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BROOKS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/c
>>>>>>>>>> olumnists/davidbrooks/index.html>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> America was built by materialistic and sometimes superficial
>>>>>>>>>> strivers. It was built by pioneers who voluntarily subjected
>>>>>>>>>> themselves to stone-age conditions on the frontier fired by
>>>>>>>>>> dreams
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> riches. It was built by immigrants who crammed themselves into
>>>>>>>>>> hellish tenements because they thought it would lead, for their
>>>>>>>>>> children, to big houses, big cars and big lives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> America has always been defined by this ferocious commercial
>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>> this zealotry for self-transformation, which leads its citizens
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> vacation less, work longer, consume more and invent more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many Americans, and many foreign observers, are ambivalent about
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> offended by this driving material ambition. Read "The Great
>>>>>>>>>> Gatsby."
>>>>>>>>>> Read D.H. Lawrence on Benjamin Franklin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But today's Republican Party unabashedly celebrates this ambition
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> definition of success. Speaker after speaker at the convention in
>>>>>>>>>> Tampa, Fla., celebrated the striver, who started small, struggled
>>>>>>>>>> hard, looked within and became wealthy. Speaker after speaker
>>>>>>>>>> argued
>>>>>>>>>> that this ideal of success is under assault by Democrats who look
>>>>>>>>>> down on strivers, who undermine self-reliance with government
>>>>>>>>>> dependency, who smother ambition under regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Republicans promised to get government out of the way. Reduce the
>>>>>>>>>> burden of debt. Offer Americans an open field and a fair chance
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> let their ambition run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you believe, as I do, that American institutions are hitting a
>>>>>>>>>> creaky middle age, then you have a lot of time for this argument.
>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>> you believe that there has been a hardening of the national
>>>>>>>>>> arteries
>>>>>>>>>> caused by a labyrinthine tax code, an unsustainable Medicare
>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>> and a suicidal addiction to deficits, then you appreciate this
>>>>>>>>>> streamlining agenda, even if you don't buy into the whole Ayn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the one hand, you see the Republicans taking the initiative,
>>>>>>>>>> offering rejuvenating reform. On the other hand, you see an
>>>>>>>>>> exhausted
>>>>>>>>>> Democratic Party, which says: We don't have an agenda, but we
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> don't like theirs. Given these options, the choice is pretty
>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in
>>>>>>>>>> Tampa.
>>>>>>>>>> It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after
>>>>>>>>>> speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was
>>>>>>>>>> almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism. There
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in which
>>>>>>>>>> individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> governing institutions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republicans strongly believe that individuals determine
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> own fates. In a Pew Research Center
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> poll<http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-sur
>>>>>>>>>> ges-in-bush-obama-years/>, for example, 57 percent of Republicans
>>>>>>>>>> believe people are poor because they don't work hard. Only 28
>>>>>>>>>> percent
>>>>>>>>>> believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their
>>>>>>>>>> control. These Republicans believe that if only government gets
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> of the way, then people's innate qualities will enable them to
>>>>>>>>>> flourish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But there's a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the
>>>>>>>>>> engineering major from Purdue or the business major from Arizona
>>>>>>>>>> State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to run
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> race. I don't see what the party is offering the waitress with
>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>> kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a
>>>>>>>>>> decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much more
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>> the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Government does not always undermine initiative. Some government
>>>>>>>>>> programs, like the G.I. Bill, inflame ambition. Others depress
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>> What matters is not whether a program is public or private but
>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on character.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republicans, who see every government program as a step
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the road to serfdom, are often blind to that. They celebrate the
>>>>>>>>>> race
>>>>>>>>>> to success but don't know how to give everyone access to that
>>>>>>>>>> race.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The wisest speech departed from the prevailing story line. It was
>>>>>>>>>> delivered by Condoleezza Rice. It echoed an older, less
>>>>>>>>>> libertarian
>>>>>>>>>> conservatism, which harkens back to Washington, Tocqueville and
>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln. The powerful words in her speech were not "I" and "me" -
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> heroic individual They were "we" and "us" - citizens who emerge
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> of and exist as participants in a great national project.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rice celebrated material striving but also larger national goals
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> the long national struggle to extend benefits and mobilize all
>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>> potential. She subtly emphasized how our individual destinies are
>>>>>>>>>> dependent upon the social fabric and upon public institutions
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> schools, just laws and our mission in the world. She put less
>>>>>>>>>> emphasis on commerce and more on citizenship.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republican Party may be able to perform useful tasks with
>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> current hyperindividualistic mentality. But its commercial soul
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> too narrow. It won't be a worthy governing party until it treads
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> course Lincoln trod: starting with individual ambition but
>>>>>>>>>> ascending
>>>>>>>>>> to a larger vision and creating a national environment that
>>>>>>>>>> arouses
>>>>>>>>>> ambition and nurtures success.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>>>>>>>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.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
>>> =======================================================
>
>