<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
I'm with Sunil on this topic.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Let's hope it's only the first one.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/01/2012 05:59 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:BAY155-W36E092A783B7CE4A6BAA63BDA40@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">
Joe,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.' <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Sunil<br>
<br>
<div>> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:34:37 -0700<br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a><br>
> CC: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> <br>
> My argument is more like this: Romney and Obama are the
same when it<br>
> comes to foreign policy but Obama is better when it comes
to the<br>
> policies within our borders. Joe<br>
> <br>
> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sunil Ramalingam<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com"><sunilramalingam@hotmail.com></a> wrote:<br>
> > Joe,<br>
> ><br>
> > I understand a lot of people say that as they
continue to support Obama, and<br>
> > this is ultimately their position:<br>
> ><br>
> > 'I don't care about atrocities he commits outside
our borders, as long as I<br>
> > can support his policies within our borders.'<br>
> ><br>
> > I can't go along with that any more. I'm not
pretending Romney will be any<br>
> > better on foreign policy, but he can't get much
worse.<br>
> ><br>
> > Sunil<br>
> ><br>
> >> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 14:52:54 -0700<br>
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers<br>
> >> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a><br>
> >> CC: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> It is a tough decision. I agree with you that
Obama was no better in<br>
> >> many respects than Bush, not wrt military
involvement at least. But I<br>
> >> fear that if a Republican gets elected there
will be a rollback of<br>
> >> abortion rights and other rights. Joe<br>
> >><br>
> >> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Sunil Ramalingam<br>
> >> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com"><sunilramalingam@hotmail.com></a> wrote:<br>
> >> > 'Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and
dumb...and cruel.'<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > I'm about half way through this interview
of Jonathan Turley by John<br>
> >> > Cusack,<br>
> >> > looking at Obama's repugnant foreign
policy:<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> ><br>
> >> >
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution">http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution</a><br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > A s long as we support the people
implementing these policies, they will<br>
> >> > go<br>
> >> > on. I'm not voting for Obama again, because
of this.<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > Sunil<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> >> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:betsyd@turbonet.com">betsyd@turbonet.com</a><br>
> >> >> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> >> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:57:13 -0700<br>
> >> >> Subject: [Vision2020] FW: Party of
Strivers<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
> >> >> From: Betsy Dickow
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:betsyd@turbonet.com">mailto:betsyd@turbonet.com</a>]<br>
> >> >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM<br>
> >> >> To: 'Joe Campbell'<br>
> >> >> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Party of
Strivers<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> And most of the poor will be poor
through not fault of their own...how<br>
> >> >> many<br>
> >> >> people are working hard and often
overtime at the University of Idaho<br>
> >> >> and<br>
> >> >> not making ends meet...many many many.
And here it's no different from<br>
> >> >> the<br>
> >> >> Wall Street corporate
model...administrators win big and everyone else<br>
> >> >> is<br>
> >> >> a<br>
> >> >> peon, working for peanuts.<br>
> >> >> This is democracy? No, this is the will
of a few billionaires and the<br>
> >> >> Republican Party...Get your head out of
the sand and stop thinking in<br>
> >> >> terms<br>
> >> >> of party loyalty.<br>
> >> >> Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and
dumb...and cruel.<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
> >> >> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> >> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a>]<br>
> >> >> On Behalf Of Joe Campbell<br>
> >> >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:46 AM<br>
> >> >> To: lfalen<br>
> >> >> Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Party of
Strivers<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> How is Ayn Rand's philosophy basically
correct? Do you think the poor<br>
> >> >> are<br>
> >> >> lazy? Do you disagree that some people
have a bad lot and without some<br>
> >> >> kind<br>
> >> >> of outside assistance, they are
unlikely to realize the American dream?<br>
> >> >> If<br>
> >> >> so, then Rand is just plain wrong.
