[Vision2020] Presidential Popularity
rhayes at frontier.com
rhayes at frontier.com
Thu Jul 3 08:38:03 PDT 2014
Bush earned his unpopularity all on his own. "Good Job Brownie." "Remember, this is the guy who tried to kill my father." "Mission accomplished." "WMD!!!" These among many other very destructive and nation destroying things.
Obama is earning his unpopularity through the ceaseless efforts of Limbaugh, Fox, Kochs, Hanity and the Tea Baggers, just to name a few.
________________________________
From: "vision2020-request at moscow.com" <vision2020-request at moscow.com>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 2:35 PM
Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 97, Issue 38
Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
vision2020 at moscow.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
vision2020-request at moscow.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
vision2020-owner at moscow.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Kind of says it all............. (thansen at moscow.com)
2. Re: Kind of says it all............. (thansen at moscow.com)
3. Re: A fine point, perhaps. (Gary Crabtree)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:52:11 -0700
(PDT)
From: thansen at moscow.com
To: "Wayne Price" <bear at moscow.com>
Cc: viz 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Kind of says it all.............
Message-ID: <af47f12f2477cf294f480f50ab18d6f5.squirrel at secure.fsr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
?Polls of public opinion are not a good indication of the validity of
anything and they are notorious for being skewed, based on how the
questions are couched.?
- Roger Falen (March 22, 2007)
> Americans think sitting President Barack Obama is
the nation's worst
> leader since the last World War, according to a poll released this
> morning. A third of Americans singled-out Obama as their least favorite
> president since 1945 in Quinnipiac University's latest presidential poll,
> just ahead of George W. Bush, who received 28 percent of the vote. In a
> head-to-head match-up between the two most recent presidents, Bush and
> Obama, Bush narrowly came out the victor, with 40 percent of survey-takers
> saying he was a better president than Obama and 39 percent saying he was
> worse. 'Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies,
> President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the
> bottom of the popularity barrel,' Tim Malloy, assistant director of the
> Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a
> statement.=======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: thansen at moscow.com
To: "Wayne Price" <bear at moscow.com>
Cc: viz 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Kind of
says it all.............
Message-ID: <0e75e77d128597deef91294d77f08fbb.squirrel at secure.fsr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
?Polls of public opinion are not a good indication of the validity of
anything and they are notorious for being skewed, based on how the
questions are couched.?
- Roger Falen (March 22, 2007)
> Americans think sitting President Barack Obama is the nation's worst
> leader since the last World War, according to a poll released this
> morning. A third of Americans singled-out Obama as their least favorite
> president since 1945 in Quinnipiac University's latest presidential poll,
> just ahead of George W. Bush, who received 28 percent of the vote. In a
> head-to-head match-up between the two most
recent presidents, Bush and
> Obama, Bush narrowly came out the victor, with 40 percent of survey-takers
> saying he was a better president than Obama and 39 percent saying he was
> worse. 'Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies,
> President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the
> bottom of the popularity barrel,' Tim Malloy, assistant director of the
> Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a
> statement.=======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:35:13 -0700
From: Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
To: Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
Message-ID:
<CAJd7R5S-xUwRj8MARkUDwaMDf5L00=-fqqjF_2MDTi3+VF4Azw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
"Further, assuming that Hobby Lobby operates the same way (a relatively
safe bet), then how can you defend the SCOTUS decision *where HL has no
skin in the game*; that is, there is *no employer financial contribution*
to the coverage they claim to find personally objectionable?"
I would have to think that a sizable number of direct employees of hobby
lobby are in fact female (probably most) and as such they do have a rather
significant amount of "skin in the game."
g
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
wrote:
> To recap:
>
>
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> ?It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer
>
pays.?
>
>
>
> My response was that your statement is incorrect:
>
>
>
> ?The last time I checked, *my husband and I *paid 100% of the cost of *my*
> health insurance through the UI, and that?s the way it was for all state
> employees the last time I checked. That?s been the trend, too, with
> private sector employer-based health insurance for a *number of years*,
> as well as eroding the percentage of employer subsidy for the employee.
> Indeed, there are more than a few employers who offer absolutely no health
> insurance subsidy for employees ? their position is that their ?subsidy? is
> allowing the employee the benefit of being a part of a larger group that
> gets a lower rate.?
>
>
>
> You further responded:
>
> ?In response to your question, when I look at my latest pay stub (posted
> for the 3rd of
June), I see a line item for "Employer Contribution for
> Benefits". It's about $350 in my case, paid by the employer per biweek.?
>
>
>
> Yes, that is the UI?s contribution to the *employee?s* benefits. There
> is *no employer subsidy* for the health benefits of spouses and/or
> dependents.
>
>
>
> So, we?re back to my assertion that your initial statement was incorrect
> and my request that you quit making false statements, yes?
