RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Hi Lennart

 

I haven't been ignoring you. Just lack adequate time. Now that I'm retired it 
sometimes feels as if I have less time at my disposal than ever.  ...not that 
I'm really complaining about it.

 

I have to ask you. Were you the middle sibling growing up in your family?

 

Always the peace maker, you are.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Mark,
First I am glad you have been able to find some funding. Since we talked I
learnt a bit more about diabetes.
Would be interesting to hear more about what is going on.
 Back to politics. Just to declare it seems like you and I can agree about
what makes sense in the programs presented by the parties. I am a little
cynical in the regard that I believe that it is all lip-service. I do not
think the political machinery has an agenda - just polemic which they will
sell to the next lobbyist they meet for a free lunch.
When I said that I assume that you too have reservations to the party line
I was just being polite not stating that I was sure that was your opinion.
I read (between the lines) that you had such reservations but did not want
to come across as some kind of judge. Then we have the darn spellcheck it
accepts 'to' when I mean 'too':) I need a better spell check") I need one,
which will say 'this makes no sense':)
Then about the identification matter. I try to say that the parties has a
program assembled from polls and strategists thinking out a way to attract
votes without making too much of a commitment. I do not think that one
single person has believes that are totally congruent with the party
position. The consequence of that is that we have some kind of average
thoughts named D and another set named R. Of course they are basically the
same. They have the same goals. BTW that is not the goals of us the voters.
I hope I explained myself - otherwise I am happy to add on.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:49 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>
wrote:

> Hi Lennart:
>
> Appreciate the comments/thots about campaign financing… and I think Steven
> and I are on the same page when it comes to that… too much $ to BOTH
> parties.  I also agree that the entire campaign process is antiquated.  200
> years ago it took a few weeks for information to ‘gallop’ across the US,
> and a month to ‘sail’ across the Atlantic.  Today, it gets across the *
> *world** in a matter of **seconds**… I would be just fine with abolishing
> the political party system.  But even with a new campaign process with
> numerous debates, and getting the $ out of it as well, many candidates will
> still say what they know you want to hear to get your vote, because they
> seek the power that those positions give them.
>
>
>
> RE: your comment…
>
> “Steven at least has said that he does have reservations with some
> democratic ideas. I think you Mark have to ( sorry for assuming but…).
>
>
>
> To clarify, I do not strongly identify with either of the two major
> political parties… As I stated, I’m more socially liberal, and fiscally
> conservative.  Does that not imply that I have reservations about the
> political ideals within each party?  I’m not sure I understand…
>
>
>
> You state, “I think you Mark have to…”   I have to what???  Complete the
> thought…
>
>
>
> “I cannot imagine there is anyone person who would identify his believes
> with either party.”
>
> Can you please clarify???
>
>
>
> B Well,
>
> -mark
>
>
>
> *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:39 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
> buying the 2016 presidential race
>
>
>
> Mark and Steven,
>
> I think you both miss the point. 'You think the dollars spent on election
> campaigns are a non-issue.
>
> I think it is terrible to spend money to be informed of two candidates
> with almost the same agenda. Yes we spend money - if nothing else we talk
> about tax free contributions.
>
> More important. Back in times when the candidates had to travel by train
> and speak to small groups from the last cars platform there was no other
> way to bring the message out. Today we have the internet and we have ways
> to communicate like Youtube, GoToMeeting etc. We would be better off having
> a group of highly qualified experts providing us the information and then
> we could take our positions as a person. I know you are going to say that
> there are too many new laws and we would all be sitting there trying to
> decide what to say or the votes would be poorly based (just like today). I
> think that by bringing most decision to a local level and limit the number
> of new laws (having limited number of experts), would make it work.
>
> Steven at least has said that he does have reservations with some
> democratic ideas. I think you Mark 

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Hi Mark, my old nemesis. ;-)

 

Regarding the "rant" word accusation see the following link out in the Vortex 
archive:

 

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105057.html

 

specifically, your statement:

 

> 3- but then, what comes to mind whenever I see anything (OT) from you, is

> that it's going to be yet another rant on how evil the Christians and

> Republicans are.  

 

All I really want to say about that is: Even if you did say it, so what! I 
don't feel like holding it against you! I DO rant at times! ;-) I've also lost 
count of the many things I've said in the past to others that I've later 
regretted saying. I'm sure there will be more to come in the future. But each 
day I try my best to keep whittling it down.

 

On other matters I can understand, and will also validate, why you might feel 
that I have in a sense patronized you when I said "As for the rest, to be 
honest I’m just no longer motivated enuf to go back and explain myself.” Guilty 
as charged. But to be honest, my primary motivation was no to patronize you. I 
had a more selfish motivation. I was just tired of it all. I don't  want to go 
through the whole back-and-forth process again.

 

Let's move on. Indeed, I hope CF continues to heat up. One thing participating 
in Vortex since the 1990s has taught me is that it helps to acquire an infinite 
amount of patience.  Miracles don't happen overnight. 

 

As for you, my old nemesis... despite my best judgement I think I am growing 
fond of you. ;-)

 

Paraphrasing something Spock might say, I wish you great prosperity in securing 
adequate funding for your startup company. Instead of crossing my fingers, I'll 
simply give you a high:  \\//  Perhaps Spock would then follow his salute by 
saying, "I find it highly ironic that excess sugar intake is now responsible 
killing so many people in the developed world on your planet." So, yes, good 
luck in your endeavors. Many diabetics will truly appreciate your efforts.

