[Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Wed Jul 5 09:36:52 EDT 2006
Speaking of making things up...
Cutting taxes for the rich? My taxes got cut, I'm not rich.
>>> bill at effros.com 7/5/2006 8:16:30 am >>>
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
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list