>
>
>
> Further, assuming that Hobby Lobby operates the same way (a relatively
> safe bet), then how can you defend the SCOTUS decision *where HL has no
> skin in the game*; that is, there is *no employer financial contribution*
> to the coverage they claim to find personally objectionable?
>
>
>
> You seem to be advocating a position that necessarily involves trampling
>
the Constitutional rights of women that are completely and wholly unrelated
> to any aspect of employment ?just because? the employer finds those
> Constitutional protections objectionable. In this instance, your are
> placing a higher value on what you perceive to be the religious freedom of
> a for-profit business at the expense of the Constitutional rights of actual
> real-life people (in this instance, women), which is completely at odds
> with your stated positions. You are, essentially, advocating a position
> where the Constitutional rights of those with economic power (in this
> instance, employers) trumps the Constitutional and legal protections
> guaranteed to individuals *regardless of economic power*.
>
>
>
> And, if you don?t understand the chilling consequences of such a stance,
> then I can only conclude you?ve not truly exercised your critical
thinking
> skills and/or are intentionally ignoring the very real concerns being
> discussed by those who know far more than your or I will ever know about
> medicine and the law.
>
>
>
>
>
> Saundra
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 5:24 PM
> *To:* Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
>
>
> It's statements like these that I'm objecting to:
>
> "...of course it?s of no consequence to *you* that..."
>
> "...but it?s good to know you belong in the ?tyranny of the bigots?
> category..."
>
> "...why on
earth should you care that..."
>
> Are they really necessary? Can't we discuss the issues without getting
> personal?
>
> In response to your question, when I look at my latest pay stub (posted
> for the 3rd of June), I see a line item for "Employer Contribution for
> Benefits". It's about $350 in my case, paid by the employer per biweek.
> I also see employer amounts for "Pre-Tax Health Savings Account" (their
> match for the amount I'm putting in my HSA), and "Long" and "Short Term
> Disability Coverage". Also Medicare, but all employers have to pay FHI if
> I remember correctly.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 07/01/2014 01:44 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> I was hoping we could actually discuss your thinking without you playing
> your predictable ?why is everybody always picking on me? card to avoid
> discussing statements you
make that you want us to just blindly accept. I
> don?t think pointing out the flaws, limitations, and obvious conclusions of
> your thinking are personal insults, but I?m sorry if your sensitivities
> made you feel as though they were because that wasn?t my intention.
>
>
>
> Just as, I assume, you weren?t intending to personally insult those of us
> with concerns about guns on campus by calling our concerns ?irrational
> fears,? or a lot of other comments you?ve made that might have felt like
> personal attacks if you were on the receiving end. What?s that saying?
> Something about people in glass houses . . .
>
>
>
> So, let?s try this *one* point again:
>
>
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> ?It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer
> pays.?
>
>
>
> My response is that
your statement is incorrect:
>
>
>
> ?The last time I checked, *my husband and I *paid 100% of the cost of *my*
> health insurance through the UI, and that?s the way it was for all state
> employees the last time I checked. That?s been the trend, too, with
> private sector employer-based health insurance for a *number of years*,
> as well as eroding the percentage of employer subsidy for the employee.
> Indeed, there are more than a few employers who offer absolutely no health
> insurance subsidy for employees ? their position is that their ?subsidy? is
> allowing the employee the benefit of being a part of a larger group that
> gets a lower rate.?
>
>
>
> What say you?
>
>
>
>
>
> Saundra
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com <godshatter at yahoo.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 1:07 PM
> *To:* Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
>
>
> Well, I was hoping we could discuss this without the personal insults.
>
> Paul
>
> On 07/01/2014 12:21 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> ?It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer
> pays.?
>
>
>
> Boy, you sure are out of touch with how modern employer-based health
> insurance is paid! Keep current, Paul, rather than disseminate long
> outdated sound
bites.
>
>
>
> The last time I checked, *my husband and I *paid 100% of the cost of *my*
> health insurance through the UI, and that?s the way it was for all state
> employees the last time I checked. That?s been the trend, too, with
> private sector employer-based health insurance for a *number of years*,
> as well as eroding the percentage of employer subsidy for the employee.
> Indeed, there are more than a few employers who offer absolutely no health
> insurance subsidy for employees ? their position is that their ?subsidy? is
> allowing the employee the benefit of being a part of a larger group that
> gets a lower rate.
>
>
>
> Paul also wrote:
>
> ?I don't see a problem with a small group of "close-knit" people with
> similar beliefs objecting to something they feel goes against their
> religious
beliefs.?
>
>
>
> Of course you don?t, but it?s good to know you belong in the ?tyranny of
> the bigots? category that thinks that anyone should be able to impose their
> religious beliefs on those with different beliefs, which certainly
> contradicts a lot of the positions you?ve stated on V2020. I?m in the
> category of thinking that people are free to believe whatever they want,
> but they don?t have the right to force their religious beliefs on me.