 

As for me, since my retirement of last December I'm spending as much personal 
time as I can working on an on-going Kepler research project. (Analysis of 
Orbital Mechanics.) Involves a lot of computer graphics and learning Calculus 
terminology. Easier said than done. Lately I've noticed that a spate of Honey 
Do projects seem to end up getting higher priority on my to-do list. ...perhaps 
I'm rebelling against all that calculus I 'm trying to cram down my throat... 
er, head.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Good morning Lennart,

Thank you for clarifying a few points… I do agree that most of the political 
party platforms are more or less lip service to attract various categories of 
voters… the goal is just to get reelected and become the majority party… there 
is no compromise anymore.  I think the voters are fed up with the BS, and 
that’s why the non-politicians, the ‘outsiders’, are leading all the polls on 
the Repub side… oh, and yes, I *too* think that the spell checkers are a bit 
lacking in intuiting what I write!  But you should be able to disable the spell 
checker, at least in Windows/MS-Office you can… 

 

RE: noninvasive glucose

I’ll follow-up with you via email…


BR,

-mark

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying 
the 2016 presidential race

 

Hello Mark,

First I am glad you have been able to find some funding. Since we talked I 
learnt a bit more about diabetes. 

Would be interesting to hear more about what is going on.

 Back to politics. Just to declare it seems like you and I can agree about what 
makes sense in the programs presented by the parties. I am a little cynical in 
the regard that I believe that it is all lip-service. I do not think the 
political machinery has an agenda - just polemic which they will sell to the 
next lobbyist they meet for a free lunch.

When I said that I assume that you too have reservations to the party line I 
was just being polite not stating that I was sure that was your opinion. I read 
(between the lines) that you had such reservations but did not want to come 
across as some kind of judge. Then we have the darn spellcheck it accepts 'to' 
when I mean 'too':) I need a better spell check") I need one, which will say 
'this makes no sense':)

Then about the identification matter. I try to say that the parties has a 
program assembled from polls and strategists thinking out a way to attract 
votes without making too much of a commitment. I do not think that one single 
person has believes that are totally congruent with the party position. The 
consequence of that is that we have some kind of average thoughts named D and 
another set named R. Of course they are basically the same. They have the same 
goals. BTW that is not the goals of us the voters.

I hope I explained myself - otherwise I am happy to add on. 

 




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

 

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to 
excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

 

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:49 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote:

Hi Lennart:

Appreciate the comments/thots about campaign financing… and I think Steven and 
I are on the same page when it comes to that… too much $ to BOTH parties.  I 
also agree that the entire campaign process is antiquated.  200 years ago it 
took a few weeks for information to ‘gallop’ across the US, and a month to 
‘sail’ across the Atlantic.  Today, it gets across the *world* in a matter of 
*seconds*… I would be just fine with abolishing the political party system.  
But even with a new campaign process with numerous debates, and getting the $ 
out of it as well, many candidates will still say what they know you want to 
hear to get your vote, because they seek the power that those positions give 
them.

 

RE: your comment…

“Steven at least has said that he does have reservations with some democratic 
ideas. I think you Mark have to ( sorry for assuming but…).

 

To clarify, I do not strongly identify with either of the two major political 
parties… As I stated, I’m more socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.  
Does that not imply that I have reservations about the political ideals within 
each party?  I’m not sure I understand… 

 

You state, “I think you Mark have to…”   I have to what???  Complete the 
thought… 

 

“I cannot imagine there is anyone person who would identify his believes with 
either party.”

Can you please clarify???

 

B Well,

-mark 

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying 
the 2016 presidential race

 

Mark and Steven,

I think you both miss the point. 'You think the dollars spent on election 
campaigns are a non-issue.

I think it is terrible to spend money to be informed of two candidates with 
almost the same agenda. Yes we spend money - if nothing else we talk about tax 
free contributions.

More important. Back in times when the candidates had to travel by train and 
speak to small groups from the last cars platform there was no other way to 
bring the message out. Today we have the inte

Re: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Lennart Thornros]

Steven,
No, I was not the middle sibling - the oldest of two.
This is the first time in my life I have been called a peace maker.
I think that is not all accurate. However, I believe that finding logical,
sensitive and productive solutions is important.
I am fine being controversial but it is not an objective per se.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Hi Lennart
>
>
>
> I haven't been ignoring you. Just lack adequate time. Now that I'm retired
> it sometimes feels as if I have less time at my disposal than ever.  ...not
> that I'm really complaining about it.
>
>
>
> I have to ask you. Were you the middle sibling growing up in your family?
>
>
>
> Always the peace maker, you are.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Steven… 

Again, appreciate you’re reading/responding… and I apologize for missing my 
first use of ‘rant’.  I stand corrected… 

And please don’t let this exchange dissuade you from venting… you always follow 
protocol and label them OT.  And I will very likely read them… you are an 
intelligent, inquisitive being and write well… you being retired now, 
perceptions probably aren’t much of a concern, but for those who are not, and 
with the ease with which writings propagate on the net, perception can be 
crucial is one’s career and interaction with others.

 

Yes, movin’ on, and with some biggies now into LENR (Airbus, etc.) the genie is 
pretty much out of the bottle… this has caused the theoretical  types to ponder 
what QM has to say about the mechanism, and we are seeing more theoretical 
papers… that’s definitely a good thing.

Funny you should mention spock/ST… of the main characters in the original 
series, is he your fav?  He and LtCmdr Data from STTNG are mine.  If they were 
running the govt we’d be much better off!! J  Of course, if one includes 
ST-Voyager in the mix, then all bets are off and 7-of-9 is on top!!! ;-)  In my 
dreams… LoL. 

 

Thank you for the well-wishes on the glucose tech… it’s been a *very* long 
struggle;  I first got involved in 1993… I am very thankful that someone a bit 
younger has picked up the torch!  Keep up with the orbital mech studies… who 
knows, like ChemE, you just might have a thing or two to teach the ‘experts’.

 

Honey Do lists are important!  I have two items on the latest one, and they are 
a nice diversion and get me up and away from the computer…

 

Best always, and enjoy your retirement…

-mark

PS, let’s hope that whoever gets elected in Wisconsin, they will at least be 
*fiscally* conservative so as not to bankrupt the state so your retirement 
checks don’t turn to rubber…  ;-) Pension funds can go ‘poof’!

