[Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
Bill Effros
bill at effros.com
Tue Jul 4 13:07:19 EDT 2006
No Michael,
That's not what it means, and you know it. I happen to like the man,
and I say so. It is the method of argument that I dislike. I dislike
the tactic of throwing a bunch of unrelated unsubstantiated tidbits on
the table and then saying "See, that proves my point" when, in fact, it
doesn't. And I can say that it doesn't without attacking the man. As
you know, I also dislike ad hominem attacks, and strive mightily not to
use them.
Bill Effros
Michael Meltzer wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list