[Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 2 10:07:32 PDT 2012 

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
>> =======================================================

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list