 

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying 
the 2016 presidential race

 

Hi Mark, my old nemesis. ;-)

 

Regarding the "rant" word accusation see the following link out in the Vortex 
archive:

 

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105057.html

 

specifically, your statement:

 

> 3- but then, what comes to mind whenever I see anything (OT) from you, is

> that it's going to be yet another rant on how evil the Christians and

> Republicans are.  

 

All I really want to say about that is: Even if you did say it, so what! I 
don't feel like holding it against you! I DO rant at times! ;-) I've also lost 
count of the many things I've said in the past to others that I've later 
regretted saying. I'm sure there will be more to come in the future. But each 
day I try my best to keep whittling it down.

 

On other matters I can understand, and will also validate, why you might feel 
that I have in a sense patronized you when I said "As for the rest, to be 
honest I’m just no longer motivated enuf to go back and explain myself.” Guilty 
as charged. But to be honest, my primary motivation was no to patronize you. I 
had a more selfish motivation. I was just tired of it all. I don't  want to go 
through the whole back-and-forth process again.

 

Let's move on. Indeed, I hope CF continues to heat up. One thing participating 
in Vortex since the 1990s has taught me is that it helps to acquire an infinite 
amount of patience.  Miracles don't happen overnight. 

 

As for you, my old nemesis... despite my best judgement I think I am growing 
fond of you. ;-)

 

Paraphrasing something Spock might say, I wish you great prosperity in securing 
adequate funding for your startup company. Instead of crossing my fingers, I'll 
simply give you a high:  \\//  Perhaps Spock would then follow his salute by 
saying, "I find it highly ironic that excess sugar intake is now responsible 
killing so many people in the developed world on your planet." So, yes, good 
luck in your endeavors. Many diabetics will truly appreciate your efforts.

 

As for me, since my retirement of last December I'm spending as much personal 
time as I can working on an on-going Kepler research project. (Analysis of 
Orbital Mechanics.) Involves a lot of computer graphics and learning Calculus 
terminology. Easier said than done. Lately I've noticed that a spate of Honey 
Do projects seem to end up getting higher priority on my to-do list. ...perhaps 
I'm rebelling against all that calculus I 'm trying to cram down my throat... 
er, head.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Steven,

Thanks for providing a little further explanation.

 

I looked thru the postings and did not see where I referred to your postings
as being 'rants'. none.  I also never said it wasn't informative, only very
one-sided.  Agree that the world is full of 1-sided POVs, and I didn't have
a prob with your posting, however, for once, I happened to feel compelled to
comment and include additional data to provide a more complete view of the
overall issue.  Aside from my first sentence, did my contribution add to the
overall value of that topic???  Did it further inform anyone who bothered to
read it?  At least one did. Lennart! J  He must be bored!!

 

If we go back 4  to 6 years, you've made quite a number of OT postings about
the evil repubs in your state of Wisconsin. and that's perfectly fine!  I
even started to read most of them when they appeared.  I don't care if you
want to spend your time doing that. and certainly didn't try to dissuade
you.   This one time I happened to feel like commenting on it.  Sorry, next
time I'll try to start my 2 cent posting in a more benign manner.

 

"As for the rest, to be honest I'm just no longer motivated enuf to go back
and explain myself."

I may be weird, but given all that we've expressed on this, that statement
seems to say, "I know I'm right and not interested in entertaining other
opinions or trying to understand where the other person is coming from."  It
assumes that there was no validity whatsoever to my explanation as to how my
impression of all your angry-at-GovWalker-Repubs political postings led me
to perhaps phrase it the way I did. now who's being patronizing???  OK, you
got me back. 

 

RE: your OT postings over the years about political/work-related
tribulations.

You say first impressions count!  And I agree. however, perceptions are as
important, if not more so.  I sincerely don't think you realize that posting
such strong, angry, postings on a public forum causes people to develop a
perception of who you are. and don't you think that that influences them
when they go to interact with you??  It most certainly does!  Any
politician/manager/leader will tell you perception is everything; not that I
agree with that entirely, but it is a very important aspect to how people
treat you; at least, until they interact enough to know you on a more
personal level.

 

I wish I had more time to participate in the Vort sand box. things are
definitely heating up in LENR-land. finally!!  Unfortunately, I'm busy with
getting the noninvasive glucose tech restarted.  Have inked a deal with a
gent in the Bay Area who has raised some seed $ for a validation study. keep
fingers crossed that we can get series-A funding, and if the validation
study results are as good as the preclinicals, then I know we won't have any
trouble raising what we need. diabetics have been hoping for 30 years for a
truly painless glucometer. I am doing what I can to make that happen.

 

B Well,

-mark

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
buying the 2016 presidential race

 

Mark,

 

I'm impressed by your earnestness in wanting to get clarification. I'll just
focus on one exchange. What motivated me to go on the offensive, so to
speak, was the first comment you made, which was:

 

> The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that...

> at least, I hope you do.

 

As the old say'in goes: First impressions count.

 

Granted, it may not have been your intention to do so but that was a
patronizing thing to say to anyone. So what if it's a one-sided article. So
what if I posted that "one-side" article out to Vort Land. The world if full
of one-sided POVs, and inevitably someone's one-sided POV (or article) is
not going to align with one's personal stash of approved POVs. That doesn't
make that so-called one-sided POV any less informative.

 

As for the rest, to be honest I'm just no longer motivated enuf to go back
and explain myself. Based on other comments you made I get the impression
much of anything else I might say pertaining to the political arena would be
interpreted as yet another leftist "rant" coming from me. You did call some
of my prior comments "rants". But, enuf of interpreting my POVs. Let me put
it another way. maybe you were more accurate than I was on some of the
points you were trying to make, and perhaps I was more accurate on some of
the other points. As for me, I would prefer to find common ground on what we
can agree on rather than what we disagree on. Energy tends to be expended
more efficiently when we work in a sand box of common ground.

