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 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 <tel:%2B1%20916%20436%201899> 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
