[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford

[TN Rhodey]

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