Tweaking her view to allow for<br>
> >> >> compassion<br>
> >> >> is in this case equivalent to rejecting
her view. That is what<br>
> >> >> separates<br>
> >> >> Rand's philosophy from the kind of view
that Brooks is suggesting.<br>
> >> >> Brooks'<br>
> >> >> offers a much better, more realistic
take on humanity, as I see it. Joe<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:18 AM,
lfalen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com"><lfalen@turbonet.com></a> wrote:<br>
> >> >> > I am not a big fan of David
Brooks, but this is not a bad article. I<br>
> >> >> > like<br>
> >> >> Rice also. I have some problems with
Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is<br>
> >> >> basicly<br>
> >> >> correct, but it need s to be tempered
by some compassion, which she<br>
> >> >> seems<br>
> >> >> to<br>
> >> >> lack.<br>
> >> >> > Roger<br>
> >> >> > -----Original message-----<br>
> >> >> > From: Art Deco
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> >> > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:51:28
-0700<br>
> >> >> > To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> >> > Subject: [Vision2020] Party of
Strivers<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> >> [image: The New York Times]
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><http://www.nytimes.com/></a><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=ww">http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=ww</a><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >>
w.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >>
1=34aeaaa2/80e4ddbc&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787508c_nyt5&ad<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >>
=BOSW_120x60_June13_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ec<br>
> >> >> >>
om%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> ------------------------------<br>
> >> >> >> August 30, 2012<br>
> >> >> >> Party of Strivers By DAVID<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >>
BROOKS<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/c">http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/c</a><br>
> >> >> >>
olumnists/davidbrooks/index.html><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> America was built by
materialistic and sometimes superficial<br>
> >> >> >> strivers. It was built by
pioneers who voluntarily subjected<br>
> >> >> >> themselves to stone-age
conditions on the frontier fired by dreams<br>
> >> >> >> of<br>
> >> >> >> riches. It was built by
immigrants who crammed themselves into<br>
> >> >> >> hellish tenements because they
thought it would lead, for their<br>
> >> >> >> children, to big houses, big
cars and big lives.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> America has always been
defined by this ferocious commercial energy,<br>
> >> >> >> this zealotry for
self-transformation, which leads its citizens to<br>
> >> >> >> vacation less, work longer,
consume more and invent more.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> Many Americans, and many
foreign observers, are ambivalent about or<br>
> >> >> >> offended by this driving
material ambition. Read "The Great Gatsby."<br>
> >> >> >> Read D.H. Lawrence on Benjamin
Franklin.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> But today's Republican Party
unabashedly celebrates this ambition<br>
> >> >> >> and<br>
> >> >> >> definition of success. Speaker
after speaker at the convention in<br>
> >> >> >> Tampa, Fla., celebrated the
striver, who started small, struggled<br>
> >> >> >> hard, looked within and became
wealthy. Speaker after speaker argued<br>
> >> >> >> that this ideal of success is
under assault by Democrats who look<br>
> >> >> >> down on strivers, who
undermine self-reliance with government<br>
> >> >> >> dependency, who smother
ambition under regulations.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> Republicans promised to get
government out of the way. Reduce the<br>
> >> >> >> burden of debt. Offer
Americans an open field and a fair chance to<br>
> >> >> >> let their ambition run.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> If you believe, as I do, that
American institutions are hitting a<br>
> >> >> >> creaky middle age, then you
have a lot of time for this argument. If<br>
> >> >> >> you believe that there has
been a hardening of the national arteries<br>
> >> >> >> caused by a labyrinthine tax
code, an unsustainable Medicare program<br>
> >> >> >> and a suicidal addiction to
deficits, then you appreciate this<br>
> >> >> >> streamlining agenda, even if
you don't buy into the whole Ayn<br>
> >> >> Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> On the one hand, you see the
Republicans taking the initiative,<br>
> >> >> >> offering rejuvenating reform.