 

So, c u back in the Vort Sand box. Perhaps the next time we connect will end
up on the same side.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Hi Lennart:

Appreciate the comments/thots about campaign financing… and I think Steven and 
I are on the same page when it comes to that… too much $ to BOTH parties.  I 
also agree that the entire campaign process is antiquated.  200 years ago it 
took a few weeks for information to ‘gallop’ across the US, and a month to 
‘sail’ across the Atlantic.  Today, it gets across the *world* in a matter of 
*seconds*… I would be just fine with abolishing the political party system.  
But even with a new campaign process with numerous debates, and getting the $ 
out of it as well, many candidates will still say what they know you want to 
hear to get your vote, because they seek the power that those positions give 
them.

 

RE: your comment…

“Steven at least has said that he does have reservations with some democratic 
ideas. I think you Mark have to ( sorry for assuming but…).

 

To clarify, I do not strongly identify with either of the two major political 
parties… As I stated, I’m more socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.  
Does that not imply that I have reservations about the political ideals within 
each party?  I’m not sure I understand… 

 

You state, “I think you Mark have to…”   I have to what???  Complete the 
thought… 

 

“I cannot imagine there is anyone person who would identify his believes with 
either party.”

Can you please clarify???

 

B Well,

-mark 

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying 
the 2016 presidential race

 

Mark and Steven,

I think you both miss the point. 'You think the dollars spent on election 
campaigns are a non-issue.

I think it is terrible to spend money to be informed of two candidates with 
almost the same agenda. Yes we spend money - if nothing else we talk about tax 
free contributions.

More important. Back in times when the candidates had to travel by train and 
speak to small groups from the last cars platform there was no other way to 
bring the message out. Today we have the internet and we have ways to 
communicate like Youtube, GoToMeeting etc. We would be better off having a 
group of highly qualified experts providing us the information and then we 
could take our positions as a person. I know you are going to say that there 
are too many new laws and we would all be sitting there trying to decide what 
to say or the votes would be poorly based (just like today). I think that by 
bringing most decision to a local level and limit the number of new laws 
(having limited number of experts), would make it work.

Steven at least has said that he does have reservations with some democratic 
ideas. I think you Mark have to ( sorry for assuming but . . ). I cannot 
imagine there is anyone person who would identify his believes with either 
party.

As an example on my ballot locally it gives me expert analysis saying how it 
will impact cost and how it will impact future security, health care or  . . .. 
Even if I am not so well informed about the details I can make up my mind about 
what I think would be better.

In my opinion you are on the same side Mark and Steven. On the easy side:) Or 
go with the flow.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

 

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to 
excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

 

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
<orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

Mark,

 

I'm impressed by your earnestness in wanting to get clarification. I’ll just 
focus on one exchange. What motivated me to go on the offensive, so to speak, 
was the first comment you made, which was:

 

> The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that...

> at least, I hope you do.

 

As the old say'in goes: First impressions count.

 

Granted, it may not have been your intention to do so but that was a 
patronizing thing to say to anyone. So what if it’s a one-sided article. So 
what if I posted that “one-side” article out to Vort Land. The world if full of 
one-sided POVs, and inevitably someone’s one-sided POV (or article) is not 
going to align with one’s personal stash of approved POVs. That doesn’t make 
that so-called one-sided POV any less informative.

 

As for the rest, to be honest I’m just no longer motivated enuf to go back and 
explain myself. Based on other comments you made I get the impression much of 
anything else I might say pertaining to the political arena would be 
interpreted as yet another leftist “rant” coming from me. You did call some of 
my prior comments “rants”. But, enuf of interpreting my POVs. Let me put it 
another way… maybe you were more accurate than I was on some of the points you 
were trying to make, a

Re: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Lennart Thornros]

Mark and Steven,
I think you both miss the point. 'You think the dollars spent on election
campaigns are a non-issue.
I think it is terrible to spend money to be informed of two candidates with
almost the same agenda. Yes we spend money - if nothing else we talk about
tax free contributions.
More important. Back in times when the candidates had to travel by train
and speak to small groups from the last cars platform there was no other
way to bring the message out. Today we have the internet and we have ways
to communicate like Youtube, GoToMeeting etc. We would be better off having
a group of highly qualified experts providing us the information and then
we could take our positions as a person. I know you are going to say that
there are too many new laws and we would all be sitting there trying to
decide what to say or the votes would be poorly based (just like today). I
think that by bringing most decision to a local level and limit the number
of new laws (having limited number of experts), would make it work.
Steven at least has said that he does have reservations with some
democratic ideas. I think you Mark have to ( sorry for assuming but . . ).
I cannot imagine there is anyone person who would identify his believes
with either party.
As an example on my ballot locally it gives me expert analysis saying how
it will impact cost and how it will impact future security, health care or
 . . .. Even if I am not so well informed about the details I can make up
my mind about what I think would be better.
In my opinion you are on the same side Mark and Steven. On the easy side:)
Or go with the flow.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Mark,
>
>
>
> I'm impressed by your earnestness in wanting to get clarification. I’ll
> just focus on one exchange. What motivated me to go on the offensive, so to
> speak, was the first comment you made, which was:
>
>
>
> > The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know
> that...
>
> > at least, I hope you do.
>
>
>
> As the old say'in goes: First impressions count.
>
>
>
> Granted, it may not have been your intention to do so but that was a
> patronizing thing to say to anyone. So what if it’s a one-sided article. So
> what if I posted that “one-side” article out to Vort Land. The world if
> full of one-sided POVs, and inevitably someone’s one-sided POV (or article)
> is not going to align with one’s personal stash of approved POVs. That
> doesn’t make that so-called one-sided POV any less informative.
>
>
>
> As for the rest, to be honest I’m just no longer motivated enuf to go back
> and explain myself. Based on other comments you made I get the impression
> much of anything else I might say pertaining to the political arena would
> be interpreted as yet another leftist “rant” coming from me. You did call
> some of my prior comments “rants”. But, enuf of interpreting my POVs. Let
> me put it another way… maybe you were more accurate than I was on some of
> the points you were trying to make, and perhaps I was more accurate on some
> of the other points. As for me, I would prefer to find common ground on
> what we can agree on rather than what we disagree on. Energy tends to be
> expended more efficiently when we work in a sand box of common ground.
>
>
>
> So, c u back in the Vort Sand box. Perhaps the next time we connect will
> end up on the same side.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Mark,

