[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford

[TN Rhodey]

Herb,

No catch phrase, just trying to correct my post. The Dems don't need any 
help from me. They can screw the next election up all on thier own.

Wally


>From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
>Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:17:23 -0500
>
>Oh No, another lib catch phrase, whatever shall we do? (Ya think they may 
>use it in another loosing attempt at getting their man elected?)
>
>Herb Parsons
>
>S/V O'Jure
>1976 O'Day 25
>Lake Grapevine, N TX
>
>S/V Reve de Papa
>1971 Coronado 35
>Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
>
> >>> bill at effros.com 7/5/2006 10:22:55 am >>>
>Wally,
>
>Thanks for the "baloney taste better" line.  I've never seen it before,
>but that's good, and I'll store it away for later use.  I won't be able
>to cite my source when I use it, but I'll always know where it came
>from.  Thanks, again,
>
>Bill Effros
>
>TN Rhodey wrote:
> > Herb,
> >
> > Don't tell me you think we attacked for oil too? I thought everyone
> > has been trying to convince me this wasn't about oil?
> >
> > I will clarify.....my comment was directed towards the flying into
> > buildings post. The post seemed to indicate that Iraqis flew into our
> > buildings and as we know that is not true.  I should have said Iraq
> > never launched an attack on our soil. I do agree that they did shoot
> > at US Airplanes flying over Iraq.
> >
> > I hope that makes the baloney taste better.
> >
> > Wally
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> >> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:49:45 -0500
> >>
> >> " I wouldn't call that a threat to National Security and certainly no
> >> reason to attack a
> >> country that never attacked us."
> >>
> >> Actually, they did. Several time. They attempted to kill former
> >> President Bush, which is an act of war. They also fired on our
> >> aircraft several times. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, but
> >> the "they never attacked us" is pure baloney.
> >>
> >>
> >> Herb Parsons
> >>
> >> S/V O'Jure
> >> 1976 O'Day 25
> >> Lake Grapevine, N TX
> >>
> >> S/V Reve de Papa
> >> 1971 Coronado 35
> >> Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
> >>
> >> >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 7/4/2006 1:13:10 pm >>>
> >> Philip,
> >>
> >> You don't seperate oil from National Security? If we were in danger of
> >> running out maybe I would agree but that is not the case. There is
> >> plenty of
> >> oil on the market and plenty more to be found.
> >> We have all the oil we want. We just don't like the price. I wouldn't
> >> call
> >> that a threat to National Security and certainly no reason to attack a
> >> country that never attacked us.
> >>
> >> I was all for attacking Afghanastan. We lost sight of our objective.
> >> As you
> >> say we didn't fly into buildings but same goes for Iraq, Maybe we 
>should
> >> have attacked Saudi Arabia? Going after Bin Lidan was a good thing. I
> >> never
> >> heard of any intelligence indicating he was hiding in Iraq.
> >>
> >> 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] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >> >Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:34:36 -0400
> >> >
> >> >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