From: Robert Wenzel [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sun 8/14/2016 11:52 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Hillary and Russia
Your thoughts with regard to Hillary and Russia:
Editor & Publisher
San Francisco, CA
But, you have not given me a single solitary bit of evidence that anyone, besides yourself, sees a dead heat, an exact tie, between Hillary and Donald in terms of war mongering. Remember, your point was that of the two overseers, the ONLY difference between them was that one was right-handed and the other left-handed.
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
I have never claimed there was a "tie" between Trump and Clinton. My position is that either would make a horrific president. and that Hillary would have more difficulty launching her insane crusades.
My left-hand/right-hand slave overseers point was simply to point out that your framing of the goodie vs baddie slave overseers point did not consider all possibilities--there are many other problems with your framing but no need to get into them here, when one example shows your framing is incomplete.
And I really don't get this:
"you have not given me a single solitary bit of evidence that anyone, besides yourself, sees a dead heat"
First, am I now supposed to be looking for truth or only present truth when there are others supporting my view?
But as far as evidence, I have provided you with a link to a story where damn neocons call Hillary weak on Russia. Further, you want outside support for my view?
I have written:
Michael Brenner, Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, took a careful look at Hillary's foreign policy development in an article, Is Hillary Clinton a Warmonger? and reached the fascinating speculative conclusion that Bill Clinton may be the influence that keeps Hillary from taking the war route.Finally, I hope you would agree with me that Bill and Hillary are crony criminals. In the link I sent to you, it points out that Bill Clinton received $500,000 from Russia to speak there, Money was also donated to the Clinton Foundation resulting in the State Department, during Hillary's watch, clearing Russians for control of one-fifth of the uranium that's produced in the United States.
I'm sure on day one of Crony Criminalism 101 that they teach: don't nuke the country that puts money in your bank account.
I am not sure where you went to tea leaf reading school, but I find it extremely difficult to determine which of these two characters is worse. They will both be terrible.
Why shouldn't we spend our time attacking with an unrelenting barrage the evil non-libertarian positions held by these two on so many topics, rather than wasting out time in some kind of theoretical magical dance trying to prove that one would be worse than the other, when they are clearly both insane, with no clearly demonstrable evidence that one would be significantly worse than the other in terms of overall rule?