 

I'm impressed by your earnestness in wanting to get clarification. I'll just
focus on one exchange. What motivated me to go on the offensive, so to
speak, was the first comment you made, which was:

 

> The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that...

> at least, I hope you do.

 

As the old say'in goes: First impressions count.

 

Granted, it may not have been your intention to do so but that was a
patronizing thing to say to anyone. So what if it's a one-sided article. So
what if I posted that "one-side" article out to Vort Land. The world if full
of one-sided POVs, and inevitably someone's one-sided POV (or article) is
not going to align with one's personal stash of approved POVs. That doesn't
make that so-called one-sided POV any less informative.

 

As for the rest, to be honest I'm just no longer motivated enuf to go back
and explain myself. Based on other comments you made I get the impression
much of anything else I might say pertaining to the political arena would be
interpreted as yet another leftist "rant" coming from me. You did call some
of my prior comments "rants". But, enuf of interpreting my POVs. Let me put
it another way. maybe you were more accurate than I was on some of the
points you were trying to make, and perhaps I was more accurate on some of
the other points. As for me, I would prefer to find common ground on what we
can agree on rather than what we disagree on. Energy tends to be expended
more efficiently when we work in a sand box of common ground.

 

So, c u back in the Vort Sand box. Perhaps the next time we connect will end
up on the same side.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Hi Steven,

 

I wrote:

>> The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know
that...

>> at least, I hope you do.

 

To which you replied:

>It's been my experience that when someone feigns praise upon another
person's alleged intelligence but then immediately turns around >and
questions whether the praise they had just endorsed was truly warranted -
that is nothing more than a covert way of implying that >the person they
have a disagreement with is not only ignorant, they also want that person to
feel stupid about their own alleged ignorance.

 

What person-A writes about person-B is very much dependent on person-A's
observations about person-B, and vice versa. It is also colored by each
others' past.  I can only explain what was going thru my mind as I wrote
that; how you interpret it is obviously different. Here is what was going
thru my mind.

1- you are an intelligent being, as is obvious to anyone who follows this
forum. and we both have for many, many years. 

2- the ease with which one can now quickly search for and read different
views on any topic is certainly known to you, especially since  you have
IT/computer expertise.  I think most adults our age know by now that print
and television media are heavily biased to the left, while talk radio is
biased heavily to the right.  Thus, the first half of my statement.

 

3- but then, what comes to mind whenever I see anything (OT) from you, is
that it's going to be yet another rant on how evil the Christians and
Republicans are.  you must admit, of all the members of this forum, I
believe you are the one who has, by far, pontificated at length about
political/religious issues; I don't think I've ever seen criticism from you
directed at the Dems. That was the impetus for the second part of my
statement.

 

RE: the remainder of your response which expresses great concern over not so
much the amount of $, but not knowing who/where that money is coming from.

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!!  with one minor correction.

It is my understanding that that only applies to what are now called
'superPACs'. contributions directly to the candidate's 'official' campaign
are public record.  And what do we see since CU v FEC?  A lot more $ going
into campaigns indirectly (via SuperPACs) vs directly.

 

Here are two pages from a website which shows the top 100 INDIVIDUALS and
top 100 organizations who contributed to campaigns:

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

 

Red or blue vertical bars on left side of the lists indicates what party was
favored, Repubs (red) or Dems (blue).

It is pretty clear that there are more Repubs (red) in the 'Individual' list
and many more Dems (blue) in the 'organization' list. no surprise there!

 

Can't remember who it was that suggested that for major federal elections,
there could be no campaign contributions and that each candidate would be
given so much $ by the govt and they had to get by with that. would
certainly weed out the astute candidates from the bunch!  Too bad that
politician who proposed this reform didn't win. I think it might have
eliminated most of the problem.

 

RE: your question, "How did corporations become people?"

That one's easy. Instead of typing in the text from my copy of Black's Law
Dictionary, here are the legal definitions for person, artificial person and
natural person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfGCjfOsB1E

 

The reason why business entities were referred to as 'persons' was to
obfuscate just who the laws pertained to. to make those not originally
liable (most natural persons) believe they were liable for paying certain
taxes. This was done in the early 1900s when the whole idea of an income tax
came into existence and was challenged in the courts.

 

RE: "In the years to come as we now go about the process of vetting the next
leader of the free world, doesn't the lack of accountability of where all
that unleashed money will come from and what it is going to be spent on
concern you just a teensy weeny little bit?"

 

Yes, it most certainly does concern me. and yes, I do follow the money,
REGARDLESS of which party is flows to.

Best Always,

-mark

 

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 6:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
buying the 2016 presidential race

 

Hi Mark,

 

> The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that...

> at least, I hope you do.