On the other hand, you see an<br>
> >> >> >> exhausted<br>
> >> >> >> Democratic Party, which says:
We don't have an agenda, but we really<br>
> >> >> >> don't like theirs. Given these
options, the choice is pretty clear.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> But there is a flaw in the
vision the Republicans offered in Tampa.<br>
> >> >> >> It is contained in its rampant
hyperindividualism. Speaker after<br>
> >> >> >> speaker celebrated the
solitary and heroic individual. There was<br>
> >> >> >> almost no talk of community
and compassionate conservatism. There<br>
> >> >> >> was<br>
> >> >> >> certainly no conservatism as
Edmund Burke understood it, in which<br>
> >> >> >> individuals are embedded in
webs of customs, traditions, habits and<br>
> >> >> governing institutions.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> Today's Republicans strongly
believe that individuals determine<br>
> >> >> >> their<br>
> >> >> >> own fates. In a Pew Research
Center<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >>
poll<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-sur">http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-sur</a><br>
> >> >> >> ges-in-bush-obama-years/>,
for example, 57 percent of Republicans<br>
> >> >> >> believe people are poor
because they don't work hard. Only 28<br>
> >> >> >> percent<br>
> >> >> >> believe people are poor
because of circumstances beyond their<br>
> >> >> >> control. These Republicans
believe that if only government gets out<br>
> >> >> >> of the way, then people's
innate qualities will enable them to<br>
> >> >> >> flourish.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> But there's a problem. I see
what the G.O.P. is offering the<br>
> >> >> >> engineering major from Purdue
or the business major from Arizona<br>
> >> >> >> State. The party is offering
skilled people the freedom to run their<br>
> >> >> >> race. I don't see what the
party is offering the waitress with two<br>
> >> >> >> kids, or the warehouse worker
whose wages have stagnated for a<br>
> >> >> >> decade, or the factory worker
whose skills are now obsolete.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> The fact is our destinies are
shaped by social forces much more than<br>
> >> >> >> the current G.O.P. is willing
to admit. The skills that enable<br>
> >> >> >> people<br>
> >> >> >> to flourish are not innate but
constructed by circumstances.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> Government does not always
undermine initiative. Some government<br>
> >> >> >> programs, like the G.I. Bill,
inflame ambition. Others depress it.<br>
> >> >> >> What matters is not whether a
program is public or private but its<br>
> >> >> >> effect<br>
> >> >> on character.<br>
> >> >> >> Today's Republicans, who see
every government program as a step on<br>
> >> >> >> the road to serfdom, are often
blind to that. They celebrate the<br>
> >> >> >> race<br>
> >> >> >> to success but don't know how
to give everyone access to that race.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> The wisest speech departed
from the prevailing story line. It was<br>
> >> >> >> delivered by Condoleezza Rice.
It echoed an older, less libertarian<br>
> >> >> >> conservatism, which harkens
back to Washington, Tocqueville and<br>
> >> >> >> Lincoln. The powerful words in
her speech were not "I" and "me" -<br>
> >> >> >> the<br>
> >> >> >> heroic individual They were
"we" and "us" - citizens who emerge out<br>
> >> >> >> of and exist as participants
in a great national project.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> Rice celebrated material
striving but also larger national goals -<br>
> >> >> >> the long national struggle to
extend benefits and mobilize all human<br>
> >> >> >> potential. She subtly
emphasized how our individual destinies are<br>
> >> >> >> dependent upon the social
fabric and upon public institutions like<br>
> >> >> >> schools, just laws and our
mission in the world. She put less<br>
> >> >> >> emphasis on commerce and more
on citizenship.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> Today's Republican Party may
be able to perform useful tasks with<br>
> >> >> >> its<br>
> >> >> >> current hyperindividualistic
mentality. But its commercial soul is<br>
> >> >> >> too narrow. It won't be a
worthy governing party until it treads the<br>
> >> >> >> course Lincoln trod: starting
with individual ambition but ascending<br>
> >> >> >> to a larger vision and
creating a national environment that arouses<br>
> >> >> >> ambition and nurtures success.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> --<br>
> >> >> >> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br>
> >> >> >> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> >
=======================================================<br>
> >> >> > List services made available by
First Step Internet, serving the<br>
> >> >> > communities of the Palouse since
1994.<br>
> >> >> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> >> >> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> >> >
=======================================================<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >>
=======================================================<br>
> >> >> List services made available by First
Step Internet, serving the<br>
> >> >> communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> >> >> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> >> >> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> >>
=======================================================<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >>
=======================================================<br>
> >> >> List services made available by First
Step Internet,<br>
> >> >> serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994.<br>
> >> >> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> >> >> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> >>
=======================================================<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> >
=======================================================<br>
> >> > List services made available by First Step
Internet,<br>
> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994.<br>
> >> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> >> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> >
=======================================================<br>
> ><br>
> >
=======================================================<br>
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >
=======================================================<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>