>
>
>
> Too, why on earth should you care that about 90% of companies in America
> responsible for employing approximately 52% of working Americans qualify as
> ?small closely-held? companies that can now use wholly false religious
> bigotry to deny access to necessary health care for female employees and
> employees with female family members? That may be the America you want to
> live
in, but it isn?t the one the majority of Americans want to live in.
>
>
>
> Paul also wrote:
>
> ?Especially when the consequence is to pay for a specific contraceptive
> yourself.?
>
>
>
> Once again, your gender ignorance and economic insensitivity would be
> stunning had you not exhibited them so many times before.
>
>
>
> Yes, the American way is to force female crime victims to bear the cost of
> being raped by men, isn?t it, Paul, and that religious American ideal
> should be preserved at all costs, shouldn?t it? It?s also the American way
> relegate ?immoral? women to forced breeder status when they have sex, isn?t
> it?
>
>
>
> And, of course it?s of no consequence to *you* that the cost of an IUD
> for women for whom that form of birth control is most appropriate is about
> a month?s
wage for lower paid employees without health insurance . . . or
> for plans that exclude coverage for women. That may be economically
> feasible for *you* since *you* don?t fall into that category, but here?s
> a news flash for you: that is as financially impossible for many women,
> particularly women who have children to feed & clothe. Yet you find it
> appropriate for religious bigots to punish women & children in an attempt
> to coerce ?moral? behavior out of those uppity women.
>
>
>
> Of course, a viable alternative *might have been* to direct those women
> to non-profit family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood where
> contraceptives are more affordable. At least, that *might* have been a
> viable alternative before the Religious Right started its war on women.
> Oops ? guess that?s not a viable alternative for a lot of women
anymore.
>
>
>
>
>
> Saundra
>
> Moscow, ID
>
>
>
> Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
>
> ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [
> mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Rumelhart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:05 AM
> *To:* Sunil; vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re:
[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
>
> Yes, you're right. It's not free. It's subsidized by everyone who pays
> into it, plus what the employer pays. I don't see a problem with a small
> group of "close-knit" people with similar beliefs objecting to something
> they feel goes against their religious beliefs. Especially when the
> consequence is to pay for a specific contraceptive yourself. It's not like
> they are objecting to open-heart surgery.
>
>
>
> Is having the ability to get health care in general from your employer a
> basic human right? Is the ability to have your contraceptives in general
> or the "morning after" pill in specific as a part of your health plan
> offered at work a basic human right?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
*From:* Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> Is your UI healthcare free or is it part of your employment compensation?
>
> Sunil
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:03:00 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
>
> Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free contraceptives?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> *To:* vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:07 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
>
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> Roe recognized a woman's right to privacy. Hobby Lobby creates religious
> rights for legal fictions, and restricts the rights of flesh-and-blood
> people. HL is not about restricting the power of government and it's
naive
> to think that's its objective. If the government were restricting birth
> control, as it once did, this majority would have no objection to that
> exercise of government power.
>
> Sunil
> ------------------------------
>
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm; donaldrose at cpcinternet.com;
> vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:20:24 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
>
> Comparing Burwell v Hobby to Roe v Wade I don't see inconsistency in
>
rulings. In both cases the rulings restricted the power of the government.
> ------------------------------
>
> From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
> To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:14:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Great points, Rose, and I?m afraid I agree with your assessment. Thank
> you for pointing out the obvious even if it?s uncomfortable some.
>
>
>
> It?s long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same code of
> ethics federal judges must adhere to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Saundra
>
>
>
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [
> mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Rosemary Huskey
> *Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
>
> Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a certain
> philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped by private values that
> we trust and hold dear. In light of the Supreme
Court decision supporting
> the Hobby Lobby owners refusal to provide forms of birth control they claim
> to be at odds with their religious beliefs, I wondered if the court was
> persuaded not by legal arguments but by their own religious affiliations.
> Were any of the five male justices associated with religious groups that
> uphold the doctrine of patriarchy, i.e., do they attend churches that
> deny women ministerial or priesthood roles. Guess what? Justice Roberts,
> Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman Catholic.
>
>
>
> In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was announced in 1973
> eight of the nine male justices were members of main stream Protestant
> churches. There may or may not be a direct correlation between religion
> affiliation and legal opinions, but it is my firm belief that unearned
>
gender privilege nurtured in the cradle, and deferred to in the church
> certainly creates an atmosphere that celebrates and bestows unique
> privilege for male members. And, what could possibly more be patriarchal
> than controlling women?s reproductive choices?
>
>
>
> Rose Huskey
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================= 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
> <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
> <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 <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 <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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140702/d5fbc6ce/attachment.html>
------------------------------
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 97, Issue 38
******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140703/3f5a73c9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list