 

It's been my experience that when someone feigns praise upon another
person's alleged intelligence but then immediately turns around and
questions whether the praise they had just endorsed was truly warranted -
that is nothing more than a covert way of implying that the person they have
a disagreement with is not only ignorant, they also want that person t

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Hi Mark,

 

I must ask: where was the alleged "rant" in my original post? I pointed to a
link that showed some interesting graphics about where political money is
coming from. In your mind, does pointing to a link now constitute another
"rant" coming from me? Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's
consumption scare you that much? Ok.so you disagree with those findings, and
perhaps you also disagree with some of my expressed liberal tendencies. I
can live with that. But another link supplied by me now constitutes another
"rant"?

 

It seems to me that you show your conservative colors just as much as paint
me to be a liberal. But yes, I believe you have outed me. It would appear
these days that I possess liberalistic tendencies, which perhaps from a
ultra-conservative's POV would imply I must be a bleating hearted liberal
democrat whose primary concern is to make sure that subversive gays and
lesbians get the same insurance protections as some god fearing homophobic
Christians believe they should own exclusive rights to today. Be damned
about the economy. Let's just print up more money to pay for all those needy
welfare queens - and be damned about the economy After all, Brad must be
able to marry Bart if I'm going to be able to sleep tonight! 

 

But that would be misleading. I used to be a republican. I must confess: I
voted for Reagan. Back in the 1980s it was during the reign of Reagan that I
was forced to witness to my absolute dismay what was happening to the
republican party as staunch ultra conservatives and religious factions
slowly and methodically started to infest what used to be a more reasonable
oriented centrist party philosophy - a party that was still willing to
negotiate with the enemy in order to get things done. Over the decades it's
only gotten worse. 

 

FWIW, and just to set the record straight, I'm not necessarily happy with a
lot of democratic positions taken today. However, I do seem to possess far
more criticisms aimed against ultra conservative factions than against the
so-called liberal democratic platform. It's a matter of prioritization. The
squeakiest wheel tends to get the most oiling. I'm also try to be pragmatic.
Just so you know, I'd prefer B. Sanders (a decades in the making battle
worthy candidate), but I try to be realistic in accepting the fact that
Hillary, warts and all, will most likely be the democratic pick. It seems to
me that none of us get out of this mess without at some time feeling just a
tad like a prostitute.

 

At least we can agree on the fact that PACs are not necessarily a good thing
for our political system. If you feel close, though not necessarily exactly
the same way as I may feel about them, I'm content to leave it at that.

 

The continuing debate over what constitutes an artificial person in
corporate land is no doubt a protracted discussion that should be left for
another time and date when CF news becomes temporarily lean. But enuf for
now, wouldn't you say?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Good morning Steven,

 

I think you are referring to this statement of mine:

". I believe you are the one who has, by far, pontificated at length about
political/religious issues;"

 

That is the only reference I made which you could interpret as referring to
a 'rant' (your term, not mine).  It was NOT a reference to something in your
original email, but to a history of having to vent on this forum as to your
OT postings you've done over the years about your disagreements with
Wisconsin politics.  Could that be the reason behind why I wrote what I did?
You imply there was some derogatory or hurtful meaning in my original
response to your posting, and I was trying to provide an explanation as to
why that was not the case.  I was simply trying to explain to you why I
expressed my thoughts the way I did. that's all.

 

I did read the article you linked to, and feel it's of interest to all
concerned about events in this country. we do agree on that.  

When you write things like this,

"Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's consumption scare you that
much?"

Is it any wonder why someone might respond the way they do?? You are
concluding that I'm scared by some article you posted. how in the world do
you conclude that?  Just because I try to point out to the forum that one
has to read multiple sources to get a total picture of a given issue is NOT
an indication that one is scared.  Don't paint me as being something I'm
not. 

 

I tend to be more socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

 

"At least we can agree on the fact that PACs are not necessarily a good
thing for our political system. If you feel close, though not necessarily
exactly the same way as I may feel about them, I'm content to leave it at
that."

Agreed!

 

B Well Always,

-mark

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 8:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
buying the 2016 presidential race

 

Hi Mark,

 

I must ask: where was the alleged "rant" in my original post? I pointed to a
link that showed some interesting graphics about where political money is
coming from. In your mind, does pointing to a link now constitute another
"rant" coming from me? Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's
consumption scare you that much? Ok.so you disagree with those findings, and
perhaps you also disagree with some of my expressed liberal tendencies. I
can live with that. But another link supplied by me now constitutes another
"rant"?

 

It seems to me that you show your conservative colors just as much as paint
me to be a liberal. But yes, I believe you have outed me. It would appear
these days that I possess liberalistic tendencies, which perhaps from a
ultra-conservative's POV would imply I must be a bleating hearted liberal
democrat whose primary concern is to make sure that subversive gays and
lesbians get the same insurance protections as some god fearing homophobic
Christians believe they should own exclusive rights to today. Be damned
about the economy. Let's just print up more money to pay for all those needy
welfare queens - and be damned about the economy After all, Brad must be
able to marry Bart if I'm going to be able to sleep tonight! 

 

But that would be misleading. I used to be a republican. I must confess: I
voted for Reagan. Back in the 1980s it was during the reign of Reagan that I
was forced to witness to my absolute dismay what was happening to the
republican party as staunch ultra conservatives and religious factions
slowly and methodically started to infest what used to be a more reasonable
oriented centrist party philosophy - a party that was still willing to
negotiate with the enemy in order to get things done. Over the decades it's
only gotten worse. 

 

FWIW, and just to set the record straight, I'm not necessarily happy with a
lot of democratic positions taken today. However, I do seem to possess far
more criticisms aimed against ultra conservative factions than against the
so-called liberal democratic platform. It's a matter of prioritization. The
squeakiest wheel tends to get the most oiling. I'm also try to be pragmatic.
Just so you know, I'd prefer B. Sanders (a decades in the making battle
worthy candidate), but I try to be realistic in accepting the fact that
Hillary, warts and all, will most likely be the democratic pick. It seems to
me that none of us get out of this mess without at some time feeling just a
tad like a prostitute.

