[Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit

[Brad Haslett]

Bill,

I do have time to fact check what I write.  Here's your sign!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

I'm leaving for work but will happily provide you with all the
evidence you want to support what I write when I return.  While your
down there with your head in the sand, look around for some reality
pills and perhaps some tranqilizers before YOU hit the send button.

Brad


On 7/5/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> Brad,
>
> Will you PLEASE stop making stuff up!
>
> I don't have time to fact-check everything you write, and you obviously
> have more free time than almost any other working person, so I'm asking
> as nicely as possible for you to fact-check your own stuff before
> hitting the "Send" button.
>
> Maybe, just maybe, cutting taxes for the rich at the same time you are
> conducting a war using "Emergency" off-budget appropriations has
> SOMETHING to do with inflation.
>
> Half the world's oil supply does not go through the Straits of Hormuz.
>
> Try to think about it a little more before attempting to scare the world
> into agreeing with positions based on emotions and fudged facts.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Your Friend,
>
> Bill Effros
>
> Brad Haslett wrote:
> > Wally,
> >
> > Actually "they" have threatened to shut off oil production several
> > times.  The most recent example was Iran a few weeks ago.  You are
> > correct, they need the oil money as much as we need the oil, but that
> > is rational thinking.  Iran, for example, is not led by rational
> > thinking men.  Depending on what economist you want to listen to, we
> > can withstand an average energy price increase of around 10% per year
> > before it starts to disrupt markets.  We are on the edge of an
> > inflationary period as we speak, largely due to the run-up in energy
> > prices, and also to some extent the result of a growing economy. The
> > choke point for the world oil market is the Hormuz Strait.  Half of
> > the worlds oil supply must pass this point and any disruption, even
> > for a few days, would send prices skyrocketing.  Who benefits from
> > high oil prices?  The same folks who have the oil.  All of the US Big
> > Oil companies  account for about 15% of total production. We have the
> > strategic reserve, but that will be held off the market to fuel the
> > military response. Try not to think about it too much.  It get's very
> > scary.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > On 7/5/06, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Philip,
> >>
> >> Who has threatened to shut off oil production? They can't shut us off
> >> from
> >> oil, they need to sell oil to make money. Let's face it the price of
> >> oil has
> >> jumped and we are not in dire straits.
> >>
> >> 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: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
> >> >Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 01:54:01 -0400
> >> >
> >> >Bill,
> >> >
> >> >    Your George Soros, Nancy Pelosi Talking Points are showing
> >> again.  Nazi
> >> >Germany:  I could go on for hours.  Suffice it to say, it was a
> >> house of
> >> >cards.  They never had the resources, the oil, the population, the
> >> >production capacity. . . not to mention the political and military
> >> >mis-steps.  If the western response had been more firm and sure (ala
> >> >Churchill) Hitler wouldn't have gotten as far as he did.
> >> >
> >> >    Not all resources are oil.  Choke ours off and see what
> >> happens.  Choke
> >> >off the liberal's beloved EU and see what happens.  We use oil.  We
> >> need
> >> >oil
> >> >and we have to keep the commerce in that region open, or should we
> >> let the
> >> >despots close down the mid-east oil traffic?
> >> >
> >> >     We launched a few cruise missiles alright.  Too little, too
> >> late under
> >> >Saint Clinton.  Let's see what the "religion of peace" had brought
> >> us.  The
> >> >first Twin Tower bombing.  The attack on our embassy in Africa.  The
> >> Khobar
> >> >Towers bombing.  And the Cole which was under Clinton's Watch (October
> >> >2000).  Not to mention Somalia which Bin Laden said was what
> >> convinced him
> >> >we would not respond to an attack on us since after Clinton expanded
> >> the
> >> >mission, he cut and ran after the attack on our Rangers (after Les
> >> Aspin
> >> >refused the commanders on the ground armored vehicles).
> >> >
> >> >     I suppose you will tell me that we don't need oil as part of our
> >> >national security plan?  What has Rome to do with it?  How many 747s
> >> did
> >> >Rome have?  Cars?  Trucks? Trains?  Etc.  I guess we'll defend our
> >> country
> >> >with bronze swords and wood shields?  What does Rome command to-day
> >> >(besides
> >> >Catholics)?
> >> >
> >> >    When we are culturally sensative against an enemy that is neither
> >> >culturally sensative nor morally sensitive and it causes our
> >> soldiers to
> >> >die
> >> >when they otherwise wouldn't, I don't make the distinction.
> >> >
> >> >    I think perhaps it's time for you to stop shovelling it out.  And I
> >> >haven't once gotten a "free pass" for old time or any other sake.
> >> >
> >> >Philip
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----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
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> 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
>