Good evening again, Lowell! "Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote: > > The greatest 'terror threat' of all, is unrestrained and 'out of > > control' government. Most libertarians already know that, and you > > should have known that as well, a long time ago, when you joined > > this list a long time ago. This is not a neo-fascist or > > 'neo-conservative' conference, and the principles here are > > limited government and self-governing by individuals themselves. To which, you replied: > Except for Iraqis? Well, duh! Just how much of a real choice, just based on today's coverage in Iraq, do Iraqi's really have these days? Keep in mind, all of this is going on only BECAUSE of the US takeover and occupation of Iraq in the first place. The US government is the imposing force, no doubt, in making such elections, and the format in which they are conducted, a fact of life that probably many Iraqis obviously oppose for the same reason! Now the US is going to be asking in the next 10 days or so, for 'world recognition' of the outcome of such an election. Even in the British Empire days, things could be explained much better than this! I don't exactly know what to say in countering efforts that might suggest that the US government is ever going to walk away from this disaster with clean hands. This history that we are living at this very moment in time, will obviously go down in history has being probably our greatest downfall. And rightly so. We are in a place where we certainly should NOT be, dictating policies and agendas that are none of business to promote in the first place, and imposing our will by stark force -- and now, just now, even prominent Republicans are breaking ranks and suggesting this was all one huge and tremendously humongeous mistake and tragedy! Well, we've gone through that before. We did it over three decades ago in Vietnam. We were terribly wrong then, and we are just as wrong, if not more so, now. If we really want to honour and support our troops, then its long overdue, bring 'em home now, immediately and hold all the bastands accountable for sending them there in the first place! Immediate impeachment hearings might be next on such an agenda. Kindest regards, Frank > > > > Yeah, yeah. The Sovs weren't a threat and the WTC towers are still > > > standing, so terrorism isn't a threat. It's all a lie to get you to > > support > > > your friendly local Daddy Warbucks defense contractor. > > > > Lowell, probably the Soviets weren't honestly really the 'giant > > threat' that we have all been 'spoon fed' to believe either. You > > were obviously led to believe that, as was I, and most others. > > Are you suggesting that the mainstream news in consort with > > politically correct revisionists have not influenced the way you > > might view the last 40 or 50 years of US history? > > The Sovs were an economic basket case. That doesn't mean they weren't a > military threat. In fact, their being an economic basket case made them > even more dangerous because foreign adventurism becomes more attractive, > both as a way of stealing wealth and as a way of distracting the > population's attention from their woes. You seem to be very concerned about > that with the current administration but surprisingly blasé about the > possibility of anyone else engaging in it. (And I'm certain that Bush has > economic advisors that have told him that the war will exact a *cost* on the > economy--that is, of course, if he really needed anyone to tell him that.) > > > If you want to know who is paying for a lot of this, tune in on > > the CBS Nightly News, or any other network that you choose. > > Who's running the advertising in support of that? All of this is > > a sick joke. > > I'm not sure what you mean, here? CBS is the outfit that got caught passing > off forged documents in an attempt to discredit the sitting President. Are > you saying that this was somehow supported by the President himself? What > does the advertising have to do with anything? Are you trying to pass off > some conspiracy theory that the advertisers support the President and so ... > oh, never mind, it's so convoluted I'm not even going to try. So why don't > you tell me what you really mean, here. > > At this point, I can't believe much of anything I hear or see on those > programs (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MS-NBC and to a lesser extend Fox) without > independent verification (meaning, verification by a credible source that is > not one of the above)!! CBS lied and only got caught because they were > passing off such amateurish forgeries. Imagine if they had actually been > done by someone with half a brain! CNN admitted that its pre-war Iraq > coverage was done to appease the Iraqi regime so that they could keep their > Baghdad office open (I have the NY Times op-ed by the VP who was in charge > of the CNN region that included Iraq). Tom Brokow and Peter Jennings > defended Rather in the forged documents thing and accused the people who > exposed the fraud of a "jihad" against him. Never mind truth and > accuracy--they were interested in how "mean" the accusers were. > > > At least on Liberty Northwest, some of us can still > > call it as such, without the censors! In that respect, your damn > > lucky you are here, because even your erratic 'Libertarian' > > credentials, isn't something officially sanctioned, because this > > network isn't the property of a political party as such anyway. > > What censors? Where are they? The only ones I'm aware of operating in the > USA are on university (and lower-level school) campuses and are censoring > the views of those who disagree with socialism. For example, see > http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003574.html#003574 > > Oh wait, that's not the only kind of censorship! See here: > http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/051778.html > > As for my libertarian credentials, I suppose you are correct. I happen to > think that the current foreign policy situation is best fit by this quote > from Churchhill. > > "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed, > if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you > may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you > and only a precious chance of survival. There may be even a worse case. You > may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to > perish than live as slaves." -Winston Churchhill > > > Further, my opinions only: > > > > What actually happened and what actually occurred on 9/11 > > certainly had a lot to do with the progression of US foreign > > policy, and the socially correct planners you see every night > > speaking from the government mostly, on what food you ought to > > consume, and how you can best take care of yourself. > > Are you sure these aren't mostly *former* government? Or attorneys trying > to set up the "Big Food" lawsuits? > > > So, I guess I don't have a really huge problem with Michael Moore > > very much either. Maybe he's asking some questions and going > > places where even 'angels fear to tread' -- who knows exactly? > > Somebody's got to do it, don't they? > > Oh, he's not going anywhere that hasn't already been heavily trod by plenty > of the kook fringe. The question is whether he can get his facts straight. > >From what I understand, he can't. > > > The truth is: Politics stinks. Politics is a prostitute business > > where men and women sell the souls to the highest bidder. The > > power always, every time mostly, lies behind the throne. Another > > individual in history wrote, in part, "I don't have to make the > > laws... I already have control over who chooses to write the > > laws." This is a paraphrase of course, on Warburg's assessment > > of political reality -- it fits nicely in European politics today > > as well, as it has, and is, currently fitting our own. > > So who's buying the current bunch? George Soros? Bill Gates? Warren > Buffet? What I find most interesting about this President--especially in > this context is that he seems generally serious about enacting his campaign > pledges. Which is a refreshing change from, well actually, the previous TWO > administrations. > > > Maybe that might be part of the reason why the 'prison industry' > > in America today is growing by leaps and bounds! > > Of maybe it's because the police are catching them and the justice system > isn't releasing them. It is a yearly Rush Limbaugh feature to make fun of > another NY Times article (they seem to come out every year) headlines "Crime > down even though prison population up." Like, you mean you don't think > maybe the second helps bring about the first? Like putting criminals in > jail doesn't prevent them from committing more crimes? > > > And, YOU are worried about Michael Moore? > > I'm worried about untruth. > > > I wish to God that were our only concern these days. It certainly > > isn't mine. > > Obviously. > > Lowell C. Savage > It's the freedom, stupid! > Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. > > _______________________________________________ > Libnw mailing list > Libnw@immosys.com > List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw -- _____________________________________________________________________ LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP "The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/ Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org Admin matters: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
