[Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit

Tue Jul 4 11:57:51 EDT 2006

Hell bill, how do you spell adhomimin attack,

Reminds me "Death Penalty and Talmud Law"
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html

And his is middle compared to the Stuff the Romans did. 

BTW, why everyone gord is stuck on tax what about CT per capita "tax Gap" in
taxes paied vs services, why do us CT people have to support the rest on the
nation.

-mjm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org [mailto:rhodes22-list-
> bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Bill Effros
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:27 AM
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
> 
> Philip,
> 
> So nice to have your political claptrap back on the list.  It's so
> scattershot, it's hard to know where to start.  You like to string
> together a bunch of non sequiteurs which you seem to believe will bring
> any reader to your point of view.  For me, it's just "If you can't
> convince them with logic, baffle them with bullshit."
> 
> Where to start? Where to start?  History doesn't prove that might makes
> right.  Nazi Germany?
> 
> Oil is a resource, but not all resources are oil.
> 
> We didn't fly airplanes into Arab buildings, we flew cruise missiles
> into Arab buildings.
> 
> Yes, we do blow ourselves up around women and children, only we call it
> "collateral damage".
> 
> "We need one to have the other?"  What does that mean?  Ancient Rome
> didn't have oil -- still doesn't have it, today -- but they sure had
> National Security.
> 
> "Culturally sensitive" has a different meaning from "morally sensitive".
> 
> What baffles our friends and delights our enemies are people who can't
> see the difference.
> 
> Knowing when to act...When Clinton attacked Bin Laden, Republicans
> started the "Wag the Dog" mantra.  Who were you quoting then?
> 
> What was Bush's response to the Cole attack?
> 
> And just exactly when did Bin Laden say what he based his decision to
> attack us on?
> 
> You've gotten a free pass on a few go-rounds of this stuff for old
> times' sake, but the days of shooting from the hip are over.
> 
> Bill Effros
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3drecon wrote:
> > Wally,
> >     I don't separate Oil (i.e. resources) from National Security.  We
> need
> > one to have the other; otherwise, we are at the mercy of anyone else
> with
> > resources.   We did not fly into Arab buildings.  They flew into ours.
> We
> > didn't invade Kuwait, Iraq did.  We don't blow ourselves up around women
> and
> > children.  As a matter of fact, we willingly hamstring ourselves and
> cost
> > our young men and women their lives as a result to be "culturally
> > sensitive".  This baffles our friends there and delights our enemies.
> To a
> > certain extent, might makes right, as you put it.  History proves that.
> > Knowing when to act and how is the trick.  I agree with the strategy,
> though
> > I may differ with the specific targets at the time.  We spent too many
> years
> > apologising and letting the radicals have their way.  Bin Laden said he
> > based his decision to attack us on our response (or lack thereof) to
> > previous attacks.
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of TN Rhodey
> > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:44 AM
> > To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> > Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >
> >
> > Philip,
> >
> > I guess you are a proponent of the old might makes right theory? I  used
> > that theory on my little brother and it worked out real well. I always
> got
> > the big piece of cake. I am not sure if this is the best strategy for
> > diplomatic relations. Should we not shoot for a higher standard?
> >
> > You ask what better reason then oil? We should go to war when our
> National
> > Security is threatened.
> >
> > Wally
> >
> >
> >> From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.net>
> >> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:25:48 -0400
> >>
> >> Frone
> >>
> >> I didn't say I was comfortable with the Republicans, I said they are
> closer
> >> to the Libertarian philosophy than any other "electable" party to-day.
> I
> >> assume you allude to the Patriot Act in the "incessant drive by  the
> >> Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private acts and
> >> thoughts" as well as the moral chest pounding.  I am opposed to the
> Patriot
> >> Act.  I think it will be/has been abused just as the RICO act was and
> is
> >> abused.  I don't agree with the moral grand-standing any more than I
> agree
> >> with the liberals banning "hate" speech, becoming anti-religious and
> >> forcing
> >> the Bill of Rights on the States, contrary to the Founders intent.  I
> also
> >> don't see a conspiricy in "a propaganda machine  leading us to pre-
> emptive
> >> war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies,  selling off our
> >> resources to pay the unconscionable deficits".  The real problem with
> oil
> >> is
> >> the restriction on drilling, exploration and refineries; simply, supply
> and
> >> demand.  I don't know what you mean about the "agri/timber issues, but
> if
> >> that's what it takes to make our country prosperous, then that is what
> we
> >> should do.  A poor person never gave me a job (wealthy and corporations
> did
> >> (and government).  I will say here that I do one of the few legitimate
> >> government tasks. . . defense (and as a civilian, declassification).  I
> >> assume by your comment about oil, you believe we "went to war for oil".
> If
> >> so, what better reason besides retaliation?  Oil is in the national
> >> interest.  If we can secure international oil routes and supplies by
> going
> >> to war, so what?  Liberals like to say we should go to war in Zambia,
> or
> >> Zimbabwe or elsewhere in the African continent. If not for precious
> metals,
> >> oil or resources, why?  If it is not in our national interest, why?
> What
> >> the hell were we doing in Serbia?  That is a European created problem
> and
> >> they should police it.  We have no national interest there.
> >>
> >> Philip
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of
> >> FCrawford0707 at aol.com
> >> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:46 AM
> >> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] To DAVE about Virginia and in reply
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated 6/30/2006 8:47:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> >> 3drecon at comcast.net writes:
> >>
> >> Frankly, I see the Democrats relying on Big Government and  growing it;
> >> however, having said that, the Republicans, in recent years have
> changed
> >> course to
> >> appease the liberals (who will not vote for them, no matter  what) and
> have
> >> their own brand of government growth.  I am a  Libertarian.  The
> >> Republicans
> >> are the only electable party that come  closest to that philiosophy for
> >> now,
> >> so
> >> I identify with them.  The  interesting thing is the Founding Fathers
> would
> >> have been considered  liberals!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Philip - I am interested in your conclusion that as a Libertarian, you
> are
> >> somehow comfortable with the Republicans.  I find the incessant drive
> by
> >> the
> >> Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private acts and
> >> thoughts
> >> to be at odds with my own Libertarian leanings.  The abuse of  power by
> the
> >> present administration is frightening - a propaganda machine  leading
> us to
> >> pre-emptive war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies,
> selling
> >> off
> >> our
> >> resources to pay the unconscionable deficits, not to mention the
> >> corruption
> >> and incompetence.  I am not a strict Libertarian, in that I feel  there
> are
> >> roles best filled by government - for example, dredging and
> maintaining
> >> the
> >> ICW.
> >> There was a great idea thirty years ago that, if  followed, would
> perhaps
> >> have put our society in a happier and less contentious  frame than we
> are
> >> going
> >> thru now - that of the negative income tax, in place of  all the myriad
> of
> >> government administered support programs that don't really  serve the
> >> constituency
> >> intended, and which produce a whole lot of waste.   With a negative
> income
> >> tax, the neediest are supported without the cost and  waste of
> bureaucratic
> >> infrastructure.  No one makes out better financially  by not working,
> so
> >> the
> >> "welfare syndrome" is not present.
> >>     Frone Crawford
> >>     s/v Sunday Morning
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list