[Rhodes22-list] To DAVE about Virginia and in reply

[Foy, Warren]

Would that referring to a deranged Bush or a deranged syndrome? :)
 

-----Original Message-----
From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Brad Haslett
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 11:46 AM
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] To DAVE about Virginia and in reply

Frone,

For a moment I thought you might be talking about the previous
administration.  You know, the one that bombed Iraq for four days to
eliminate factories that could produce WMD.  The same one that bombed
Kosovo
without UN approval or even with permission from Congress.

Now as to welfare for agri-business, timber, and big oil, we'll find
some
points of agreement.  Go to the link in my previous post.  These ag
subsidies started during the FDR administration and never went away.
Every
president since has winked at them because the first test is Iowa.
Please
enlighten me on subsidies to big oil.  I lost 10K on a gas well last
year
and other than the tax writeoff, failed to see any big subsidies.  I'm
listening.

The Democrats are in a great position to take control of  one or both
houses
provided they can demonstrate some responsibility.  Start with telling
the
moonbat left to shove-off, dicipline their members who assault Capitol
police, and suggest that their elected members put their money in a
bank,
not a freezer.

A lot of right leaning people are unhappy now.  Opposition will have to
show
they have some new ideas and not just suffering from Deranged Bush
Syndrome.

Brad




On 6/30/06, FCrawford0707 at aol.com <FCrawford0707 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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