 

At least we can agree on the fact that PACs are not necessarily a good thing
for our political system. If you feel close, though not necessarily exactly
the same way as I may feel about them, I'm content to leave it at that.

 

The continuing debate over what constitutes an artificial person in
corporate land is no doubt a protracted discussion that should be left for

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Hello again Mark,

 

I stand by what I have said before. To repeat myself, to endlessly
reinterpret what I have said before lies madness. I'm content to leave my
"rants" as-is.

 

It's probably time to close up shop on this particular discussion. 

 

At least we seem to agree on the fact that something must be done about
PACs. If we had both had been elected officials serving our respective
constituents I have the feeling that you and I together would try to find
common ground in order to move forward. Granted it might be difficult at
times, but if we remain capable of acknowledging to each other the fact that
we both ended up having to sacrifice certain principals dear to our hearts
in equal proportions... messy as democracy is, things tend to get done.

 

I wish someone was capable of explaining that very messy principle to the
Tea Party. IMO, not being capable of understanding what compromise is all
about... that also leads to madness.

 

B'well back.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

 

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 1:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
buying the 2016 presidential race

 

Good morning Steven,

 

I think you are referring to this statement of mine:

". I believe you are the one who has, by far, pontificated at length about
political/religious issues;"

 

That is the only reference I made which you could interpret as referring to
a 'rant' (your term, not mine).  It was NOT a reference to something in your
original email, but to a history of having to vent on this forum as to your
OT postings you've done over the years about your disagreements with
Wisconsin politics.  Could that be the reason behind why I wrote what I did?
You imply there was some derogatory or hurtful meaning in my original
response to your posting, and I was trying to provide an explanation as to
why that was not the case.  I was simply trying to explain to you why I
expressed my thoughts the way I did. that's all.

 

I did read the article you linked to, and feel it's of interest to all
concerned about events in this country. we do agree on that.  

When you write things like this,

"Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's consumption scare you that
much?"

Is it any wonder why someone might respond the way they do?? You are
concluding that I'm scared by some article you posted. how in the world do
you conclude that?  Just because I try to point out to the forum that one
has to read multiple sources to get a total picture of a given issue is NOT
an indication that one is scared.  Don't paint me as being something I'm
not. 

 

I tend to be more socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

 

"At least we can agree on the fact that PACs are not necessarily a good
thing for our political system. If you feel close, though not necessarily
exactly the same way as I may feel about them, I'm content to leave it at
that."

Agreed!

 

B Well Always,

-mark

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 8:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
buying the 2016 presidential race

 

Hi Mark,

 

I must ask: where was the alleged "rant" in my original post? I pointed to a
link that showed some interesting graphics about where political money is
coming from. In your mind, does pointing to a link now constitute another
"rant" coming from me? Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's
consumption scare you that much? Ok.so you disagree with those findings, and
perhaps you also disagree with some of my expressed liberal tendencies. I
can live with that. But another link supplied by me now constitutes another
"rant"?

 

It seems to me that you show your conservative colors just as much as paint
me to be a liberal. But yes, I believe you have outed me. It would appear
these days that I possess liberalistic tendencies, which perhaps from a
ultra-conservative's POV would imply I must be a bleating hearted liberal
democrat whose primary concern is to make sure that subversive gays and
lesbians get the same insurance protections as some god fearing homophobic
Christians believe they should own exclusive rights to today. Be damned
about the economy. Let's just print up more money to pay for all those needy
welfare queens - and be damned about the economy After all, Brad must be
able to marry Bart if I'm going to be able to sleep tonight! 

 

But that would be misleading. I used to be a republican. I must confess: I
voted for Reagan. Back in the 1980s it was during the reign of Reagan that I
was forced to witness to my absolute dismay what was happening to the
republican party as staunch ultra conservatives and religio

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Steven

Please explain this statement.

"To repeat myself, to endlessly reinterpret what I have said before lies
madness. I'm content to leave my "rants" as-is."

I honestly do not know why you said this. and if I'm not able to communicate
my point of view clearly, then perhaps this is an opportunity to learn.  Can
you show me what I said to make you think I was reinterpreting what you
wrote, or that I was somehow asking you to change your OT postings? 

-mark

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
buying the 2016 presidential race

 

Hello again Mark,

 

I stand by what I have said before. To repeat myself, to endlessly
reinterpret what I have said before lies madness. I'm content to leave my
"rants" as-is.

 

It's probably time to close up shop on this particular discussion. 

 

At least we seem to agree on the fact that something must be done about
PACs. If we had both had been elected officials serving our respective
constituents I have the feeling that you and I together would try to find
common ground in order to move forward. Granted it might be difficult at
times, but if we remain capable of acknowledging to each other the fact that
we both ended up having to sacrifice certain principals dear to our hearts
in equal proportions... messy as democracy is, things tend to get done.

 

I wish someone was capable of explaining that very messy principle to the
Tea Party. IMO, not being capable of understanding what compromise is all
about... that also leads to madness.

 

B'well back.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

 

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 1:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
buying the 2016 presidential race

 

Good morning Steven,

 

I think you are referring to this statement of mine:

". I believe you are the one who has, by far, pontificated at length about
political/religious issues;"

 

That is the only reference I made which you could interpret as referring to
a 'rant' (your term, not mine).  It was NOT a reference to something in your
original email, but to a history of having to vent on this forum as to your
OT postings you've done over the years about your disagreements with
Wisconsin politics.  Could that be the reason behind why I wrote what I did?
You imply there was some derogatory or hurtful meaning in my original
response to your posting, and I was trying to provide an explanation as to
why that was not the case.  I was simply trying to explain to you why I
expressed my thoughts the way I did. that's all.

 

I did read the article you linked to, and feel it's of interest to all
concerned about events in this country. we do agree on that.  

When you write things like this,

"Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's consumption scare you that
much?"

Is it any wonder why someone might respond the way they do?? You are
concluding that I'm scared by some article you posted. how in the world do
you conclude that?  Just because I try to point out to the forum that one
has to read multiple sources to get a total picture of a given issue is NOT
an indication that one is scared.  Don't paint me as being something I'm
not. 

 

I tend to be more socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

 

"At least we can agree on the fact that PACs are not necessarily a good
thing for our political system. If you feel close, though not necessarily
exactly the same way as I may feel about them, I'm content to leave it at
that."

Agreed!

 

B Well Always,

-mark

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 8:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is
buying the 2016 presidential race

 

Hi Mark,

 

I must ask: where was the alleged "rant" in my original post? I pointed to a
link that showed some interesting graphics about where political money is
coming from. In your mind, does pointing to a link now constitute another
"rant" coming from me? Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's
consumption scare you that much? Ok.so you disagree with those findings, and
perhaps you also disagree with some of my expressed liberal tendencies. I
can live with that. But another link supplied by me now constitutes another
"rant"?

 

It seems to me that you show your conservative colors just as much as paint
me to be a liberal. But yes, I believe you have outed me. It would appear
these days that I possess liberalistic tendencies, which perhaps from a
ultra-conservative's POV would imply I must be a bleating hearted liberal
democrat whos

Re: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Lennart Thornros]

I think the most fantastic thing about it is that we all paid for electing
a president. Roughly $10 each (new born and elderly included). Is it fun
for those money?
I am sure the money did very little to improve the quality of the election.
Still two guys who's biggest concern is to be elected and reelected.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

> Steven,
> The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that...
> at least, I hope you do.
>
> The internet makes it so easy to read multiple and diverse sources in order
> to be better informed...
>
> When one looks at the TOTAL picture of campaign finance, there is NO
> significant difference... bottom line from last presidential election:
> 
> Romney's campaign spent $433.3 million in 2012, while outside groups and
> the
> Republican Party helped push the GOP's 2012 presidential total to $1.24
> billion, according to Federal Election Commission filings from the Center
> for Responsive Politics.
>
> Obama's reelection campaign spent $683.5 million, with the Democratic Party
> and outside groups pushing the total to $1.1 billion, according to FEC
> filings.
> ---
>
> So for the 2012 election:
> - Repubs $1.24B
> - Dems   $1.1 B
>
> The Repubs raised less than 10% more than the Dems, and it didn't win them
> the election, so like I said, the is NO significant difference when one
> looks at the total picture. If the NYT were to look at funding by trade
> unions and other pro-gov groups, the Dems would be 'buying the election'.
>
> -mark iverson
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying
> the 2016 presidential race
>
> From NY Times. Enjoy!
>
> 158 Families Make Up Half of 2016 Election Funding
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-
>
> election-super-pac-donors.html?hp=click=Homepage=photo-
> spot-region=top-news=top-news&_r=1
>
> http://tinyurl.com/n9u26t6
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> OrionWorks.com
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Steven, 
The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that...
at least, I hope you do.

The internet makes it so easy to read multiple and diverse sources in order
to be better informed...

When one looks at the TOTAL picture of campaign finance, there is NO
significant difference... bottom line from last presidential election:

Romney's campaign spent $433.3 million in 2012, while outside groups and the
Republican Party helped push the GOP's 2012 presidential total to $1.24
billion, according to Federal Election Commission filings from the Center
for Responsive Politics.

Obama's reelection campaign spent $683.5 million, with the Democratic Party
and outside groups pushing the total to $1.1 billion, according to FEC
filings.
---

So for the 2012 election:
- Repubs $1.24B
- Dems   $1.1 B

The Repubs raised less than 10% more than the Dems, and it didn't win them
the election, so like I said, the is NO significant difference when one
looks at the total picture. If the NYT were to look at funding by trade
unions and other pro-gov groups, the Dems would be 'buying the election'.
 
-mark iverson

-Original Message-
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 9:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying
the 2016 presidential race

>From NY Times. Enjoy!

158 Families Make Up Half of 2016 Election Funding

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-
election-super-pac-donors.html?hp=click=Homepage=photo-
spot-region=top-news=top-news&_r=1

http://tinyurl.com/n9u26t6

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
OrionWorks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Hi Mark,

 

> The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that...

> at least, I hope you do.

 

It's been my experience that when someone feigns praise upon another
person's alleged intelligence but then immediately turns around and
questions whether the praise they had just endorsed was truly warranted -
that is nothing more than a covert way of implying that the person they have
a disagreement with is not only ignorant, they also want that person to feel
stupid about their own alleged ignorance.

 

Setting my alleged ignorance aside, who are these "outside groups"? What
control and regulation do we  have over them? Any???

 

It's not the amount of money spent on the 2012 election that concerns me.
Due to the aftermath of Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission
ruling we are now witnessing an unregulated frenzy of money being spent in
the political campaign arena in ways never seen before witnessed. Making
matters worse, we are no allowed to know who or where that money comes from.
The ruling flabbergasted me.  How the hell did corporations become people,
as Romney famously once said? It seems to me that if corporate entities can
now be considered a person, shouldn't that also mean that that "person"
should only be allowed to donate the same amount of cash to a political
cause as a living breathing person, like you or me is allowed? But is that
happening??? The blatant unaccountability of who and where that money comes
from scares the bajesus out of me. IMHO, it ought to scare bajesus out of
anyone who believes in a democracy where each citizen's vote (along their
personal financial resources) should count and be accounted for as no more
or no less than anyone else's vote.

 

In the years to come as we now go about the process of vetting the next
leader of the free world, doesn't the lack of accountability of where all
that unleashed money will come from and what it is going to be spent on
concern you just a teensy weeny little bit?

 

"Follow the money."

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks